Publications

BACKGROUND

Physician-directed pharmaceutical advertising is regulated in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); adherence to current FDA guidelines is unknown. Our objective was to determine adherence rates of physician-directed print advertisements in biomedical journals to FDA guidelines and describe content important for safe prescribing.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Cross-sectional analysis of November 2008 pharmaceutical advertisements within top U.S.-based biomedical journals publishing original research. We excluded advertisements for devices, over the counter medications, and disease awareness. We utilized FDA guideline items identifying unique forms of advertisement bias to categorize advertisements as adherent to FDA guidelines, possibly non-adherent to at least 1 item, or non-adherent to at least 1 item. We also evaluated advertisement content important for safe prescribing, including benefit quantification, risk information and verifiable references. All advertisements were evaluated by 2 or more investigators, with differences resolved by discussion. Twelve journals met inclusion criteria. Nine contained pharmaceutical advertisements, including 192 advertisements for 82 unique products; median 2 per product (range 1-14). Six "teaser" advertisements presented only drug names, leaving 83 full unique advertisements. Fifteen advertisements (18.1%) adhered to all FDA guidelines, 41 (49.4%) were non-adherent with at least one form of FDA-described bias, and 27 (32.5%) were possibly non-adherent due to incomplete information. Content important for safe prescribing was often incomplete; 57.8% of advertisements did not quantify serious risks, 48.2% lacked verifiable references and 28.9% failed to present adequate efficacy quantification. Study limitations included its focus on advertisements from a single month, the subjectivity of FDA guidelines themselves, and the necessary subjectivity of determinations of adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Few physician-directed print pharmaceutical advertisements adhere to all FDA guidelines; over half fail to quantify serious risks. The FDA could better protect public health by creating new more objective advertisement guidelines requiring transparent presentation of basic safety and efficacy information.

BACKGROUND

Cystatin C has been proposed as an alternative marker of kidney function among HIV-infected persons in whom serum creatinine is affected by extrarenal factors.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we compared estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) using serum creatinine versus cystatin C between 150 HIV-uninfected and 783 HIV-infected men. We evaluated the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD; eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m) and examined the influence of extrarenal factors on GFR estimates among HIV-infected men.

RESULTS

Estimated GFRSCR was similar by HIV serostatus, but eGFRCYSC was lower in HIV-infected men. A higher proportion of HIV-infected men were classified as having CKD when using eGFRCYSC versus eGFRSCR (7% vs 5%, P < 0.01). In HIV-infected individuals without CKD, eGFRSCR was higher than eGFRCYSC, whereas it was lower than eGFRCYSC in persons with CKD. In HIV-infected men, older age, proteinuria, and prior clinical AIDS were inversely associated with both GFR estimates. Higher serum albumin levels and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use were associated with lower eGFRSCR. HIV viral load, hepatitis C coinfection, and serum alkaline phosphatase were inversely associated with eGFRCYSC.

CONCLUSION

Among HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected men of similar social risk behaviors, GFR estimates differed by biomarker and kidney function level. Estimated GFRCYSC classified a larger proportion of HIV-infected men with CKD compared with eGFRSCR. Differences between these GFR-estimating methods may be the result of the effects of extrarenal factors on serum creatinine and cystatin C. Until GFR-estimating equations are validated among HIV-infected individuals, current GFR estimates based on these biomarkers should be interpreted with care in this patient population.