Abstract
Background:
The FDA’s Presenting Risk Information draft guidance from May 2009 states that the time of risk versus benefit is a factor taken into consideration when evaluating audio and video direct-to-consumer (DTC) broadcasts. The objective of the study is to evaluate the proportion of risk narration on television (TV) advertisements in comparison to the actual proportion of serious adverse effects findings across select therapeutic areas.
Methods:
The study reviews prescription drug TV advertisements between the years 2010 and 2015 separated by therapeutic class. Indicators to assess risk versus benefit are as follows: total benefit time, total risk time, total ad time, percentage proportion of risk, and number of serious adverse effects (SAEs) listed in the package insert. The objective is establishing proportion of risk-to-benefit narration across therapeutic areas and the proportion of risk narration compared to the number of SAEs in the package insert. These outcomes will reflect whether TV advertisements abide by the “fair balance” rule and if the time spent on risk narrations is proportional to the number of SAEs across therapeutic areas.
Results:
An analysis of risk versus benefit showed that there was a vast range of percentage differences in risk versus benefit narration across the products selected. The majority of the products narrated showed a 40% to 60% risk-to-benefit ratio. Six out of the 10 products evaluated communicated applicable black box warnings. There was variability among the SAE percentages presented between products.
Conclusion:
Lack of consistency exists between risks versus benefit proportions among different drug products.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.