Publications

BACKGROUND: Although critics have expressed concerns about cancer center advertising, analyses of the content of these advertisements are lacking.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the informational and emotional content of direct-to-consumer cancer center advertisements.

DESIGN: Content analysis.

SETTING: Top U.S. consumer magazines (n = 269) and television networks (n = 44) in 2012.

MEASUREMENTS: Types of clinical services promoted; information provided about clinical services, including risks, benefits, costs, and insurance availability; use of emotional advertising appeals; and use of patient testimonials were assessed. Two investigators independently coded advertisements using ATLAS.ti, and κ values ranged from 0.77 to 1.00.

RESULTS: A total of 102 cancer centers placed 409 unique clinical advertisements in top media markets in 2012. Advertisements promoted treatments (88%) more often than screening (18%) or supportive services (13%). Benefits of advertised therapies were described more often than risks (27% vs. 2%) but were rarely quantified (2%). Few advertisements mentioned coverage or costs (5%), and none mentioned specific insurance plans. Emotional appeals were frequent (85%), evoking hope for survival (61%), describing cancer treatment as a fight or battle (41%), and inducing fear (30%). Nearly one half of advertisements included patient testimonials, which were usually focused on survival, rarely included disclaimers (15%), and never described the results that a typical patient may expect.

LIMITATION: Internet advertisements were not included.

CONCLUSION: Clinical advertisements by cancer centers frequently promote cancer therapy with emotional appeals that evoke hope and fear while rarely providing information about risks, benefits, costs, or insurance availability. Further work is needed to understand how these advertisements influence patient understanding and expectations of benefit from cancer treatments.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between multiple pharmacy use and medication adherence and potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in older adults.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional propensity score-weighted analysis.

SETTING: 2009 claims data.

PARTICIPANTS: A nationally representative sample of 926,956 Medicare Part D beneficiaries aged 65 and older continuously enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare and Part D that year who filled one or more prescriptions at a community retail or mail order pharmacy.

MEASUREMENTS: Multiple pharmacy use was defined as concurrent (overlapping time periods) or sequential use (non-overlapping time periods) of ≥ 2 pharmacies in the year. Medication adherence was calculated using a proportion of days covered of 0.80 or greater for eight therapeutic categories (beta-blockers, renin angiotensin system antagonists, calcium channel blockers, statins, sulfonylureas, biguanides (metformin), thiazolidinediones, and dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors). Potential DDIs arising from use of certain drugs across a broad set of classes were defined as the concurrent filling of two interacting drugs.

RESULTS: Overall, 38.1% of the sample used multiple pharmacies. Those using multiple pharmacies (concurrently or sequentially) consistently had higher adjusted odds of nonadherence (ranging from 1.10 to 1.31, P < .001) across all chronic medication classes assessed after controlling for sociodemographic, health status, and access to care factors than single pharmacy users. The adjusted predicted probability of exposure to a DDI was also slightly higher for those using multiple pharmacies concurrently (3.6%) than for single pharmacy users (3.2%, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08-1.15) but lower in individuals using multiple pharmacies sequentially (2.8%, AOR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.81-0.91).

CONCLUSIONS: Filling prescriptions at multiple pharmacies was associated with lower medication adherence across multiple chronic medications and a small but statistically significant greater likelihood of DDIs in concurrent pharmacy users.

Based on evidence of an increased risk of death, drug agencies issued safety warnings about the use of second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in the elderly with dementia. The French agency issued a warning in 2004. which was extended to all antipsychotics in 2008. Little is known about the impact of these warnings on use. We conducted a quasi-experimental study (interrupted time-series) in France, for 2003-2011, including subjects aged ≥65 with dementia and subjects aged ≥65 without dementia in the EGB database (1/97th representative random sample of claims from the main Health Insurance scheme). Outcomes were monthly rates of use of antipsychotics (by class and agent) and of five comparison drug classes (antidepressants, benzodiazepines, dermatologicals, antidiabetics, antiasthmatics). Trends were analyzed by joinpoint regression, impact of warnings by linear segmented regression. In patients with dementia (n=7169), there was a 40% reduction in antipsychotic use from 14.2% in 2003 to 10.2% in 2011. The reduction began before 2004 and was unaffected by the warnings. Use of first generation antipsychotics declined over the period, while use of SGAs increased and leveled off from 2007. Use of the five comparison drug classes increased on the period. In subjects without dementia (n=91,942), rates of overall antipsychotic use decreased from 2.3% in 2003 to 1.8% in 2011 with no effect of the warnings. Meanwhile, use of SGAs continuously increased from 0.37% to 0.64%. Antipsychotic use decreased in the elderly between 2003 and 2011, especially in dementia. The timing of the decrease, however, did not coincide with safety warnings.