Health Care Provider-Consumer Perceptions-Prescription Drug-Federal Register-Dtc Advertising

Drug Ads "Coupons: Who's the Decider? The Patient, the Physician, or the FDA?

The FDA is concerned that the use of sales promotions such as free trial offers, discounts, money-back guarantees, and rebates in direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug ads "artificially enhance consumers' perceptions of the product's quality" while also resulting in an "unbalanced or misleading impression of the product's safety." To test whether or not this is true, the FDA will soon start yet another study focused on Rx print ads: "Effect of Promotional Offers in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Print Advertisements on Consumer Product Perceptions" (see Federal Register Notice archived here).
[I recently posted about another planned FDA study to determine if disease awareness information in branded ads confuses consumers. See FDA Concerned About Product (eg, Lyrica) Ads That are Too "Educational"]
The history of this study is long and mysterious. I first blogged about it 2006; read "FDA, Coupons, and Sleep Aid DTC Ads." Shortly after that the Federal Register notice regarding the study was "yanked" (see "FDA Backs Down on Coupon Study"). Also, the Advertising Age and Wall Street Journal articles cited in those posts can no longer be found in the archives.
In September, 2011, however, the proposed study re-emerged in the Federal Register (here). Whatever happened between 2006 and 2011 is anybody's guess, but I assume that the Bush era FDA leaders axed the proposed study when they learned of it. By September, 2011, these people were on the way out and the door was open again to propose the study anew.
Anyhoo, I want to focus here on comments that PhRMA made in response to the proposal. Alexander Gaffney (@AlecGaffney), Health wonk and writer of news for @RAPSorg, summarized the general attitude of PhRMA (see "US Regulators Move Ahead With Planned Study on DTC Marketing"):
In its statement to FDA, PhRMA wrote it was “concerned that the study, as currently envisioned, will not yield information that is relevant to FDA’s regulatory responsibilities to ensure that DTC advertising is truthful, accurate and balanced.”
“Although the study may provide interesting information about the effect of promotional offers on consumer attitudes toward a brand,” explained PhRMA, “it likely will provide little information on whether promotional offers create or contribute to false or misleading advertising, particularly under real-world circumstances or whether additional regulatory requirements are warranted.” PhRMA: The Physician is the Decider
I dug a little deeper into PhRMA comments (here) and was surprised to learn that PhRMA's position is that "it is the physician, not the patient (my emphasis), who ultimately must decide whether the benefits of the advertised drug outweigh its risks for any particular patient." Thus, says PhRMA, "the risks of 'misperceptions' ... should be even lower [PhRMA's emphasis] for prescription drugs than for experience goods [i.e., a product or service where product characteristics, such as quality or price are difficult to observe in advance, but these characteristics can be ascertained upon consumption] because any potential misperception, of necessity, will be quickly corrected prior to use through consultation with the patient's treating physician."
This is a very paternalistic POV in this day and age of social media and patient empowerment. Actually, it is the old "learned intermediary" defense that the drug industry often raises (in the past, less so these days) to shield itself from blame when things go wrong.
FDA must respond to comments submitted, but I couldn't find a direct response to PhRMA's comments cited above. I did find, however, the following comments and FDA's response that addressed the issue of the patient-physician relationship generally:
(Comment 22) Two comments mentioned that the study does not assess how consumer perceptions of product risks and benefits are translated into a discussion with their health care provider. read more..

Pharmaceutical Industry-Advisory Comments-Dissemination-Storyboards-Shire

Shire Seeks to Maintain YouTube 'Loophole' in FDA's Draft Guidelines for TV Ads

FDA has received several comments from the pharmaceutical industry regarding the agency's "Draft Guidance for Industry Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertisements." In past posts I reviewed comments from PhRMA (the drug industry U.S. trade association) and Sanofi (see here and here). In this post, I report on comments made by Shire (find Shire's comments here).
Shire, like Sanofi, Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), believes that submission of a final recorded version of a TV ad for FDA approval prior to being aired would be "burdensome." Shire specifically cites the optional two-step process FDA suggested; i.e., first submit an annotated storyboard and then a final recorded version of the ad. "This sequential two-submission process would double the time and resource burden on sponsors as well as the Agency," says Shire.
Serial OPDP Review Blues
BI also mentioned the "burden" of a two-step process in its comments to the FDA (find them here). But BI was referring to the need to resubmit a new version of the ad after receiving critical comments from the FDA concerning the first version submitted for review. "BIPI is concerned with the incremental time and cost that would be incurred by sponsors to routinely produce and submit multiple broadcasts for the purpose of OPDP [FDA's Office of Prescription Drug Promotion] pre-dissemination review," says BI. "BIPI is similarly concerned that the repeated submissions of storyboards to capture serial sets of OPDP suggestions (i.e., the submission of modified storyboards for advisory comments following integration of initial advisory comments) would greatly increase the time, if not the cost, of producing DTC broadcast ads." BI says that it "behooves sponsors to ensure storyboards submitted for advisory comments are representative of the final ad and to ensure that the Agency's comments are incorporated into the filmed version." In other words, BI suggests FDA just look at storyboards and trust that the sponsor will create a final "filmed" ad that is revised according to FDA comments.Shire, however, was the only pharma company to point out a "loophole" that I revealed on Pharma Marketing Blog in March (see "A Loophole (?) in New FDA Guidance on Pre-Dissemination Review of TV Direct-to-Consumer Ads"). In that post, I said:
"FDA does not define what exactly it means by 'dissemination.' Perhaps it has defined this term elsewhere in it regulatory archives, but I assume in this case it means airing the ad on mass market TV. Does that include uploading the video to YouTube? A drug company could upload a video of a pre-approved ad to YouTube at the same time that it submits the video to FDA for 'pre-dissemination' review. The video can then be embedded in the drug.com website or promoted via Twitter."Shire pointed out the same lack of clarity in its comments. "...there has been increasing availability and use of vehicles other than broadcast TV to present video advertising, such as on-demand viewing via the Internet," says Shire. "Shire recommends that FDA affirm that the scope of the guidance includes only DTC advertisements disseminated through broadcast television."
FDA and the drug industry continue to see no need to issue any mandatory or even voluntary guidelines specifically for drug promotion via the Internet. Shire points out, for example, that there already is an "advisory review process" that applies to video advertisements disseminated through "other viewing platforms' (i.e., the Internet). That process (see here) says "a sponsor may voluntarily submit advertisements to FDA for comment prior to publication."
However, if "dissemination" is defined according to Shire's rules, then it is possible for a drug company to run a video ad on YouTube months before it airs the same ad on TV without having to submit anything to the FDA for review -- the current "advisory review process" that Shire refers to is voluntary.
As part of that process (e.g., su read more..

Health Connections-Corporate Blog-Search Result-Breast Cancer-Drug Product

AZ Posts 'Reminder Drug Ad' to Its Corporate Blog

Last week I reported that AstraZeneca (AZ) posted an ad for CRESTOR on its "AZ Health Connections" corporate blog (see "AstraZeneca's Timely CRESTOR Branded Blog Post: Did It Violate Its Own Policy?"). The post included the indication for CRESTOR and also the "Important Safety Information" (ISI) that is required by the FDA whenever a drug company talks about a brand and its approved indication.
I wrote about that only because it was the first time -- to my knowledge -- that a pharma corporate blog promoted a branded product and I wondered if such posts violated AZ's own posting policies (turns out that it may or may not depending upon what you mean by "may" -- see the post for details).
Today, I noticed an AZ Health Connections blog post that talked about another AZ drug - ARIMIDEX, which is approved for "adjuvant treatment (treatment following surgery with or without radiation) of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer."
This time, however, the post (find it here; see screen capture above) did NOT mention the approved indication. It is, by FDA definition, a "reminder ad." According to the Pharma Marketing Network Glossary:
Reminder advertisements are identified as an exemption to the advertisement regulations, including provisions to provide a brief summary. Reminder advertisements " . . . call attention to the name of the drug product but do not include indications or dosage recommendations for use of the drug product. . . . and, optionally, information . . . containing no representation or suggestion relating to the advertised drug product." Reminder advertisements cannot make a representation about the product or suggest a use for the product.The AZ Health Connections post does "call attention to the name of the drug," but it also directs readers to ARIMIDEX Direct, which is a program that "allows eligible patients to receive ARIMIDEX delivered to their homes for $40 a month, including shipping and handling." Sounds like a good deal, although I did not investigate what the eligibility requirements were.
AZ deserves credit for reaching out to the online community to learn more about how it can make its drugs more accessible. Recall that AZ was the first pharma company to host a Twitter chat "to raise awareness about helping patients save money through prescription savings programs" (see "OMG! AstraZeneca Hosts Twitter Chat & World Does NOT End!").
PhRMA "forbids" Reminder Ads, But Not on Internet!
AZ's post raises some interesting questions regarding the promotion of Rx drugs on the Internet that neither the FDA nor the pharma industry has addressed. For example, PhRMA's "Guiding Principles for Direct-to-Consumer Advertising" (here) prohibit reminder ads on TV but NOT on the Internet:
Principle #10: "DTC television advertising that identifies a product by name should clearly state the health conditions for which the medicine is approved and the major risks associated with the medicine being advertised." [Alos see "Reminder Ads - Pharma's Dodo?"]AZ, I believe, is a signatory to these voluntary guidelines. Since these guidelines only apply to TV advertising, AZ is not in violation. It's still the "wild west" on the Internet with regard to reminder ads; i.e., It's perfectly fine to run "reminder ads" on the Internet. This is usually the case when pharma companies buy Adwords (paid search ads) from Google, especially after the FDA came down on Adwords that included the indication with the brand name.
Another interesting issue is how pharma companies can manipulate "natural" (aka "organic") Google search results to display what is essentially a branded product ad that includes the brand name and indication, but no ISI.
Search Google for "arimidex" as I just did and you will find this:
The #4 (or #3, depending on how you count) search result leads you to the home page of the www.arimidex.com Web site. Note that the search result looks like an read more..

Prescription Drug-Fda Regulations-Public Hearing-Social Media-FDA

A Cautionary Tale for Anyone Expecting FDA Social Media Guidelines Any Time Soon

If you think waiting over two years for FDA to issue guidelines it promised for regulation of "Promotion of Prescription Drug Products Using Social Media Tools," then you should take a look at the following timeline and weep.
This timeline documents the major steps in FDA's process of developing guidance for direct to consumer television (DTC) and radio ads; ie, "standards that would be considered in determining whether the major statement in direct-to-consumer television and radio advertisements relating to the side effects and contraindications of an advertised prescription drug intended for use by humans is presented in a clear, conspicuous, and neutral manner":

• 1 November 2005: FDA convenes a 2-day public hearing to discuss the issue (see "FDA DTC Hearings: Snippets from Day 1" and "DTC Pros and Cons Presented at Public Hearing"). Sound familiar?


• 21 August 2007: FDA announces it will conduct a study of "consumer evaluations of variations in communicating risk information in direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug broadcast advertisements." It opens a 90-day period to submit comments regarding this study. This study used the latest cognitive science technique called Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP), in which participants are asked not to judge the TV ads' imagery directly, but to judge whether or not a Chinese character shown to them afterward is positive or negative. I suggested it NOT use Chinese characters because that would be discriminatory, but they did not listen to me (see "FDA at a Mall Near You: The Manchurian Connection"). With regard to social media guidelines, the FDA has also announced it will do some studies before issuing guidance (see "FDA's Proposed Web Study Will Further Delay Social Media Guidelines"). Deja vu all over again!


• 29 March 2010: FDA finally publishes the draft guidance, more than 4 years after the public hearing (see Federal register ref: 75 FR 15376). FDA was goosed along by an act of Congress: the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), which required that the major statement in DTC television or radio advertisements (or ads) relating to the side effects and contraindications of an advertised prescription drug intended for use by humans be presented in a clear, conspicuous, and neutral manner. FDA was forced into RULEMAKING mode rather than GUIDANCE mode, which is how the pharma industry wants the agency to approach the regulation social media drug promotion as well (see "Pfizer Asks for New FDA Regulations, Not Guidance, for Social Media").


• June 2011: FDA published an executive summary of a study of the methodology of the AMP study cited above entitled "A Supplementary Test of Distraction in DTC Advertising Using an Implicit Measure, The Affect Misattribution Procedure" (find it here). Maybe FDA read my comments after all!


• 27 January 2012: FDA announced that it added a document to the docket for the proposed rulemaking concerning a study entitled: "Experimental Evaluation of the Impact of Distraction on Consumer Understanding of Risk and Benefit Information in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Television Advertisements" (Distraction Study; see Docket No. FDA–2009–N–0582). This document reopened the comment period (extending the deadline to February 27, 2012) for the rulemaking proceeding to allow an opportunity for comment on the study as it relates to the proposed standards. Way back during the public hearing in 2005 I was unimpressed by research claiming that TV drug ads were designed to "distract" viewers from reading the fair balance (see op cit and "Ruth Day and the Bees Repeat Performance at House DTC Hearing" for an update on that).


• 23 March 2012: FDA reopens the comment period for a second time "in response to a request for more time to submit comments to the Agency." The new comment period will expire on April 9, 2012. According to the FDA, the "Pharmaceut read more..

Search Advertising-Dtc Advertising-Lipitor

Lipitor Holds Key to DTC Ad Spending in 2012

As reported by Nielsen, direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising spending by the pharmaceutical industry was down by 1% compared to 2010. I used that bit of information to update my chart of DTC spending trend over the years (see below).
This chart actually plots measured media data (excluding Internet display and search advertising) through 2010 from AdAge, which got the data from TNS Health. I calculated the 2011 total based on the 1% decrease reported by Nielsen (sorry, I don't have TNS data for 2011).
The final bar of the chart is my estimate for 2012, which is based on the premise that DTC ad spending for Lipitor will be less than half of what it was in 2011. Of course, Lipitor is now available in generic form, so we would expect Pfizer to spend less on its advertising. However, for the first 6 months or so in 2012, Pfizer will continue to spend money on advertising its $4 co-pay coupon for branded Lipitor. But after that, I expect spending to drop precipitously.
I did a little exercise to predict that DTC spending in 2012 will be down by over 3% compared to 2011 solely due to the drop in Lipitor advertising. Here's how I came up with that estimate.
First, let's look at the TOP 20 brands by DTC spending in 2011 (this chart is based on Nielsen data that I found in the April 2012 issue of MM&M):
In 2011, Pfizer spent $220 million on Lipitor DTC advertising according to Nielsen. That compares to $272 million in 2010 (a 20% decrease). So, right away, we know that Lipitor DTC spending is dropping although it still represents 5.5% of the total spend in 2011 (it was 6.3% in 2010).
Based on what I said above and a poll of readers (see here), I estimate that Pfizer will spend less than $100 million (ie, $90 million) on Lipitor DTC in 2012. If we assume everything else remains the same, that decrease of $130 million represents a 3.3% decrease in overall DTC spending!
Of course, not everything else will "remain the same." Other drugs may come on the market that may be have substantial DTC advertising budgets. But I don't think that is likely -- more and more drugs in the TOP 20 list will be coming off patent.
In any case, this is just a little thought exercise that demonstrates how much a SINGLE drug can impact the overall DTC spending trend. Not only that, but a single drug company -- Pfizer -- accounts for nearly one-quarter (22.3%) of the total (see chart below)! Seven of the TOP 20 drugs are marketed by Pfizer.
One of the TOP 20 advertised Pfizer drugs is VIAGRA. Currently, it appears that Pfizer is focusing on the counterfeit Viagra problem to bring in web visitors to viagra.com (see display ad on left).
Another TOP 20 advertised Pfizer drug is ENBREL. Pfizer & Amgen spent nearly $100 million on Enbrel DTC advertising in 2011 (compared to $71 million in 2010). And this number does NOT include what the Amgen/Pfizer has paid Phil Mickelson to be the Enbrel celebrity spokesperson (see "Amgen Blows Its Marketing Budget on Phil Mickelson Campaign" for more on that). On TV, Mickelson promotes Enbrel for the treatment of his psoriatic arthritis. According to the MM&M article cited above, psoriatic arthritis afflicts "around one in 20 of the 2% of Americans who suffer from psoriasis." That works out to be 3 375,000 people (1 in 20 of 7.5 million).
Approximately 63 cents out of every DTC ad dollar goes to TV. So, Pfizer/Amgen spend about $63 million to reach 375,000 people via TV ads! It seems a bit exorbitant to spend so much for broadcasting versus a more targeted approach. Anyway, that's the crazy world of Pharma DTC advertising! Go figure. read more..

Ncaa Basketball Tournament-Pharma Dtc Tv Advertising-Prescription Drug-Drug Ads

Pharma DTC TV Advertising Is a Joke. Seriously.

No wonder CBS refused to run the following "Stoogesta" ad during the NCAA basketball tournament. According to Deadline, network execs were concerned because the spoof, which promotes the forthcoming “The Three Stooges” movie, makes "light of prescription drug ads."
I've seen some pretty funny spoofs of drug DTC ads in my time (eg, see "ADHD Boy"), but this is the best I have ever seen. It convinced me to visit my movie theater & ask for an Rx of silly!
I imagine that pharmaceutical advertisers sent a clear message to CBS that they did NOT find the spoof funny. Rx drugs, after all, are serious and should not be made "light of."
However, it's not the drugs that are being spoofed. It is the drug advertisers who have rolled out the same formulaic DTC TV ads for years and years. Even kids think most of these ads are a joke.
Will the formula ever change? I don't think so. Here's why.
One of the funniest lines in the spoof is "Three in 6 billion people are afflicted by Stoogation (?), a disorder that causes the brain to ricochet and bounce..." That's just slightly more outrageous than some claims made in real drug ads about the prevalence of some "disease" you never heard of before.
I've commented on the topic of DTC ads making outrageous disease prevalence claims before (see "Disease Awareness or 'Disease Mongering'?", for example). In many cases, it is absolutely necessary for drug ads to make such claims to justify the millions of dollars spent on mass media TV ads to reach the "three in 6 billion" people who may suffer from the condition advertised.
So, the tradition of "making light of drug ads" will live on as long as advertising agencies and TV networks rake in millions of dollars to air ads that would be better off targeted to the truly appropriate audience.
BTW, the NCAA basketball tournament audience is PERFECT for the Stoogesta ad! But the ad that was chosen to run in its place is totally wrong; that ad spoofs Christianity! Where's the religious right when you need them? read more..

Medical Device Marketing-Marketing Campaign-Consumer Reports-Medical Research-Medical Devices

Medical Device Marketing Don't Need No Stinkin' ROI!

"Standards for devices exist, they just don't make sense," industry critic Dr. Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families, said in a Consumer Reports release (also read this CBS report "Investigation: Most medical devices implanted in patients without testing"; see video below).
"An investigation by Consumer Reports, which included interviews with doctors and patients and an analysis of medical research and a device-safety database maintained by the FDA, shows the following areas of concern:

• Medical devices often aren’t tested before they come on the market. “What they’re doing is conducting clinical trials on the American public,” says Dan Walter, a political consultant from Maryland. His wife was left with heart and cognitive damage from a specialty catheter, cleared without testing, that malfunctioned during a procedure to treat an abnormal heartbeat.
• There’s no systematic way for the government, researchers, or patients to spot or learn about problems with devices. “A coffeemaker or toaster oven has a unique serial number so if a problem is found, the company can contact you to warn you. Your artificial hip or heart valve doesn’t,” Zuckerman says. “Your doctor is supposed to notify you of a problem but may not be able to if he has retired or passed away.”
• Without major changes in the system, there’s not much that patients can do to protect themselves.

According to Consumer Reports, the majority of medical implants are not tested to make sure they are safe. Most of the time device manufacturers only need to pay the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) a fee of about $4,000 with minimal testing in order to get approval for marketing. Compared to drug approval, this is a walk in the park.
In fact, sometimes device manufacturers bypass this minimal approval process altogether as did Johnson and Johnson's Ethicon unit (see "J&J Marketed Medical Device Without FDA Approval").
Not only is the approval of medical devices by FDA more lax than the process used to approve drugs, medical device marketing is worlds apart from Rx drug marketing as I learned from a presentation made by a Medtronic marketing VP. The presentation focused on a case study of a marketing campaign for the Prestige Cervical Disc.
That case study showed that out of an estimated 5 million spine surgery candidates (patients) in the US, Medtronic only needed to capture 125 of them to break even on a very successful marketing campaign that reached 6.2 million local TV viewers, 80.5 million radio (especially satellite radio) listeners, 4 million print readers, and 73 million Internet browsers. (Get more details about that case study by downloading this Pharma Marketing News article: "Medical Device Marketing: Worlds Apart from Rx Drug Marketing"; use discount code 'DEV444' BEFORE April 15, 2012 to get it FREE!).
While drug advertisers would sweat and moan over whether such a campaign would have a positive ROI (return on investment), medical device marketersdon't need to worry about no stinkin' ROI because of such low numbers of conversions required AND also because very little resources need to go into premarket testing in order to get FDA approval. read more..

Food And Drug Administration-Television Advertisement-Prescription Drugs-Warning Letter

A Loophole (?) in New FDA Guidance on Pre-Dissemination Review of TV Direct-to-Consumer Ads

On September 27, 2007, President Bush signed into law the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), which gives FDA the authority to ". . . require the submission of any television advertisement for a drug . . . not later than 45 days before dissemination of the television advertisement." The notice of issuance of "Draft Guidance for Industry Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertisements — FDAAA DTC Television Ad Pre-Dissemination Review Program" was published today in the Federal register (see "Draft FDA Guidance on PreDissemination Review of TV Direct-to-Consumer Ads").
Before I get to the "loophole," here's a summary of the guidance.
Up until now, the FDA allowed the VOLUNTARY submission of TV ads for review prior to airing, but did not require it. The draft guidance details which type of TV ads REQUIRE approval prior to "dissemination," how long it will take FDA to review these ads and get back to the sponsor (45 days), and what the sponsor can do if the FDA does NOT meet the 45-day deadline. Of course, it also mentions CRIMINAL and CIVIL MONETARY penalties that may be sought by the FDA for violations.
Which Ads Will Require "Pre-dissemination" Review?
The Agency intends to require sponsors to submit TV ads for pre-dissemination review in the following categories:

• Category 1: The initial TV ad for any prescription drug or the initial TV ad for a new or expanded approved indication for any prescription drug 
• Category 2: All TV ads for prescription drugs subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) with elements to assure safe use (see section 505-1(f) of the FD&C Act) 
• Category 3: All TV ads for Schedule II controlled substances 
• Category 4: The first TV ad for a prescription drug following a safety labeling update that affects the Boxed Warning, Contraindications, or Warnings & Precautions section of its labeling 
• Category 5: The first TV ad for a prescription drug following the receipt by the sponsor of an enforcement letter (i.e. a Warning or untitled letter) for that product that either cites a TV ad or causes a TV ad to be discontinued because the TV ad contained violations similar to the ones cited in the enforcement letter  
• Category 6: Any TV ad that is otherwise identified by FDA as subject to the pre-dissemination review provision

"Specifically, these categories allow the Agency to review and provide comments on TV ads for prescription drugs with particularly serious risks," says the FDA
Regarding the 45-Day Review Period, FDA says:
"Once the 45-day review time has elapsed, there is no specific legal consequence resulting from disseminating the proposed TV ad without waiting for FDA’s comments. However, once an ad is disseminated, the sponsor is at risk of enforcement action if the ad violates the FD&C Act and implementing FDA regulations."
That is, if the FDA misses its deadline, the situation reverts back to what is the current practice -- air the commercial and perhaps suffer the consequences, which could be nothing more than a warning letter, but may also require the sponsor to air a correction.
What Exactly Will the FDA Review?
In the past, FDA has primarily reviewed TV Ad storyboards, which are graphical representations of key scenes in the ad with dialog included. Storyboards are blueprints for production and are created BEFORE any video production has begun. Now, however, FDA requires a video of the TV ad to be submitted to fulfill the submission requirements. Only after the video is submitted will the 45-day review clock start running.
"FDA cannot provide final comments on the acceptability of a TV ad without viewing a final recorded version in its entirety. FDA understands that some sponsors may wish to receive comments from the Agency before producing a final recorded version of the ad. In such situations, sponsors can submit a pre-dissemination review packag read more..

Healthcare Professionals-Patient Organizations-Medical Institutions-Reminder

Reminder Ads OK in EU But Not in US. Huh?

The Geneva-based International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) expanded its practice code to cover all interactions with health-care professionals, medical institutions and patient organizations, including a ban on doctors from receiving payments to attend conferences (see "Big Bad Pharma, Bribery and the New EU Industry Code").
According to the above cited source (WSJ's "Corruption Currents" blog) this was a bit like closing the barn door after the cows have left:
"This comes at a time when the association’s members are trying to drum up business in developing countries, some of which have state-run health systems. Employees of such systems, including doctors and nurses, can be considered foreign officials under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a 1977 law that bars bribing foreign officials for business purposes.
"To that end, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department are in the midst of a sweep of the industry. In April 2011, Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay $70 million to resolve violations, and The Wall Street Journal reported in November 2011 that Pfizer Inc. will pay more than $60 million when its settlement gets finalized.
"Both companies, the Journal reported, ratted on their competitors.
"Those competitors included AstraZeneca, Merck & Co., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., GlaxoSmithKline PLC and others that have disclosed investigations for possible FCPA breaches. Eli Lilly & Co. was in advanced talks in April 2011 with the Justice Department, and the company said Feb. 24 in its annual results it’s at the same level with the SEC.
"Letters of inquiry to several of the companies, dating back more than a year, laid out several types of of possible violations: bribing government-employed doctors to purchase drugs; paying company sales agents commissions that are passed along to government doctors; paying hospital committees to approve drug purchases; and paying regulators to win drug approvals."Any way, I decided to download the new "IFPMA Code of Practice" to see if there was anything interesting or actually new (you can find it attached to the post here). The code is intended to cover "interactions with healthcare professionals, medical institutions and patient organizations, and the promotion of pharmaceutical products."
This section popped out at me:
5.2 Reminder Advertisements
A “reminder” advertisement is defined as a short advertisement containing no more than the name of the product and a simple statement of indications to designate the therapeutic category of the product. For “reminder” advertisements, “abbreviated prescribing information” referred to in Article 5.1 above may be omitted. The "abbreviated prescribing information" include "an approved indication or indications for use together with the dosage and method of use; and a succinct statement of the contraindications, precautions, and side-effects."
In other words, it is perfectly OK to promote drugs to healthcare professionals and patient organizations using reminder ads that do not include safety information. Note: these ads must be print ads in professional publications because no such ads would be allowed on mass media such as TV, which reaches consumer audiences. Promotions  of Rx drugs to consumers is not allowed in the EU, reminder ads included.
The U.S. pharma industry does not have a "practice code" for advertising or "marketing" to healthcare professionals, medical institutions and patient organizations. It does, however, have "Guiding Principles" for direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising, published by PhRMA (the U.S. industry trade association) in December, 2008. Principle 13 states "DTC television advertising that identifies a product by name should clearly state the health conditions for which the medicine is approved and the major risks associated with the medicine being advertised." I.e., NO REMINDER ADS!
Of course, PhRMA' read more..