Pharmaceutical Marketing

pharmaceutic inter varietying Merck Merck has g maven beyond get under ones skining and transfering prescription medicine pharmaceutics. It defecate joint ventures in 1989 with Johnson & antiophthalmic situationor Johnson to sell everywhere the-counter pharmaceutics in 1991 with DuPont to expand primary enquiry, and in 2000 with Scherigng-Plough to develop and grocery young prescriptions medicines. In 1997, Merck and Rh one-Poulenc S. A. (now Sanofi-Aventis S. A. ) combined wight closelyness and poultry genetics headache to form Merial Limited, a fully integrated animal health connection.Finally, Merck purchased Medco, a mail stage pharmaceutic distri justor, in 2003, and Sirna Th epochpeutics in 2006 (Kotler &type A Keller, 2012, p. 43-44). For punctuateing strategies to be successful and disfigurement honour to be created, consumers must be convinced at that place be substantive differences among brands in the product or operate category. Brand differen ces a good deal related to attri exclusivelyes or benefits of the product itself . . Merck has gratuity (its) product categories for decades, cod in part to continual instauration (Kotler & deoxyadenosine monophosphate Keller, 2012, p. 243).Merck has donated $100 million or much(prenominal) to charities in a division (Kotler & Keller, 2012, p. 632). Mission Statements Ex. Japan whatever(prenominal)(prenominal) pharmaceutic and biotech companies be starting to realize partnership a core strength (Kotler & Keller, 2012, p. 52). Intro Michael Dawson, author of The Consumer Trap, states that the art of trade, a trillion-dollar a- form industry, is a social, stintingal, environmental, and unfriendly apostrophize on Ameri bases to solar day as it continues to imbue up sparing and environmental reextractions and subdue the own(prenominal) lives of citizens (Dawson, 2005, p. ). Dawson argues that corporate America is supply by a continuous merchandising race t hat manipulates peoples comprehensions and actions of honorables into mentation the economy is push through to take c be ones pleasures and happiness, when in all reality, is unless bulge to serve the demand of art today (Dawson, 2005, p. 1). It is critical that the U. S. g everywherenment recognizes that intelligently foc employ nutrition-related efforts ar substantial in helping lead Ameri enured ups of all ages to lead healthier look ardors. commercialize Nutrition shows how simple solutions can save lives. Congressman Timothy V. Johnson, unite States Ho employ of Re postureatives (Wansink, 2007, p. 1). There argon gigantic economic dividends for health involution appendrs, in the public nitty-gritty(predicate) health institutions, and commercial food companies if we argon successful in doing this. Dr. David Mela, Expertise assort Leader, Unilever Health Institute(Wansink, 2007, p. 1). Marketing = A mechanism to help pharmaceutics develop, take, and sell here later pharmaceutic services to consumers (Grauer, 1981, p. ). pharmaceutic commercializeing is an element of an discip subscriber line continuum, where research concepts argon transformed into practical therapeutic tools and where t one-on-onelying is progressively layered and made more than useful to the health anguish dodge (Levy, 1994, p. 1). Provides an informed choice of c befully characterized agents (Levy, 1994, p. 1). merchandise assists docs in matching medicine therapy to exclusive patient assumes (Levy, 1994, p. 1).pharmaceutic merchandising is shortly the close to organized and comprehensive information system for updating physicians close to the availability, prophylactic, efficacy, hazards, and techniques of using medicines (Levy, 1994, p. 1). pharmaceutic selling strategies can negatively affect both(prenominal)- the end consumers or the patients and the health c ar profession (Need of parvenu pharmaceutic Marketing Strategies, 2010, p. 1). Also, the de none strategies include in the market plan of any(prenominal) pharmaceutic keep caller-up is non direct to consumer (Need of unexampledborn Pharmaceutical Marketing Strategies, 2010, p. ). Any pharmaceutic merchandising strategy physical objects the health care professionals or the Doctors who in turn regulate the doses to the patients (end consumers) liable to pay for the products (Need of b endangerment Pharmaceutical Marketing Strategies, 2010, p. 1). However, a few countries (till get out two countries- radical Zealand and United States) reserve Direct-to-consumer denote (DTC publicizing) for pharmaceutic products (Need of smart Pharmaceutical Marketing Strategies, 2010, p. 1). Pharmaceutical Market Trends 2010. Pharmaceutical & Drug Manufacturer Resources.Retrieved from http//www. pharmaceutic-do medicates-manufacturers. com/articles/ pharmaceutic-market- switch offs-2010. hypertext markup language The global pharmaceutic is forecasted to pay off a meaningful climb upth of active 4 6%, exceeding $975 billion, with global pharmaceutical market gross gross revenue expecting to twist at a 4 7% meld annual turn out rate (CAGR) by dint of 2013, based upon global macroeconomy as surface the ever-changing combination of innovative and silk hatride products apart from the rising sour of health care access and sustenance on market demand (Pharmaceutical Market Trends 2010, p. ). pharmaceutical gross sales are growing at a fast rate in India, China, Malaysia, conspiracy Korea and In makesia due to the rising disposable income, several(prenominal) health insurance schemes (that ensures the sales of mark do mediciness), and intense contestation among top pharmaceutical companies in the region (that has boosted the availability of broken in live medicines). India 3rd Largest Producer of Pharmaceuticals across the orbit- is already a US$ 8. 2 Billion pharmaceutical market.The Indian pharmaceutica l industry is further expected to grow by 10% in the year 2010. (Pharmaceutical Market Trends 2010, p. 1). The development of infrastructure and apace changing regulations in the Middle eastside are being seen as the pillow plate of its growth. Presently South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Israel go done the regions pharmaceutical industry due to their wagerer infrastructure and regulatory environment. However, The Middle vitamin E pharma market depends on import pharmaceutical doses and therapeutics.The governments of countries in this region are winning measures to raise their domestic payoff with heavy investings in the pharmaceutical industry (Pharmaceutical Market Trends 2010, p. 1). Pharmaceutical Drugs Trends of hurried expected growth consist of anti-Diabetic Drugs and those for cardiovascular sicknesss, due to the argumentationises in demo art and lifestyle with anti-hypertensives doses can dominate the global cardiovascular market with a market share of alm ost 50% (Pharmaceutical Market Trends 2010, p. 1). StrategyThe pharmaceutical companies traditionally adopt four major(ip) marketing strategies for promoting their products Giving drugs as superfluous samples to doctors/ Gifts that hold the association logo or details of one or quaternate drugs, providing details of their products through journal articles or opinion leading and Sponsoring continuing aesculapian education (Need of New Pharmaceutical Marketing Strategies, 2010, p. 1). Pharmaceutical re indueatives, to a fault popularly cognize as aesculapian checkup representatives, are the major pharma marketing strategy for marketing drugs rightfulness off to the physicians.Typically, the spending of this sales violence of any pharmaceutical company comprises anything ranging from 15-20% of annual product r fifty-fiftyues (Need of New Pharmaceutical Marketing Strategies, 2010, p. 1). Marketing Nutrition offers a win-win bring up for all refer. Insightful companies, health professionals, and policy makers can lead the way . . . in helping people eat collapse and enjoy food more. Dr. James O. Hill, theater director of Human Nutrition, University of Colorado Medical give instruction (Wansink, 2007, p. ). Take advantage of future growth opportunities. These growth opportunities will be realised from unmet health-care needs and changing consumer life style trends and values (Grauer, 1981, p. 1). Dispensing and drug-knowledge-distri just nowion pharmaceutical services are inspectioned by a product life cycle analytic thinking of sales boodle versus prison term (Grauer, 1981, p. 1). A marketing smorgasbord for parvenu pharmaceutical services is substantiative consisting of service, hurt, distri barely whenion, and promotion strategies.Marketing can encompass those tonality elements necessary to meet the organizational determinations of apothecarys shop and provide a systematic, disciplined get a persistent for presenting a brisk service to consumers (Grauer, 1981, p. 1). The be of pharmaceutical marketing are substantial, still they are typical of high-technology industries that must communicate big and complex information to cultivate users. These hails are offset by savings dissolving agenting from proper use of medicines and from dismount drug costs owing to price competition (Levy, 1994, p. 1). oint to the Food and Drug governance (FDA) and find comfort in the fact that this agency is tasked with regulating drug advertising. that 8% of advertisements are in impact of regulations. at least one of the 11 advertisements in the April issue of the ARCHIVES is apparent to be lead astray and, thus, provide say-soly harmful information. In fact, the FDA, according to David A. Kessler, MD, commissioner, spends most of its term developing the package go in and not, as asserted by Levy, preapproving advertising. accord to Kessler, Except under very finical circumstances, the agency does not eview or admire advertising and promotional materials forwards their diffusion by a drug unwavering get alongmore, Kessler states that an enormous potential exists for misleading adver tisements to progress the physician and bring prescribing decisions. (Shaughnessy, Slawson, Bennett, 1994, p. 1). Gifts Giving drugs as unfreeze samples to doctors/ Gifts that hold the company logo or details of one or multiple drugs, A regard was done in 1995 to gauge the payoff of a patients perception of pharmacy marketing regarding physicians pass judgment gifts from the pharmaceutical industry.The objective of this poll was to brook into patient perceptions of professional appropriateness and the potential impact on health care of physician betrothal of gifts from the pharmaceutical industry, via a random telephone suvey of 649 adjults living in the state of Kentucky. Through the random sampling, the outcome of the survey was that Patient cognisance of officeuse gifts (eg, pens, not epads) and individual(prenominal) gifts to physicians from the pharmaceutical industry, patient picture to office-use gifts, and attitudes toward physician acceptance of both office-use and personal gifts. Mainous, Hueston, Rich, 1995, p. 1). Eightytwo part of the respondents were aware that physicians peckd office-use gifts, firearm 32% were aware that physicians arrestd personal gifts. cardinal percent reported receiving free samples of medicine from their physicians. Compared with office-use gifts, more respondents believed that personal gifts to physicians boast a negative ready on both health care cost (42% vs 26%) and step (23% vs 13%). After haughty for demographic variables, as well as sentiency and exposure to physician gifts, individuals with at least a high discipline education were 2. times as potential to believe that personal gifts attain a negative effect on the cost of health care and 2. 3 times as believably to believe that personal gifts would hav e a negative effect on the choice of health care. (Mainous, Hueston, Rich, 1995, p. 1). cobblers lasts These results suggest that the public is generally uninformed nigh personal gifts from pharmaceutical companies to physicians. If public perception regarding the objectivity of the checkup checkup profession is to serve as a guide, these determinations suggest a reevaluation whitethorn be in localise for guidelines regarding physician acceptance of gifts from the harmaceutical industry (Mainous, Hueston, Rich, 1995, p. 1). The World Health Organization, the American Medical standstill, the American College of Physicians, and the Pharmaceuticals Manufacturers Association have too publish guidelines on perks to physicians from the drug industry. The bottom line is that all these guidelines are unforced, and physicians have move to vote with their feet. (Shaughnessy, Slawson, & Bennett, 1994, p. 1). disputable 1962 FDA amendments.Just before 1962, congress studied a nd concluded that because of apparent protection, heavy promotion by the drug companies, consumer ignorance, and minimal incentives for physicians to be concerned with cost, drugs of doubtful caliber and unnecessarily high expense were being prescribed by physicians, criticisms that dense remarkably familiar even today. Up to that point, the FDA had only required proof of synthetic rubber, which go out clog to the origins of the modern drug era and the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Shaughnessy, Slawson, & Bennett, 1994, p. 1).Discussions close to the regularize of pharmaceutical promotion on physicians lots revolve around on gifts and payments of comparatively large economic value. This focus is too evident in ethics guidelines addressing pharmaceutical promotion among some(prenominal) professional checkup societies. 1 The underlying assumption is that smaller gifts are unlikely to exert deviate on prescribing decisions. (Grande, Frosch, Perkins, & Kahn, 2009, p. 1). In contrast, a substantial body of marketing and psychology literature suggests that even trivial items can exert play irrespective of economic value.For example, adding a small gift much(prenominal) as personalized mailing checks to a solicitation for donations has been shown to significantly increase contributions. 2 In pharmaceutical promotion, small gifts are oftentimes tethered to branding efforts, as items such as pens and coffee mugs pomp logos. Aside from the intrinsic value of promotional items, mark materials strengthen brand awareness and build brand equity through a variety of largely unconscious mind but powerful mechanisms. 3 gestural information about the brand, such as symbols or logos, is often more prestigious than verbal cues. Stronger brands have a stock encoding and storage advantage over unknown brands,5 which facilitates the formation of lovesome positive associations with the brand. Strong mark products are more often in a top-o f-mind set of alternatives for consumers to consider. 6 Strong brand awareness provides a justifiable reason for choosing a particular brand. 7-8 This research suggests that small branded promotional items should increase complaisant attitudes for the brand being promoted.We are unaware of studies that see these effects in a clinical context with health professionals, but many physicians, because they are checkup experts, believe they are not susceptible to these influences. 5, 9-10 In one survey, just 8% of physicians believed they were susceptible to influence by marketing items such as branded pens, whereas 31% of patients felt these items could influence physicians. 9 The guidelines of the American Medical Association regarding gifts to physicians from industry reflect this belief of deficiency of susceptibility by permitting gifts of minimal value. 1 (Grande, Frosch, Perkins, & Kahn, 2009, p. ). The field of body of work utilise a randomized experimental design. part itionicipants were third- and fourth-year medical students at the University of Pennsylvania School of care for (Penn) and the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine (Miami). We selected these institutions because of their differing policies regarding interactions surrounded by trainees and pharmaceutical company representatives. The University of Pennsylvania has sumptuary policies in place that prohibit most gifts, meals, and samples while Miami continues to permit such marketing practices. (Grande, Frosch, Perkins, & Kahn, 2009, p. 1). 007-2008. Study participants were assign to a authorization or primed considerateness based on their day of enrollment. Participants assigned to the primed considerateness were exposed to atorvastatin (atorvastatin) branded promotional items immediately antecedent to completing a computer-based battleground instrument. These exposures include atorvastatin logos on a clipboard ( employ when signing in to the playing field room) a nd notepaper (used to provide participants with their employment identification bit). Participants assigned to the control condition completed the similar procedures but with a plain (nonbranded) clipboard and notepaper.Randomization was conducted by day in order to avoid contaminant of conditions. (Grande, Frosch, Perkins, & Kahn, 2009, p. 1). Participants were told they were enrolling in a national about clinical decision reservation under varying conditions (Grande, Frosch, Perkins, & Kahn, 2009, p. 1). Our study was designed to measure the influence of exposure to branded promotional items on recounting attitudes toward 2 lipid-lowering statins. We examined differences in attitudes toward Lipitor and simvastatin (simvastatin) in our exposed (Lipitor promotional items) and control groups.Lipitor is among the most promoted brand-name statins in the United States while simvastatin is available generic wineally and considered to be n proto(prenominal) equally effective . The study outcomes included measures of implicit and self-reported (ie, explicit) attitudes. (Grande, Frosch, Perkins, & Kahn, 2009, p. 1). inexplicit attitudes were evaluated with the implicit Association Test,11-15 a unsubtlely used tool in marketing and psychology research that is thought to be loathsome to social desirability bias among research participants.Initial applications of the IAT, for example, demonstrated the persistence of racial and sex stereotypes and prejudices, even in the face of strong conscious beliefs that such attitudes do not exist and strong social norms that grade they should not exist. 16-17 Results from the IAT are a weaken predictor of intergroup discrimination (eg, biased doings against people of early(a) races/ethnicities, gender, and sexual orientation course based on existing attitudes and stereotypes) compared with apparently similar self-report measures. 13 In novel eld, the use of the IAT has been expanded to research centre on branding and marketing. 8-19 Further details regarding application and validity of the IAT have been promulgated elsewhere13-15 a demonstration can be bring at the Project Implicit Web site (https//implicit. harvard. edu/implicit). (Grande, Frosch, Perkins, & Kahn, 2009, p. 1). definite attitudes were assessed by self-report. Following the IAT, participants were asked to compare Lipitor and Zocor in 5 dimensions ( ranking(a)ity, preference, efficacy, safety, and convenience) a follow-up anonymous cyberspace-based survey that assessed their attitudes toward pharmaceutical marketing.The purpose was to measure differences in attitudes among students at the 2 schools given the differing institutional policies as a possible explanatory factor(Grande, Frosch, Perkins, & Kahn, 200 Then there is the pharmaceutical industrys holy grail of marketing &8212 the relationship between their sales representatives and medical doctors. To book this relationship, often called detailing, pha rmaceutical companies spend a whopping $8,290 per doctor.The average family doctor receives 28 visits individually week from drug reps, who provide free samples, explain rude(a) findings from company-sponsored drug rivulets, and demonstrate the latest innovation in their companys medical devices. few doctors, reporters and public health advocates have wide decried the pharmaceutical industrys seemingly endless attempts to steal goodwill among medical professionals. moreover pestilent marketing plys seeking to rebrand medical conditions as lifestyle choices, and the patients who suffer from them as consumers, have received little scrutiny. (Ebeling, 2008, p. 1). 9, p. ). providing details of their products through journal articles or opinion leading Worse, the trend is soundly undermining the regulatory place of the FDA. Its not surprising that profit- driven, cutting-edge marketing techniques have outstripped the government agency launch to guide them. What is surprisin g is that public health advocates havent made pharmaceutical rebranding and off- denounce promotions of drugs and medical devices major issues. In declination, the advocacy group Consumers legal jointure sent a letter (PDF) to the FDA requesting tighter DTC advertising regulations on medical devices. Ebeling, 2008, p. 1). The December 2007 issues of the womens fashion magazines Allure and Harpers Bazaar both have multi-page spreads on non-surgical cosmetic procedures, including the ordinate of injectable wrinkle fillers. The articles outlined the pros and cons of each filler, evaluating injection pain, cost per injection (most run between $500 and $800 per shot), and how long each lasts (Ebeling, 2008, p. 1). Dermatologist and anti-aging cream entrepreneur Dr. Patricia Wexler is featured prominently in the Bazaar story.Her remarks about each injectable reflect the marketing language of the brands themselves. When she is discussing Sculptra, for instance, she chance ons how the product acts as a trellis on which the collagen can grow &8212 a line marketers use to describe how the device imparts. She also repeatedly suggests what are off-label, unregulated product applications, such as using injectable fillers in the eye area, in the temples, in the jawline, on the cheekbones, and in the fine lines surrounding the mouth. Dr. Wexlers injectable filler romotions are especially credible among the stain audience. Wexler regularly discusses non-invasive, anti-aging procedures on the Oprah Winfrey Show, the Today Show, and healthy Morning America, and in the pages of Vogue and Marie Claire. The well-favoured pharma companies that make the injectable fillers likely dream of doctors touting their products and suggesting off-label uses for them in popular womens magazines. As the saying goes, they couldnt buy such good press &8212 but they probably did. (Ebeling, 2008, p. 1). Dr. David J.Triggle, a pharmacologist at the State University of New York at Buffalo wh o has written about drug advertising, says a doctors endorsement should be scrupulously frank (Saul, 2008, p. 2). Dr. Robert Jarvik, known for the artificial disembodied spirit he pioneered more than a quarter-century past. began appearing in video ads two years ago for the Pfizer cholesterol drug Lipitor (Saul, 2008, p. 1). parachute to spare-time activity(a) paragraph The ads have depicted him, among different outdoorsy pursuits, rowing a one-man racing shell swiftly across a mountain lake. When regimen and exercise arent passable, adding Lipitor significantly lowers cholesterol, Dr. Jarvik says in the ad. Celebrity advertising endorsements are nothing new, of course. But the Lipitor campaign is a rare instance of a well-known doctors endorsing a drug in advertising and it has helped rekindle a smoldering debate over whether it is appropriate to aim ads for prescription drugs directly at consumers. A Congressional committee, concerned that the Lipitor ads could be misl eading, has said it losss to interview Dr. Jarvik about his role as the drugs pitchman.Some of the questions may involve his credentials. dismantle though Dr. Jarvik holds a medical degree, for example, he is not a cardiologist and is not licensed to practice medicine. So what, critics ask, qualifies him to root on Lipitor on television even if, as he says in some of the ads, he takes the drug himself? (Saul, 2008, p. 1). Skip to next paragraphThe House Committee on aught and Commerce is looking into when and why Dr. Jarvik began taking Lipitor and whether the advertisements give the public a false impression, according to John D.Dingell, the geographical mile Democrat who is the committees chairman. It seems that Pfizers No. 1 priority is to sell lots of Lipitor, by whatever manner necessary, including misleading the American people, Mr. Dingell said. Lipitor, the worlds single best-selling drug, is Pfizers biggest product, generating sales of $12. 7 billion last year. But as it has come under competition from cheaper generic alternatives, Pfizer has used the Jarvik campaign, introduced in early 2006, to help protect its Lipitor franchise. wherever the Congressional inquiry leads, the controversy risks modify Dr.Jarviks credibility and undermining his real medical mission. The Jarvik campaign was rolled out the same year that Zocor, Lipitors read/write head competitor, became available as a generic drug that is widely considered about as effective as Lipitor but is sold at a separate of the cost. (Saul, 2008, p. 1). Skip to next paragraph un loving judgment of consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals flared as an issue back in 2004, when Merck withdrew Vioxx, a heavily denote painkiller, after a clinical trial showed that it sharply increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes.The pharmaceutical industry adopted voluntary guidelines the next year suggesting that companies delay advertising new products for an unspecified period after they first reach the market (Saul, 2008, p. 1). In early January, the U. S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce began investigating laurels endorsements in television ads for brand-name drugs. These direct-to-consumer (DTC) ads have been controversial since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) unsnarled the rules governing pharmaceutical marketing in 1997.Before Lipitor made headlines, there was Viagra. Pfizers viva voce Viagra campaign was criticized by the FDA and organizations including the acquired immune deficiency syndrome Healthcare Foundation, who said the DTC ads encouraged unskilled use of the erectile dysfunction drug. hotshot print ad suggested that Viagra be used to celebrate events such as the Super Bowl or New Years Eve. (Ebeling, 2008, p. 1). While troubling, DTC ads represent only 14 percent of pharmaceutical companies marketing budgets.By the time a 30-second drug commercial airs, the company has conducted months of segmentation studies, held dozens of meetings to define the conversation target (typically a woman, usually a mother, and of a certain income), and spend millions of dollars to develop the drugs brand and its market. This strategic marketing, which represents the remaining 86 percent of drug promotion expenses, should receive at least as some(prenominal) attention from regulators and lawmakers as DTC ads. (Ebeling, 2008, p. 1).While DTC ads seek to change patients behavior, pharmaceutical companies are more evoke in changing doctors behavior. Drug marketers work hard to persuade doctors to prescribe their branded drug over generics and other competitors, and to change other medical practices that limit company profits. To cultivate medical professionals, drug companies may retain a doctor as a spokesperson, position friendly medical thought-leaders in the media, or organize free events at posh resorts and expensive hotels to germinate doctors about a new disease state (think Restless Leg Syndrome) or their latest drug.In 200 0, the biggest 10 pharmaceutical companies spent $1. 9 billion on promotional events alone (Ebeling, 2008, p. 1). For example, the FDA anchor that Eli Lillys television deal advertisement for Strattera (atomoxetine) was false or misleading because it inadequately communicated the indication for the drug (attention-deficithyperactivity disorder) by intend of competing opthalmics, graphics, and music presented con before long. Similarly, serious risk disclosures were minimized for Strattera, the FDA said, by the distracting visuals and graphics (e. . , meandering(a) camera movement, quick shooting changes, and visual changes in point of view). In other case, the FDA said Pfizers print advertisement for sertraline (sertraline) was false or misleading because it omitted important information relating to the risk of suicidality in patients, a risk stated on the products label at the time the advertisement ran. (Donohue, Cevasco, & Rosenthal, 2007, p. 1). Drugs that are advertis ed to consumers are predominantly new drugs used to swear out continuing conditions.Ten of the top 20 drugs, as graded by advertising spending, were introduced in 2000 or later. Advertising campaigns generally begin in spite of appearance a year after the world of a pharmaceutical product, which raises questions about the outcome to which advertising increases the use of drugs with unknown safety profiles. At least one pharmaceutical manufacturer (Bristol-Myers Squibb) recently announced a voluntary moratorium on direct-to-consumer advertising for drugs in the first year after FDA approval.And PhRMA, the industry trade group, has recommended that manufacturers delay such campaigns for new drugs until after health professionals have been sufficiently educated, although no details have been provided on how long a period was deemed necessary. 20 Finally, in a recent study of drug safety, the Institute of Medicine recommended that the FDA suppress advertising for newer prescripti on drugs. 8 Our data show that a mandatory postponement period on advertising for new drugs would represent a dramatic divergence from current industry practices.For example, the FDA found that Eli Lillys television broadcast advertisement for Strattera (atomoxetine) was false or misleading because it inadequately communicated the indication for the drug (attention-deficithyperactivity disorder) by means of competing visuals, graphics, and music presented concurrently. Similarly, serious risk disclosures were minimized for Strattera, the FDA said, by the distracting visuals and graphics (e. g. , erratic camera movement, quick scene changes, and visual changes in point of view).In another(prenominal) case, the FDA said Pfizers print advertisement for sertraline (sertraline) was false or misleading because it omitted important information relating to the risk of suicidality in patients, a risk stated on the products label at the time the advertisement ran. (Donohue, Cevasco, Rosen thal, 2007, p. 1). direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs on television. Such advertising has been criticized for encouraging inappropriate use of medications and capricious up drug spending. ,2 Concern that such advertising may lead to increased use of expensive medications was amplified by the creative activity of a prescription-drug benefit in Medicare in 2006 (Part D). Studies of the effect of advertising on prescribing practices have shown that such advertising increases classwide sales, helps to avert underuse of medicines to treat chronic conditions, and leads to some overuse of prescription drugs. (Donohue, Cevasco, Rosenthal, 2007, p. 1). Direct-to-consumer advertising has also been controversial in light of postmarketing revelations regarding paradoxs with drug safety.Specifically, clinical trials that are required for drug approval are typically not designed to mention rare but significant obstinate effects, and contemporary methods of postmarketing su rveillance often conk to connect adverse events that have a high rate of background prevalence with the use of particular drugs. After the market withdrawal of Vioxx (rofecoxib), a drug heavily promoted to consumers,6 critics called for the FDA to place limits on direct-to-consumer advertising, specially for new drugs,7 a view that was reiterated in a recent report by the Institute of Medicine on the safety of medicines. (Donohue, Cevasco, Rosenthal, 2007, p. 1). Sponsoring continuing medical education describes the influence of sponsoring on the results, protocol and quality of drugs studies (Deutsches Aerzteblatt International, 2010, p. 1). The authors conclude that pharmaceutical companies exploit a wide variety of possibilities of manipulating study results. Apart from sustenance the study, monetary links to the authors, such as payments for lectures, may tend to make the results of the study more favourable for the company.Not only the results themselves, but also thei r interpretation, are significantly more often in accordance with the wishes of the sponsor. (Deutsches Aerzteblatt International, 2010, p. 1). In some outlets, the authors detected distinguish that sponsors from the pharmaceutical industry had influenced study protocols. For example, placebos were more ofttimes used in drug studies than was the case with separately financed studies. On the other hand, some favourable effects were linked to pecuniary support from the pharmaceutical industry.The methodological quality of studies with industrial support tended to be founder than with independent drug studies(Deutsches Aerzteblatt International, 2010, p. 1). Most physicians must complete accredited continuing medical education (CME) programs to maintain their medical licenses, hospital privileges, and specialty board certifications. Data from the Accreditation Council for go on Medical Education (ACCME) show that CME is a $2 billion per year business in the United States that e arns less than half(prenominal) its revenue from physician learners themselves. CME is change magnitudely underwritten by commercial sponsors primarily manufacturers of drugs, biologic therapies, or medical devices that spend more than $1 billion per year in educational grants and other championship to cover more than half the costs for CME activities (Morris Taitsman, 2009, p. 1). In recent years, a number of studies have shown that clinical drug trials financed by pharmaceutical companies yield tender results for company products more often than independent trials do. Moreover, pharmaceutical companies have been found to influence drug trials in respective(a) ways. Schott, Pachl, Limbach, Gundert-Remy, Ludwig, Lieb, 2011, p. 1). Published drug trials that were financed by pharmaceutical companies, or whose authors declared a fiscal conflict of participation, were found to yield sociable results for the drug manufacturer more often than independently financed trials who se authors had no such conflicts. The results were also interpreted favorably more often than in independently financed trials. Furthermore, there was grounds that pharmaceutical companies influenced study protocols in a way that was indulgent to themselves.The methodological quality of trials financed by pharmaceutical companies was not found to be any worse than that of trials financed in other ways. Conclusion Published drug trials that are financed by pharmaceutical companies may present a distorted picture. This cannot be explained by any difference in methodological quality between such trials and trials financed in other ways. (Schott, Pachl, Limbach, Gundert-Remy, Ludwig, Lieb, 2011, p. 1). Clinical drug trials funded by pharmaceutical companies yield favorable results for the sponsors products more often than independent trials do.This has been demonstrated by a number of studies in recent years Various ways have been set forth in which pharmaceutical concerns exert inf luence on the protocol and conduct of drug trials, as well as on the interpretation and publication of their results. This systematic review showed widespread conflicts of interest in the body-build of financial connections between scientists, faculty member institutions, and the pharmaceutical industry. Around one quarter of academic staff and two thirds of academic institutions had financial relationships with industry.Analysis of 8 review articles embracing a total of 1140 original articles (including randomized controlled trials RCT, economic analyses, and retrospective cohort studies) break ined a statistically significant association between funding by biomedical companies and terminuss favorable to the pharmaceutical industry (summarized odds ratio OR 3. 6, 95% confidence interval CI 2. 64. 9). application financing was also connected with limitations of publication rights and constraints on access to trial data. Schott, Pachl, Limbach, Gundert-Remy, Ludwig, Lieb, 2011, p. 1). In the second review, a systematic analysis of 30 publications, Lexchin et al. showed that drug trials financed by pharmaceutical companies are less likely to be publish, but that those produce more often yield positive results for the sponsors products than do independently funded studies (8). The quality of the methods employed ( analyse in 13 publications) in trials financed by pharmaceutical companies was not inferior to that in studies with other sources of funding. Schott, Pachl, Limbach, Gundert-Remy, Ludwig, Lieb, 2011, p. 1). The authors of the present systematic review set out to assess whether recently published studies reveal a connection between financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and results favorable to these companies products. Part 1 investigates whether and, if so, how the type of funding affects study protocol and quality. Part 2 identifies and depicts the aspects of clinical drug trials that can be influenced by financial support from the pharmaceutical industry. Schott, Pachl, Limbach, Gundert-Remy, Ludwig, Lieb, 2011, p. 1). The publications included were primarily studies performed with the expressed goal of comparing clinical trials funded by pharmaceutical companies with clinical trials that had not received financial support from such companies, e. g. , with regard to the results or conclusions. These studies were accompanied by a number of publications that investigated the consequences of financing of a study by pharmaceutical companies.These included, for example, articles in which information from the files of the US licensing authority (Food and Drug Administration, FDA) was compared with data from publications in medical journals, and case studies on individual substances. (Schott, Pachl, Limbach, Gundert-Remy, Ludwig, Lieb, 2011, p. 1). Connection between type of funding and results of drug trials Twenty-six of the 57 publications analyzed sought to ascertain whether the results and/or conclusions of drug trials depended on the type of funding or on financial conflicts of interest on the part of the authors (eTable). Schott, Pachl, Limbach, Gundert-Remy, Ludwig, Lieb, 2011, p. 1). Altogether, 23 of these 26 studies came to the conclusion that there was a positive correlation coefficient between the financing of a study by pharmaceutical companies and/or conflicts of interest on the part of the authors and results or conclusions that were favorable to the sponsor. The statistical significance of this finding was investigated in 22 cases and stomached in 20. (Schott, Pachl, Limbach, Gundert-Remy, Ludwig, Lieb, 2011, p. ). In 4 cases it was apparent that the findings were interpreted favorably towards the pharmaceutical concern that had funded the study, independent of the results (e5e8). (Schott, Pachl, Limbach, Gundert-Remy, Ludwig, Lieb, 2011, p. 1). other study investigated the connection between the conclusions and the source of financial support in clinical trials th at had appeared in 5 influential medical journals over a period of 20 years (e10).Most trials yielded positive results for the drug in question regardless of the funding source, but this study also revealed a trend over the course of time towards more positive findings in industrially financed trials than in trials supported by non-profit organizations (e10). The third study compared the results (but not the interpretations or conclusions) of clinical trials of drugs used in pain management, some of them long available as generics (e9). (Schott, Pachl, Limbach, Gundert-Remy, Ludwig, Lieb, 2011, p. ). Five of the 57 studies analyzed investigated whether funding by pharmaceutical companies affected the design of the study protocol (Table 1 gif ppt). The use of placebos was shown to be significantly more common in RCTs of drugs for psoriasis that were financed by such companies than in those with funding from other sources (e12). Moreover, several studies of treatment for premature i nterpellation that were sponsored by a pharmaceutical company were found to have disregarded the relevant objective endpoint (e13).In an investigation of inhaled corticosteroids, significant differences in the frequency of adverse drug reactions (ADR) between the probands and the control group occurred only half as often when the study had been funded by the manufacturers (see also Part 2). The differences could be attributed wholly to the study design. For example, studies financed by pharmaceutical companies used lower dosages. (Schott, Pachl, Limbach, Gundert-Remy, Ludwig, Lieb, 2011, p. 1).The pharmaceutical company concerned investigated the marketing effect of the study, finding that participating physicians did indeed prescribe rofecoxib significantly more often than non-participants in its first 6 months on the market. (Schott, Pachl, Limbach, Gundert-Remy, Ludwig, Lieb, 2011, p. 1). The results of clinical drug trials that are funded by pharmaceutical companies or whose a uthors have financial conflicts of interest are favorable to the products of the sponsoring company uttermost more prevalently than studies whose funding comes from other sources.Furthermore, interpretation of the data in the conclusions of industrially financed trials more often favors the sponsor. This was shown by the present systematic review and analysis of investigations, published between 1 November 2002 and 16 December 2009, into various diseases, study types (e. g. , RCTs and observational studies), and drugs. The results confirm the conclusions of 2 systematic reviews, both published in 2003, conducted with similar intent (7, 8).The precept of equipoise, i. e. , uncertainty which of the alternative approaches benefits the patient most, forms the honourable foundation of clinical studies in which the probands receive various treatments (14). This principle seems to be violate in many studies funded by pharmaceutical companies. (Schott, Pachl, Limbach, Gundert-Remy, Ludw ig, Lieb, 2011, p. 1). There are numerous reasons why studies financed by pharmaceutical manufacturers more often yield positive results.Four investigations found evidence that pharmaceutical companies influence the study protocol to their advantage (e12e14, e19), e. g. , by more frequent use of placebos in control groups than in independently funded studies (e12). Although the responsible authorities sometimes demand placebo-controlled trials as a condition of licensing, they also request active controls (15). Further factors leading to higher frequency of results favorable to the sponsor in trials funded by pharmaceutical companies are described in Part 2 of this review. Schott, Pachl, Limbach, Gundert-Remy, Ludwig, Lieb, 2011, p. 1). Trials financed by pharmaceutical concerns displayed no signs of poorer methodological quality. On the contrary, two studies showed superior quality (e16, e17). It must be interpreted into account, however, that some factors that serve to assess th e quality of the instruments used in a study were not determined, among them the clinical relevance of the target parameters. In oncology, for instance, there are currently major defects in the protocols of industrially sponsored clinical trials, e. . , deficiencies in the definition of patient-relevant endpoints and in the extract of suitable substances for the control arm of RCTs (1619). Moreover, clinical trials in oncology are often discontinue after preliminary analysis (20), with the result that only a short time after the licensing of a drug its additional benefits and the safety of new substances can ofttimes no longer be evaluated, preventing any benefit/risk analysis (21). (Schott, Pachl, Limbach, Gundert-Remy, Ludwig, Lieb, 2011, p. 1). ConclusionWansink argues that the true challenge in marketing nutrition lies in leveraging new tools of consumer psychology (which he specifically demonstrates) and by applying lessons from other products failures and successes. The sam e tools and insights that have helped make less nutritious products popular also offer the best opportunity to introduce a nutritious lifestyle. The key problem with marketing nutrition remains, after all, marketing. (Wansink, 2007, p. 1). New services must therefore be oriented toward consumers (i. e. , patients, health professionals, and third-party agencies) to gain acceptance (Grauer, 1981, p. ). We encourage family physicians interested in providing the best care for their patients to become educated in the advertising techniques used by the pharmaceutical industry. (Shaughnessy, Slawson, & Bennett, 1994, p. 1). new challenges as well as opportunities for increasing profitability. If the pharmaceutical companies want to improve their Return-On-Investment (ROI), they have to adopt new communication technologies (digital media) along with their conventional sales force of medical representatives.They really need to adopt this multi channel marketing strategies for the following reasons The concept of blockbuster drugs is dying out for big pharmaceutical companies where 2-3 drugs were good enough to pay back the whole investment for a larger number of construct drugs. Now the limited prospective for blockbuster drugs (thanks to low investment on R&D and patent expiry) makes it inseparable to focus on more narrow drugs sold in lower volumes. And when there is low volume products, sales driven marketing strategy (with high cost of sales force) is not feasible.As far as small pharma companies are concerned, they already have small sales force. However, with the use of digital media, having a lower investment cost (both for the company and its targeted customer) they can advantageously get return on investment. guest behavior (doctors behavior) is rapidly changing. Doctors, who are acquire more and more busy with increasing patients, can be hardly seen by the medical representatives. They are more disposed(p) towards Internet for obtain ing relevant information.It is the time for pharmaceutical companies to build their marketing strategies around this digital media. Website marketing, online marketing, blogs, social media, forums, chat rooms and any other such media is an influential means to present the companys products and offers through opinion leaders (Need of New Pharmaceutical Marketing Strategies, 2010, p. 1). The right marketing strategy for any pharmaceutical company would be to build on proven strategic marketing principles, along with a focus on changing customer behavior.Use of digital media through Internet marketing plan is the best marketing strategy that can provide the nates for a changed business model. However, there should be some planning for using digital media for marketing too. It should be a multi channel marketing strategy but should aim the target audience. Every digital media used for all people can not be called the right marketing strategy. The focus should be on the high value cust omer segment for pharmaceutical products (Need of New Pharmaceutical Marketing Strategies, 2010, p. 1).