Volume 188 - Issue 11

Misleading advertising of PI-based drug information?*

Author:  Jim R Stockigt

Med J Aust 2008; 188 (11): 679-680. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01839.x
Published online: 2 June 2008

* It should be noted that the question mark in the title was added at the Editor's discretion.

To the Editor: Why are those who market officially sanctioned information about pharmaceutical products not constrained by the advertising standards imposed on those who sell these products? Medicines Australia, which formulates a code of conduct for the pharmaceutical industry, imposes penalties, both financial and withdrawal of offending material, against misleading advertising of pharmaceutical products1,2 Why are similar standards not applied to advertising of information about these products?

There are well documented flaws in Australian drug information sources,2,3 such as MIMS (the Monthly Index of Medical Specialties), that are based on product information (PI) authorised by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Some PI is decades out of date;2 bottlenecks in updating TGA-approved PI are apparent.4

In this light, advertising of PI-based information in the bimonthly MIMS summaries seems anomalous. The April–May 2008 bimonthly print edition of MIMS claims to present “100% pure knowledge”, and states that “you can count on MIMS being up-to-the-minute”, and that “MIMS is essential knowledge that Australian health professionals can trust”. Previous bimonthly MIMS summaries make similar assertions.

Until PI can be brought to an acceptable professional standard — a task that may be slow4 — it would seem appropriate to rein in misleading claims about PI widely used by health workers. Medicines Australia, or the National Prescribing Service, a government-funded body committed to “quality use of medicines”, could lead this initiative.


Author


References