NEW RITALIN AD BLITZ MAKES PARENTS JUMPY

More Families And Legislators Are Revolting Against The Push To Consume
Antihyperactivity Medications

In Sheila Matthews' view, it was a heartening event for the back-to-school
season: the signing of a law in Connecticut that she and others hope will
relieve the growing pressure on parents to put their kids on drugs to
control attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The New Canaan
homemaker helped gather support for the bill and was understandably proud
to be in the Governor's office last week for the ceremony.

But she and her fellow lobbyists for the legislation, most of them parents,
also got a surprise kick in the teeth.

Picking up the September issues of a number of women's and parenting
magazines, they saw the very first ads promoting these same medications.
Considered Schedule II controlled substances by the Drug Enforcement
Administration, they are among the most addictive and abused drugs that are
still legal.

Says Patricia Weathers, a Millbrook, N.Y., mother pushing for a law like
Connecticut's: "It seems like every time we take a step forward, they come
back and hit us harder."

Connecticut's law is the first to bar school officials from recommending
psychotropic drugs for kids on the theory that such matters should be left
to families and their doctors.

The law comes on the heels of legislation enacted by Minnesota earlier this
year preventing schools from forcing parents to medicate ADHD children.

Utah and New Jersey have similar bills pending, and lawmakers in many other
states have shown interest in such action.

But the legislative trend is at odds with a new--and
unprecedented--marketing push by the makers of ADHD drugs.

Until now, drugmakers have heeded a 30-year-old international treaty meant
to discourage consumer advertising of psychotropic substances. No more. In
one ad, drugmaker Celltech shows a smiling boy and his mom with the
message: "One dose covers his ADHD for the whole school day," plus the
drug's name, Metadate CD. The ad is running in a dozen magazines, including
Ladies' Home Journal, which has two more ADHD drug ads in the same
issue--from Shire Pharmaceuticals (maker of Adderall) and McNeil Consumer
HealthCare (Concerta). These ads don't name any medications, but they do
give toll-free numbers for more information. McNeil also has a similar ad
on cable TV.

In light of what appears to be an epidemic of ADHD-some 3 million U.S.
youngsters are believed to be afflicted with it and related behavior
problems--pharmaceutical companies are locked in a fierce battle for what
will soon be a $1 billion-a-year market for drugs treating the problem.

New prescriptions for ADHD treatments have gone up more than 38% over the
past five years, with 20 million prescriptions written in the past year. No
longer do Ritalin and its generic knockoffs rule. Now there are more than
half a dozen treatments, some of which last a whole school day, sparing
kids the stigma of lining up at the nurse's office.

Last year pharmaceutical manufacturers spent $2.5 billion marketing drugs
of all kinds to consumers.

A spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers
Association says such ads "empower" patients by informing them of treatment
options.

But, as doctors will tell you, they are a double-edged sword because they
drive up demand for drugs.

And that's particularly dicey in the case of drugs like those used for
ADHD, which the DEA puts in the same category with morphine, cocaine,
Demerol and Oxycontin.

Alarmed as it is by the trend, the government's hands may be tied. Under a
1971 United Nations convention, signatory nations agreed to prohibit the
advertisement of psychotropic substances to the public.

But the U.S. never passed such a law. So when the DEA recently complained
to Celltech about its ad, it could only express strong concern--not
threaten legal action.

The Food and Drug Administration is also handcuffed. Most of the ADHD ads
are not within its jurisdiction because they neither name the drug nor
describe it. (Exception: Celltech's ad for Metadate CD, which the FDA is
reviewing.) And even if they were, says FDA official Nancy Ostrove, the
agency doesn't have the authority "to treat advertisements for controlled
substances any differently" from those for other drugs.

As for the drug companies, they insist their ads "are within the letter and
spirit of all laws," in the words of a spokesman for McNeil.

Clarke Ross, head of Children and Adults with
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, funded in part by the drugmakers,
agrees that the ads promote "public awareness of the existence of ADHD."
But he thinks many families would prefer advertisers simply to discuss the
condition and suggest drugs as part of a multipronged approach.

Certainly Sheila Matthews (who uses her maiden name to protect her son's
privacy) does not believe medication is the answer--or even in ADHD's
validity. Two years ago, school officials said her son fit an ADHD profile
and warned that "if I didn't medicate him, he would self-medicate
later"--meaning he would use drugs illegally.

Instead, speech and language tutoring solved the problem.

That's why she's so pleased by the new law. But in case she had forgotten
what she was up against, she was reminded at last Thursday's signing.

A researcher lobbying for funding to test his new ADHD treatment technique
was also there--as well as a representative from Novartis, the maker of
Ritalin.