Promotion and Prescribing of Hormone Therapy After Report of Harm by the Women’s Health Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Little is known about how the pharmaceutical industry responds to evidence of harm associated with its products, such as the publication in July 2002 of the Women's Health Initiative Estrogen Plus Progestin Trial (WHI E+P) report demonstrating that standard-dose Prempro produced significant harm and lacked net benefits. OBJECTIVE: To examine pharmaceutical industry response to the WHI E+P results by analyzing promotional expenditures for hormone therapy before and after July 2002. DESIGN AND SETTING: Nationally representative and prospectively collected longitudinal data (January 2001 through December 2003) on prescribing and promotion of hormone therapies were obtained from IMS Health and Consumer Media Reports. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Trends in quarterly prescriptions for hormone therapy and expenditures on 5 modes of drug promotion: samples, office-based detailing, hospital-based promotion, journal advertisements, and direct-to-consumer advertising. RESULTS: Prior to the WHI E+P report, prescribing rates and promotional spending for hormone therapy were stable. In the quarter before the WHI E+P report (April-June 2002), 22.4 million prescriptions for hormone therapy were dispensed and 71 million dollars was spent on promotion (in annual terms, 350 dollars per year per US physician). Within 9 months of the report's publication (quarter 1 of 2003), there was a 32% decrease in hormone therapy prescriptions, and a nadir had been reached for promotional spending (37% decrease compared with pre-WHI E+P levels). Spending decreased for all promotional activities and most hormone therapies. Overall, the greatest declines were for samples (36% decrease as of quarter 1 of 2003) and direct-to-consumer advertising (100% decrease). The greatest declines in promotion occurred for standard-dose Prempro (61% decrease as of quarter 1 of 2003), the agent implicated by the WHI E+P report. More recently, promotional efforts have increased, particularly for lower-dose Prempro, a resurgence associated with modestly increased prescriptions for this newer agent. CONCLUSIONS: Concordant with its widespread use, hormone therapy was among the most heavily promoted medications prior to the WHI E+P report. Following reporting of the evidence of harm from this trial, there was a substantial decline in promotional spending for hormone therapy, particularly for the agents most directly implicated in the trial. Interrelated with the impact of the trial results themselves and the ensuing media coverage, reduced promotion may have contributed to a substantial decline in hormone therapy prescriptions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".