Post by icemandios on May 23, 2023 2:31:08 GMT
May 22, 2023 02:40 PM EDT
Pharma
Marketing
Americans may not understand survival nuances in cancer brand commercials, FDA research finds
Beth Snyder Bulik
Senior Editor
TV viewers in the US may be getting confused by cancer drug commercials.
A recently published FDA study found that after watching commercials the agency created for fictitious oncology drugs, some people drew incorrect conclusions about living longer, reinforcing the FDA’s hypothesis about the need for disclosures.
The survey participants could explain, when asked open-ended questions, what was meant by cancer drug response rates or progression-free survival. But after watching the TV ads, when asked questions about whether patients could live longer, some drew the wrong conclusions.
In an ad for a made-up lung cancer drug, 90% of the people who watched a version that included an overall response rate claim — but did not include a disclosure — thought patients could live longer on the drug. When the same ad was viewed but included a disclosure, only 30% said the drug could help patients live longer.
FDA researchers created two tests for two fictitious drugs – Xedaliti for lung cancer and Vulpafen for multiple myeloma —and randomly showed participants one of five ads with different themes. Some of the ads contained disclosures, while others did not. Each respondent watched their assigned ad two times, then answered questions that measured their understanding and perceptions.
Researchers also asked participants specific questions about the disclosures, and concluded the statements worked. Across both studies, 60% to 70% of people who viewed the ads with disclosures understood that overall survivorship was not known.
Pharma
Marketing
Americans may not understand survival nuances in cancer brand commercials, FDA research finds
Beth Snyder Bulik
Senior Editor
TV viewers in the US may be getting confused by cancer drug commercials.
A recently published FDA study found that after watching commercials the agency created for fictitious oncology drugs, some people drew incorrect conclusions about living longer, reinforcing the FDA’s hypothesis about the need for disclosures.
The survey participants could explain, when asked open-ended questions, what was meant by cancer drug response rates or progression-free survival. But after watching the TV ads, when asked questions about whether patients could live longer, some drew the wrong conclusions.
In an ad for a made-up lung cancer drug, 90% of the people who watched a version that included an overall response rate claim — but did not include a disclosure — thought patients could live longer on the drug. When the same ad was viewed but included a disclosure, only 30% said the drug could help patients live longer.
FDA researchers created two tests for two fictitious drugs – Xedaliti for lung cancer and Vulpafen for multiple myeloma —and randomly showed participants one of five ads with different themes. Some of the ads contained disclosures, while others did not. Each respondent watched their assigned ad two times, then answered questions that measured their understanding and perceptions.
Researchers also asked participants specific questions about the disclosures, and concluded the statements worked. Across both studies, 60% to 70% of people who viewed the ads with disclosures understood that overall survivorship was not known.
The research was published in the April edition of The Oncologist. While the study concluded more research is needed for best-practice use, the FDA said “disclosures could help reduce the extent to which people misinterpret endpoints like ORR (overall response rate) and PFS (progression-free survival).
[Q#1: Is this the same FDA who wanted to withhold Vax Facts for 25 years?
Q#2&3: Why do they advertise these drugs at all? Are they not Rx drugs that the doc's decide are appropriate or not?]