Drug samples in dermatology: Special considerations and recommendations for the future

Accepted 9 July 2009. published online 22 February 2010.

Refers to article:

Individual drug sampling does not supplant the need for head-to-head trials in dermatology , 22 February 2010
Jack S. Resneck, Marta VanBeek
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
June 2010 (Vol. 62, Issue 6, Pages 1062-1063)
Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (60 KB)

Background

The use of drug samples is a controversial issue in medicine.

Objective

We sought to determine the pros and cons of drug sampling, and how drug sampling in general medicine differs from dermatology.

Methods

Literature searches were conducted on PubMed, Google, and Yahoo!. Articles were found pertaining to drug sampling in general, and for dermatology specifically.

Results

Numerous pros and cons for drug sampling were found in the literature search. We divided these by cost-related issues, such as the industry-wide cost of sampling and the use of sampling to assist the underinsured and poor, and quality of care issues, such as adherence, patient education, and safety considerations. Articles also suggested that dermatology may differ from general medicine as topical treatments have fewer side effects, are more complicated to use, and come in different vehicles.

Limitations

We identified few studies specifically focused on issues relevant to sampling in dermatology.

Conclusion

There are strong arguments for and against drug sampling involving both cost and quality of care issues. Dermatology-specific medications clearly differ from oral medications in several regards. We ultimately conclude that the benefits of drug sampling outweigh the risks, but give recommendations on how drug sampling can be done ethically and effectively, including limiting personal use, not selling samples, properly documenting sample release, teaching patients about proper use, teaching students and residents ethical use of samples, working with pharmaceutical representatives in an ethical manner, prescribing the drug that is best for the patient, and securing samples appropriately to prevent theft and misuse.

See related commentary on page 1062

Key words: drugs, industry, pharmaceuticals, samples, sampling

Abbreviations used: AMA, American Medical Association, CMI, consumer medical insert, MeSH, Medical Subject Headings, PhRMA, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing Association

a University of California at Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, California

b Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, Ohio

c Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio

d University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York

e Department of Dermatology, Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Reprint requests: Ali Alikhan, MD, 3605 Paseo Primario, Calabasas, CA 91302.

The first two authors contributed equally to the article.

Funding sources: None.

Disclosure: Dr Brodell has received research, speaking, and/or consulting support from Allergan, Janssen, Pfizer, Novartis, Squib, Galderma, 3M/Graceway, Sirius, Medicis, Amgen, Dusa, UpJohn, Connetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Dermik, Genentech, CollagGenex, Pedinol, Stiefel, Aventis, Doak, and OrthoNeutrogena; he dispenses drug samples in his practice. Dr Feldman has received research, speaking, and/or consulting support from Abbott, Amgen, Arcutis, Astellas, Aventis, Caremark, Centocor, Doak, Galderma, Genentech, Kikakua, Merck, Merz, National Biological Corp, Novartis, Peplin, Photomedex, Skin Medica, Stiefel, Suncare Research, and Warner Chilcott; The Center for Dermatology Research at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center is funded by a grant from Galderma Laboratories LP; he dispenses drug samples in his practice. Dr Alikhan and Ms Sockolov have no conflicts of interest to declare.

PII: S0190-9622(09)01353-X

doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2009.07.053

32 of 60