How do doctors learn about the drugs they prescribe? It’s an important question, but one without a straightforward answer. For doctors like me—who have been in practice for more than a few years—the information we learned in medical school may have already been replaced by something new. We find ourselves prescribing drugs we’ve never heard of before. How do we know whether they work? And whom do we trust to give us this information?
I started to think about this question as I wrote my recent post on Nuedexta, a new drug for the treatment of pseudobulbar affect. I knew nothing about the drug, so I had to do some research. One of my internet searches led me to an active discussion on a site called studentdoctor.net (SDN). SDN is a website for medical students, residents, and other medical professionals, and it features objective discussions of interesting cases, new medications, and career issues. There, I found a thread devoted to Nuedexta; this thread contained several posts by someone calling himself “Doogie Howser”—and he seemed to have a lot of detailed information about this brand-new drug.
Further internet sleuthing led me to a message board on Yahoo Finance for Avanir Pharmaceuticals, the company which makes Nuedexta. In one of the threads on this board, it was suggested that the “Doogie Howser” posts were actually written by someone I’ll call “TS.” Judging by the other posts by this person, “TS” clearly owns stock in Avanir. While “TS” never admitted to writing the SDN posts, there was much gloating that someone had been able to post pro-Nuedexta information on a healthcare website in a manner that sounded authoritative.
Within 24 hours of posting my article, someone posted a link to my article on the same Yahoo Finance website. I received several hundred “hits” directly from that link. Simultaneously (and ever since), I’ve received numerous comments on that article, some of which include detailed information about Nuedexta, reminiscent of the posts written by “Doogie Howser.” Others appear to be written by “satisfied patients” taking this drug. But I’m skeptical. I don’t know whether these were actual patients or Avanir investors (or employees); the IP address of one of the pro-Nuedexta commenters was registered to a public-relations firm in Arizona. Nevertheless, I have kept the majority of the posts on the blog, except those that contained personal attacks (and yes, I received those, too).
The interesting thing is, nothing “TS”/”Doogie Howser” said about Nuedexta was factually incorrect. And most of the posts I received were not “wrong” either (although they have been opinionated and one-sided). But that’s precisely what concerns me. The information was convincing, even though—if my hunch is correct—the comments were written for the sake of establishing market share, not for the sake of improving patient care.
The more worrisome issue is this: access to information seems to be lopsided. Industry analysts (and even everyday investors) can have an extremely sophisticated understanding of new drugs on the market, more sophisticated, at times, than many physicians. And they can use this sophistication to their advantage. Some financial websites and investor publications can read like medical journals. Apparently, money is a good motivator to obtain such information and use it convincingly. Quality patient outcomes? Not so much.
So what about the doctor who doesn’t have this information but must decide whether to prescribe a new medication? Well, there are a few objective, unbiased sources of information about new drugs (The Medical Letter and The Carlat Report among them). Doctors can also ask manufacturers for the Prescribing Information (“PI”) or do their own due diligence to learn about new treatments. But they often don’t have the time to do this, and other resources (like the internet) are far more accessible.
However, they’re more accessible for everyone. When the balance of information about new treatments is tipped in favor of drug manufacturers, salespeople, and investors—all of whom have financial gain as their top priority—and not in favor of doctors and patients (whose lives may be at stake), an interesting “battle of wits” is bound to ensue. When people talk a good game, and sound very much like they know what they’re talking about, their motives must always be questioned. Unfortunately—and especially under the anonymity of the internet—those motives can sometimes be hard to determine. In response, we clinicians must be even more critical and objective, and not necessarily believe everything we hear.