The image of a healthcare professional endorsing over-the-counter (OTC) remedies is a common sight, and Salonpas Pain Relief Patches are no exception. However, claims made in advertising, such as Salonpas being “proven stronger or more effective against pain” than other OTC options including Voltaren, have faced scrutiny. This has led some to wonder: Why Was Salonpas Discontinued? It’s important to clarify that Salonpas was not discontinued. Instead, advertising claims made by Salonpas were challenged, leading to recommendations for modifications. This article delves into the details of this challenge and what it means for consumers seeking pain relief.
The NAD Challenge: Setting the Record Straight on Salonpas Claims
The National Advertising Division (NAD), a body that reviews advertising claims in the U.S., recently examined advertising for Salonpas Pain Relief Patches following a challenge from GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare L.P. (GSK), the makers of Voltaren Arthritis Pain gel. GSK contested claims suggesting Salonpas was as strong or stronger than other OTC pain relievers, particularly Voltaren.
GSK argued that consumers would reasonably expect Salonpas to have robust clinical data to support such “parity” claims, especially when compared to a product like Voltaren, which is specifically indicated for arthritis pain. GSK further suggested consumers might believe Salonpas had been tested specifically on arthritis patients, given the comparison to Voltaren.
However, the clinical evidence provided by Hisamitsu, the makers of Salonpas, was limited to a study on acute muscle strain. NAD agreed with GSK’s challenge, finding that the advertising claims were not adequately supported and recommended that Hisamitsu discontinue them. This decision highlights the rigorous standards advertising claims for OTC drugs are held to, particularly when making comparative efficacy statements.
Unpacking the Misleading Claims: What Did Salonpas Advertise?
NAD specifically addressed several claims made in Salonpas advertising, finding them to be unsupported or misleading:
- “No OTC pain reliever has been proven stronger”: NAD found this claim, suggesting superiority over all other OTC pain relievers, was not substantiated by clinical evidence. The muscle strain study did not prove Salonpas’s comparative effectiveness against the broader range of OTC pain relievers or in different pain conditions.
- “Only pain reliever labeled to relieve mild to tougher, moderate pain” and “strongest labeled OTC topical pain reliever”: These claims were also challenged. NAD pointed out that while Salonpas is indicated for mild to moderate aches and pains, Voltaren Arthritis Pain is specifically labeled for arthritis pain relief without such limitations and has extensive clinical backing for this use. The implication that Salonpas was uniquely positioned in pain relief strength was deemed misleading.
- Claims of fast onset of action for arthritis pain: Salonpas advertising suggested rapid pain relief for arthritis sufferers, implying relief within one hour and clinically meaningful relief within the first day. NAD determined that the muscle strain study, while valid for its specific context, did not demonstrate the onset of pain relief for individuals suffering from arthritis. Therefore, projecting these onset of action findings to arthritis pain was considered misleading.
- Implied faster relief than Voltaren for arthritis pain: Claims that suggested Salonpas provided faster relief of arthritis pain compared to Voltaren were also unsupported by clinical data. NAD emphasized that there was no evidence to back up the idea that Salonpas had been shown to provide quicker relief for arthritis pain than Voltaren.
NAD clarified that the FDA approval of Salonpas was based on its efficacy for the specific indications on its label – mild to moderate aches and pains. This approval did not constitute an evaluation of its comparative effectiveness against Voltaren, which has a different and more specific FDA approval as an arthritis pain treatment. The mere fact that both products might address “arthritis” in some context does not equate to FDA endorsement of their equivalence in treating arthritis pain.
Key Takeaways: What This Means for Consumers and Advertising
The NAD’s recommendations regarding Salonpas advertising offer important insights for both consumers and advertisers:
- Evidence is Key for Efficacy Claims: Advertisers claiming their OTC product is as effective or more effective than competitors must have robust clinical evidence to back up these claims. General indications or approvals are not sufficient to claim comparative efficacy. Head-to-head clinical testing in the relevant patient population is expected by NAD.
- Specific Indications Matter: It’s crucial for consumers to understand the specific conditions an OTC drug is approved and tested for. A study on muscle strain does not automatically translate to proven effectiveness for arthritis or other types of pain. Advertising must accurately reflect the supported uses of a product.
- No Discontinuation, Just Claim Modification: Again, it’s important to reiterate that Salonpas was not discontinued as a result of this challenge. The outcome was a recommendation to modify advertising claims to be more accurate and evidence-based. Consumers can still find Salonpas products available for their labeled uses.
The NAD’s scrutiny of Salonpas’s advertising highlights the importance of truth and accuracy in marketing, particularly within the healthcare sector. While Salonpas remains available, this case serves as a reminder for consumers to critically evaluate advertising claims and for companies to ensure their marketing is supported by solid scientific evidence and accurately reflects product capabilities.
