The Marketing of Sarafem
One of the more disturbing trends over the last few years has been the increase in advertising for prescription drugs on television. This has occurred as a result of a change in the policy of the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) in 1997 regarding how drugs can be advertised. As a result of this we have seen a huge increase in the number of adverts on TV for a number of different drugs. One of the most controversial adverts has been for a drug called Sarafem. This has been advertised for a condition called Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder or PMDD.
This condition is being distinguished from Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS), which many women suffer from to varying degree. There are a number of questions this brings up. Firstly, the drug Sarafem is identical to that of Prozac, the popular anti-depressant. One has to wonder how appropriate this anti-depressant is for this condition. Prozac is given due to an emotional and/or chemical imbalance creating symptoms of depression, anxiety and other mental difficulties.
Even if there is a distinct condition of PMDD, is Sarafem the best option to treat it? It looks like the company producing Prozac, Eli Lilly and Company, is looking for another marketing opportunity for one of its most profitable drugs. The advert for Sarafem confirms this opinion. It has shown a frustrated woman struggling with a shopping cart in a supermarket, a situation many people face, with or without PMDD. It gives the impression that there is a pill for every problem we face in daily life. In fact the FDA also took exception to the nature of the advert and stated in a letter to the company that it "trivializes the seriousness of PMDD" and the company was asked to cease using this broadcast advertisement. Eli Lilly agreed to heed the agencyOs request but the company could have continued to run the ads. It was not legally obliged to stop the adverts, as the FDA cannot enforce its recommendation. However, drug companies generally do comply with recommendations from the FDA for public relations reasons.
Therefore, it has to be questioned how objective physicians will be when women who have seen the advert ask for the drug when visiting their doctor. Instead of the advert informing people of a new option for a clinical condition, it looks like it is attempting to persuade people to ask for a specific drug, which has been repackaged to look new. This is for a condition which is not easy to diagnose and which relies on a general description as apposed to a more emphatic medical diagnosis. This may put more pressure on doctors to prescribe the drug if demanded by patients. Instead of their supposed aim to inform the public of new options for various conditions it is mostly a marketing ploy to encourage people to take more medications. The question has to be where the balance between education, need and manipulation lies, and whether a chemical answer is always the best one for a condition which can have many causes.