http://blog.pharmtech.com/2009/11/10/putting-the-%e2%80%9cfda-stamp%e2%80%9d-on-web-based-communication/ The blog of Pharmaceutical Technology magazine Thu, 09 May 2013 23:30:55 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://blog.pharmtech.com/2009/11/10/putting-the-%e2%80%9cfda-stamp%e2%80%9d-on-web-based-communication/comment-page-1/#comment-23917 Melody: Aseptic Filling Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:49:04 +0000 http://blog.pharmtech.com/?p=2080#comment-23917 Unfortunately, the quantity of available information both online and offline makes it very difficult for individuals to sort through it all. This is also complicated by the need of some to shop for an answer until they find one they accept. Regardless, I like the approach of offering a "seal of approval" to indicate that a particular information source has been judged to be dependable. Unfortunately, the quantity of available information both online and offline makes it very difficult for individuals to sort through it all. This is also complicated by the need of some to shop for an answer until they find one they accept. Regardless, I like the approach of offering a “seal of approval” to indicate that a particular information source has been judged to be dependable.

]]> http://blog.pharmtech.com/2009/11/10/putting-the-%e2%80%9cfda-stamp%e2%80%9d-on-web-based-communication/comment-page-1/#comment-23296 cliffintokyo Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:58:16 +0000 http://blog.pharmtech.com/?p=2080#comment-23296 PS: Pharma companies will need to convince consumers that they are providing truthful, accurate and non-misleading information about medicines on their websites. Big pharma image makeover will probably take a long time, so it is good to see that PhRMA seem to have at least recognized this issue by emphasizing (both Ken Johnson and Jeff Francer) that the product information provided needs to be 'official', i.e. FDA-regulated and on legitimate company-controlled websites. PS: Pharma companies will need to convince consumers that they are providing truthful, accurate and non-misleading information about medicines on their websites.
Big pharma image makeover will probably take a long time, so it is good to see that PhRMA seem to have at least recognized this issue by emphasizing (both Ken Johnson and Jeff Francer) that the product information provided needs to be ‘official’, i.e. FDA-regulated and on legitimate company-controlled websites.

]]> http://blog.pharmtech.com/2009/11/10/putting-the-%e2%80%9cfda-stamp%e2%80%9d-on-web-based-communication/comment-page-1/#comment-23172 cliffintokyo Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:41:50 +0000 http://blog.pharmtech.com/?p=2080#comment-23172 This is the most informative blog about the issues I have read so far. The statements from Ken Johnson and Jeff Francer at PhRMA quoted here seem to be level-headed and contain sensible suggestions. I imagine that most people now use the internet to search for symptoms of diseases and available treatments and then discuss their concerns and the information they have found on the web with their healthcare professionals. If people don't like the answers they get (or suspect that a doctor might be promoting the interests of a third party) many people would probably want to seek a second opinion. Providing separate information on the internet for patients and physicians, (some companies already do this), might be an issue. There is probably a good case for FDA having jurisdiction over both types of 'official' information. The problem of 'unofficial' information is a thorny issue indeed! It depends how cynical we are....for instance, the possibility of companies paying third parties (or employees using pseudonyms) to post positive comments and patient testimonials about their drug products....the possibility of lawyers paying people to post negative comments about drugs in order to encourage patients to report adverse events which could be used in malfeasance lawsuits......and what legal recourse we might want to have for anyone caught, which begs the question of course, who would police oversight, and how? This is the most informative blog about the issues I have read so far.
The statements from Ken Johnson and Jeff Francer at PhRMA quoted here seem to be level-headed and contain sensible suggestions.
I imagine that most people now use the internet to search for symptoms of diseases and available treatments and then discuss their concerns and the information they have found on the web with their healthcare professionals. If people don’t like the answers they get (or suspect that a doctor might be promoting the interests of a third party) many people would probably want to seek a second opinion.
Providing separate information on the internet for patients and physicians, (some companies already do this), might be an issue. There is probably a good case for FDA having jurisdiction over both types of ‘official’ information.
The problem of ‘unofficial’ information is a thorny issue indeed! It depends how cynical we are….for instance, the possibility of companies paying third parties (or employees using pseudonyms) to post positive comments and patient testimonials about their drug products….the possibility of lawyers paying people to post negative comments about drugs in order to encourage patients to report adverse events which could be used in malfeasance lawsuits……and what legal recourse we might want to have for anyone caught, which begs the question of course, who would police oversight, and how?

]]>