Are targeted painkillers a waste of money?

I see it as important that people are aware that some over-the-counter medicines contain caffeine, but if drinking coffee, tea and some soft drinks can provide caffeine, then maybe that’s a better way of giving the customer the choice.

Good point Wavechange, a less expensive standard generic pill swallowed down with a cup of caffeinated whatever you prefer could save you quite a bit.

Still haven’t worked out how you manage to sleep after drinking caffeinated coffee though!

I hope that inclusion of caffeine in medicines does not encourage their use to obtain the stimulatory effect.

My coffee intake is a habit rather than an dependence. I’ve drunk decaffeinated coffee for a week and not really noticed much difference. I’m not going to lose sleep about why drinking it does not keep me awake. 🙂

This comment was removed at the request of the user

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Since the Advertising Standards Association is looking into complaints about Nurofen product marketing, there may be no need for further action by Which? Why not tell us if this is the case?

The ASA seems to do a good job, but companies are able to profit from false claims before being told to withdraw advertising.

Political issues need not be political if you adopt the approach that a task must be done irrespective of which party is in power. That’s my outlook.

What if research showed that there was a genuine placebo effect – that the same basic drug but sold as a target painkiller actually appeared to give better or quicker relief then the plain drug?
I remember seeing a program on tv (so it must be true) that rub-in painkillers like Voltarol sold as getting inside the body to the pain source do, in practice, do no such thing. Is there any evidence of their efficacy? If not should they not be withdrawn and their misleading (is it fraudulent) advertising banned?

The placebo effect is very well established and it is likely that users that believe in targeted products will find them more effective than exactly the same drugs that do not come with the claim. Nevertheless, it is ‘misleading advertising’ to suggest that pain relief can be targeted by an oral medicine.

Diclofenac is a more powerful non-steroidal anti-inflammatory than ibuprofen and is best avoided by many people, including those with stomach problems. Like many chemicals it will pass through the skin. I have long had my doubts how effective it would be to treat an arthritic knee, since the source of pain is well away from the skin. BNF states: “The evidence does not support the use of topical rubefacients in acute or chronic musculoskeletal pain.” There is no doubt that Voltarol gel and similar products offer topical treatment but the question here is whether they are effective. Unfortunately, it’s not a topic that Sense about Science has looked at.

“Nevertheless, it is ‘misleading advertising’ to suggest that pain relief can be targeted by an oral medicine.”. An interesting dilemma. If I believe a targeted drug helps my back ache – and if it does it better than the base drug – because of the way it is promoted is that bad? If, by banning the promotion, many people are no longer helped by the placebo effect, is that bad? I think I’d prefer to have my back ache helped. But do we put “principles” before outcome – does the end sometimes justify the means?

This comment was removed at the request of the user

The likely infringements would relate to ‘misleading advertising’ and (lack of) ‘substantiation’ in the refreshingly simple terminology used by the ASA. I see your point but I strongly believe that there is already far too much misrepresentation in advertising.

It’s an interesting question and I will see what friends in the medical profession have to say.

That’s a bit different, Duncan. I agree that your drug is targeted, and so is the salbutamol many of us use for asthma. What we are referring to here is exactly the same drug being marketed for various specific conditions. That’s very different.

Hi Wavechange,

Sorry for the delay in replying to your question. We hope that further legal action will not be necessary. Following the Australian ruling consumers have every right to expect that Reckitt Benckiser will do the right thing, not just in Australia but around the world.

Thanks Lauren, and Happy New Year.

I hope you are right that Reckitt Benckiser will take action worldwide and I look forward to the ‘targeted’ pain relief pills disappearing from the market. Unfortunately, RB will have profited considerably on these sales, which is why I believe it is essential to have claims scrutinised before adverts appear instead of responding to complaints.

Happy New Year to you too!

I guess we’ll have to sit tight and see what follows 🙂

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Duncan – This discussion is about the marketing of exactly the same product with packaging that suggests it targets a particular problem.

Whether brands and generic drugs are as effective is a different but related issue. Where a drug is out of patent and generic versions are available, the GP or hospital doctor will normally put the British Approved Name (generic name) on a prescription unless they wish to prescribe a particular brand. If you are having a problem with one brand I would expect a specialist or doctor to offer an alternative that does not cause side effects.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Our local GPs have notices up, and on their websites, informing patients that antibiotics are not effective against colds and flu. So I would be surprised if GPs responded to any pressure to prescribe them (but I can be surprised!).

As far as branded medicines go, like the rest of us GPs are in control, presumably, of how they respond to marketing pressures. If they are bribed into prescribing branded drugs when generic will do perfectly well then that is their responsibility. Maybe the NHS Trusts and the BMA could address the ethics of this? However I do understand that some branded treatments are better than the generic versions?

I am not condoning one drug being sold under different guises as targeting specific ailments but raised the question that if the expectation it would work actually helped the ailment (a placebo effect) we might shoot ourselves in the foot by removing that benefit (if it was shown to be a genuine effect). If there are three differently packaged versions of the same drug, aimed at different ailments, I wonder whether this really matters unless you have period pains, migraines and tension head aches at the same time and are tempted to buy all three versions. Each one, presumably, is effective on the ailment it is sold for?

There’s plenty of evidence of antibiotics being handed out to people with viral infections, and the leaflets you mention have been in use for years. It’s probably worth sticking to considering medicines on open sale since I don’t believe that ‘Nurofen’ in any of its forms sold for use by adults is available on an NHS prescription. A pharmacist could choose to dispense Nurofen if presented with a prescription for ibuprofen, but the price differential is sufficient to make this unlikely.

I see the targeted marketing of the same drugs for different purposes in the same way as a manufacturer selling the same washing machine under different brand names and different prices. It is deliberately misleading the consumer.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

“Trust me I’m a Pharmacist”………one post……….one comment………..been and gone wonder of the day
Yet another talk down to the common man statement…………….Patronised
Who the h*** knows how much pain the sufferer is in…………..
I have not passed much comment on this topic as I’d probably court disaster again but whilst I to date have had no problem with generic medicines unlike Duncan I have had my fill of 500 mg paracetamol that would not cure a fly’s version of my pains……………….When I was young I was given the same medicine twice after the first reaction but I was told it was “unlikely” to be Aspirin…………………I dont believe a b****y word of half these folks
It took a change of health center to a family of Doctors who know their people……………………And I’m not scrounger………………..I’ve done more work than some can dream about
Again I see in the post the “a little knowledge can be dangerous” that a once Doc of mine ran past me or it felt like over me or through me…………
I’d just had the symptoms of a heart attack,,,,,,,,,,,The blue’s and two’s had arrived in the middle of the night because my wife gave the 999 call all the symptoms and that was followed by endless ECGs and so forth………………
Not once during that did anyone suggest a severe panic attack…….not once
I spent the next 8 months recovering on my own without treatment of any kind……………..
I years later met that Doc……….once a high in the BMA about that time…………He said I was way too laid back to have had anxiety……………………Yes FACT……………Nice enough man but his knowledge had went to his head I think…………….
Most experts today will tell you depression is the curse of the strong as titled by Tim Cantopher and the Term The Black Dog was coined by Churchill so we know that outward appearances are usually the opposite of what is beneath…………..
Once I felt I could I got took up another job offer but had I known or had I been advised those years ago the next event years down the line might probably never have happened
So to all you experts out there…………….Just because Duncan or Dee didnt receive a University education does not mean we haven’t our heads screwed on……………….
Personally I have been patronised several times once such swell headed p****s found out my education background…………..It didnt matter that I had availed myself of the education or that it was obvious I knew more than them…………….In they’re eyes I didnt……………..
For people who read and then consider themselves to be able to advise against those with first hand knowledge is to be arrogant
For people with supposed education to suppose they know better or more than those with hands on experience should it be about a pain killer, diesel engine or an orbital sander is to be arrogant.

Those who are wealthy are quite often healthy
Those who are sad are quite often mad (angry)
Those who show empathy are quite full of sympathy
Those who postulate quite often capitulate
Those who are bullies are often unruly
Those who discriminate quite often manipulate
Those who ignore should be flat on the floor
Those who fire bullets,,,,,, they need to cool it.
Those who look down,,,,,upon others are clowns

We always,,,,,,,,,,,,come back to the clowns
DeeKay 2016

This comment was removed at the request of the user