FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 356:2236-2239 May 31, 2007 Number 22 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear PubMed Citation

In 2004, the discovery that Vioxx (rofecoxib) was a risky drug put direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising in the spotlight. The image of Dorothy Hamill lacing up her skates and gliding over the ice despite her osteoarthritis offered a disturbing contrast to the public realization that millions of patients who were lured by the ad into taking Vioxx were risking stroke or myocardial infarction. Now, 3 years later, legislation that — if it is not amended, as some legislators want — would allow the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to block direct-to-consumer ad campaigns for new drugs has been introduced in Congress . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Source Information

Dr. Shuchman is a national correspondent for the Journal.

This article (10.1056/NEJMp078080) was published at www.nejm.org on May 2, 2007.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Law, M. R, Majumdar, S. R, Soumerai, S. B (2008). Effect of illicit direct to consumer advertising on use of etanercept, mometasone, and tegaserod in Canada: controlled longitudinal study. BMJ 337: a1055-a1055 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Magrini, N., Font, M. (2007). Direct to consumer advertising of drugs in Europe. BMJ 335: 526-526 [Full Text]