Impact of direct-to-consumer drug advertising during the Super Bowl on drug utilization.
Advertising
Policy
Prescribing
Prescription Drugs
Utilization
Journal
Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP
ISSN: 1934-8150
Titre abrégé: Res Social Adm Pharm
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101231974
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
received:
14
08
2019
revised:
04
11
2019
accepted:
06
12
2019
pubmed:
23
12
2019
medline:
29
7
2021
entrez:
23
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs impacts patients' requests for medications, and clinician prescribing. However, the impact of DTCA during the Super Bowl has not been previously described. Evaluate the impact of prescription drug DTCA during the Super Bowl on drug utilization using 2014-2016 Medicare data. Efinaconazole was advertised during Super Bowls XLIX (02/01/2015) and L (02/07/2016). The number of prescriptions for efinaconazole and for a comparator drug, tavaborole, were calculated in 31-day intervals from July 2014-December 2016. Interrupted time-series analysis models were created to test changes in trends of prescriptions for efinaconazole and tavaborole. Following Super Bowl XLIX, the number of prescriptions per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries increased by 91% for efinaconazole, and 275% for tavaborole. After Super Bowl L, the number of prescriptions increased significantly for efinaconazole (p-value<0.001), but not for tavaborole (p = 0.70). Interrupted time-series analyses estimated that, in the absence of DTCA during Super Bowl XLIX, prescriptions for efinaconazole would have increased by 40%, instead of the observed 91%. For tavaborole, prescriptions would have increased by 90% instead of 275%. DTCA during the Super Bowl resulted in sharp increases in utilization of the prescription drug advertised, which supports further regulation of DTCA.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs impacts patients' requests for medications, and clinician prescribing. However, the impact of DTCA during the Super Bowl has not been previously described.
OBJECTIVE
Evaluate the impact of prescription drug DTCA during the Super Bowl on drug utilization using 2014-2016 Medicare data.
METHODS
Efinaconazole was advertised during Super Bowls XLIX (02/01/2015) and L (02/07/2016). The number of prescriptions for efinaconazole and for a comparator drug, tavaborole, were calculated in 31-day intervals from July 2014-December 2016. Interrupted time-series analysis models were created to test changes in trends of prescriptions for efinaconazole and tavaborole.
RESULTS
Following Super Bowl XLIX, the number of prescriptions per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries increased by 91% for efinaconazole, and 275% for tavaborole. After Super Bowl L, the number of prescriptions increased significantly for efinaconazole (p-value<0.001), but not for tavaborole (p = 0.70). Interrupted time-series analyses estimated that, in the absence of DTCA during Super Bowl XLIX, prescriptions for efinaconazole would have increased by 40%, instead of the observed 91%. For tavaborole, prescriptions would have increased by 90% instead of 275%.
CONCLUSIONS
DTCA during the Super Bowl resulted in sharp increases in utilization of the prescription drug advertised, which supports further regulation of DTCA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31864886
pii: S1551-7411(19)30777-6
doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.12.006
pmc: PMC6939613
mid: NIHMS1547232
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Prescription Drugs
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1136-1139Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : K01 HL142847
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest Chester Good is a current employee of the Insurance Services Division, UPMC Health Plan. Gray, San-Juan-Rodriguez, Chen and Hernandez have nothing to disclose.
Références
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Jan;176(1):237-240
pubmed: 27293087
Milbank Q. 2006;84(4):659-99
pubmed: 17096638
JAMA. 2019 Jan 1;321(1):80-96
pubmed: 30620375
N Engl J Med. 2007 Aug 16;357(7):673-81
pubmed: 17699817
Clin Ther. 2006 Dec;28(12):2105-18; discussion 2104
pubmed: 17296467
Ann Fam Med. 2018 May;16(3):211-216
pubmed: 29760024
J Am Board Fam Pract. 2003 Nov-Dec;16(6):513-24
pubmed: 14963078
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Jul 1;192(1):40-6
pubmed: 25879303
Med Care. 2017 Aug;55(8):759-764
pubmed: 28598891
Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Aug;14(4):246-50
pubmed: 16076787
Cancer. 2013 Mar 1;119(5):1065-72
pubmed: 23132702
J Health Econ. 2012 Sep;31(5):705-18
pubmed: 22835472
Med Care Res Rev. 2005 Oct;62(5):544-59
pubmed: 16177457
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Apr;80(4):853-867
pubmed: 29959962
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2014 Sep;41(5):545-7
pubmed: 25158659
JAMA. 2005 Apr 27;293(16):1995-2002
pubmed: 15855433
J Health Commun. 2019;24(5):503-511
pubmed: 31033396
Patient Educ Couns. 2014 May;95(2):271-80
pubmed: 24581929
Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 May;18(5):1180-7
pubmed: 26385926
J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Apr;30(4):514-20
pubmed: 25338730
Crit Care Res Pract. 2013;2013:479730
pubmed: 23573420