Ad for eyelash drug Latisse goes too far

The first time I saw this commercial for the eyelash-growing drug Latisse (bimatoprost) back in June, I almost wasn’t sure it was real. Sure, we’d blogged on Latisse several times since it received approval from the Food and Drug Administration in late 2008, mainly urging consumers to think hard before using it, given the cost and unsavory risks. But I still couldn’t quite believe the level of glam-infused over-the-topness the commercial imparted, making a powerful prescription drug that can cost more than $100 a month sound like just a really, really cool new makeup item (and featuring superstar Brooke Shields, no less). If I didn’t know better (and it wasn’t a Tuesday), I would have thought it was a Saturday Night Live skit, like this hilarious take on extended-cycle birth-control pills.

The Latisse commercial might portray it as the new big thing, but it’s not really new at all; it originated as Lumigan, a glaucoma medication approved in 2001 that, in a stroke of pure luck for its manufacturer, turned out to have the unusual side effect of lengthening, thickening, and darkening users’ eyelashes. Hence, a rebranding as the first FDA approved treatment for sparse or inadequate eyelashes, clinically known as hypotrichosis. A representative for Brooke Shields declined to say how long Brooke has suffered from the disease of eyelash inadequacy. But she did confirm that Brooke started using Latisse in February 2009, “after consulting with a doctor who determined she was an appropriate candidate for treatment with LATISSE,” and that she is still using it. If you’re good at math, you’ll know that adds up to around $800 worth of eyelash improvement and counting.

The fact that the Latisse commercial looks like an ad for makeup rather than a drug is only the beginning of what completely freaks me out about it. Somehow this single commercial and its print companions running in magazines like Allure manages to embody everything that’s wrong about direct-to-consumer drug advertising. Specifically:

Manufacturing need. Every drug we’ve profiled in our AdWatch project is appropriate for some people, including Latisse, and some are potentially lifesaving. What we take issue with is taking a legitimate medical condition and broadening its definition to the point where it could apply to almost anyone—often with a clever acronym like ED, PAD, or RLS to make it sound more common than it is. (We’re surprised Allergan, the maker of Latisse, hasn’t given a nickname to eyelash hypotrichosis, like Hy-Tri or something.)

New and lucrative uses for old drugs. How many people in the world have glaucoma? Okay, now how many have eyelashes? You can see where we’re going with this. Finding a large market for a drug spells gold for manufacturers. Cha-ching!

Drugs as lifestyle enhancers. Fewer periods, better eyelashes, sex whenever you want it: No question these are desirable outcomes for many people. But unlike other consumer products, like refrigerators or toasters, drugs have side effects—sometimes nasty ones. For some folks, it may be worth taking on those risks, even if it’s only for convenience or cosmetic purposes. But it doesn’t help that the ads tend to downplay potential dangers in favor of showing how happy you’d be if you just took the drug. And they rattle off serious side effects in voices so soothing and sweet you might miss the fact they’re talking about things like compulsive gambling and possible death.

Star power. Companies have long used famous people to hawk goods and services, and for good reason: Celebrities sell. But the use of big stars like Sally Field and Brooke Shields to sell prescription drugs raises a unique set of issues. Not only do drugs affect people’s health, but the ones you see advertised are generally the newest, most expensive drugs, and someone has to pay for them. Even if your insurance company covers that $100-plus-a-month vial of Latisse or $400-a-month supply of Abilify (aripiprazole), expensive or unnecessary drugs have the effect of driving up health-care costs for everyone.

As for Latisse, its flashy ad campaign has caught ire from at least one other group: the Food and Drug Administration, which in September warned Allergan that promotional materials on the drug’s Web site omitted or minimized certain risks. All the more reason to consider the cheaper nonprescription option we mention in our video. After all, Brooke got by all these years without Latisse. And she’s done OK, no?

—Jamie Kopf Hirsh, associate editor

Comments

[latisse]

does it for me

[minx]

i've been using latisse for almost 13 weeks now and i love my results. i am asian and unfortunately i wasn't blessed with any eyelahes. Now people are always complementing me on them. i'd recommend latisse anyday

[Shelcie]

I appreciate this blog post by Jamie Hirsh because many "lifestyle enhancing" drugs have come under fire recently and have been intensely watched by the FDA. Any prescription medication should be argued from the standpoint of safety because it is dealing with peoples' lives here. It's a shame that companies like Allergan do not properly inform consumers of the side effects of its product. In the end, its top priority should be the safety of its consumers.

For the women below who are arguing that Latisse has provided good results, this post is not saying that it is a bad product and that it doesn't work. What Hirsh is commenting on is the advertising methods used. The points that Hirsh brings up are valid (in my opinion) and women should be concerned about how they are being marketed to. Although this product may provide incredible results, the bigger issue is that Allergan is essentially lying to consumers by not clearly providing all the side effects of Latisse. This was proven by the FDA coming down on the company and issuing a warning.

[Jamie Kopf Hirsh]

Thanks for your comment, Steven. We chose the Lancôme Définicils to show in the video because it earned the top score in Consumer Reports' last mascara test, published in January 2009. You can see the full report at www.consumerreports.org/health/healthy-living/beauty-personal-care/cosmetics/mascara/overview/mascara-ov.htm.

[Steven Crackerman]

Jamie K., do you use Lancome, the mascara that was used as a prop in the video? I read the fine print there. Way to adverstise!

[marcia levy]

I have to think that the comments in favor of this product are written by drug reps or their family. I thank Ms Hirsh and Consumer Reports for providing us with the truth about drugs that are not always what they are advertised to be. Keep it up!

[Amy]

I hope to god that there is never a moment in my life where the only thing I can find room for improvement on is the thickness of my eyelashes. I know everyone has a sense of vanity, but the writers of the last two comments seem to be missing the point of this article. Or at least it feels like it. When I look ahead to any point in the future, I hope there is so much fun, adventure, and love still in my life to take that $200 (two bottles or one, I don't care) and put it to something more useful - a savings bond for a relative, dental care (not cosmetic, I'd rather be able to chew any food I want than worry about losing a crown or bridge in my caramel or whether my teeth will glow in the club), a new hobby, business venture, supporting a decent charity, buying a local pop warner team some new jerseys. But maybe, just maybe, that's just me. I hope I never become so bored or lonely or vain to think that the only thing wrong with me that I can fix is this ridiculous.

[Linda]

I agree with Elena. I am 62 and anything simple I can do to look and feel better I will do. My Latisse bottles have lasted 10 weeks each, with careful one drop application. Once you reach the 16 week every night application, you can go to 2 or 3 times a week for maintenance. I had very thin and sparse lashes, and they are blonde, and invisible. The results with Latisse have been amazing. And well worth the money. Wait until you are older and feel the need for this product, then criticize. I think you won't.

[Elena S.]

I watched your Latisse video made by a young woman who obviously has not yet suffered from having her eyelashes go from normal to thin due to plain simple aging. She was very flippant in her review of this product & misquoted the price also. Most doctors sell 2 bottles of Latisse for $199. Each bottle should last about 2-2 1/2 months...unless one sloppy about applying it rather than using it as directed. While the Latisse does come w/its own brushes I like many others do not use them b/c they are rough against my skin. I use a regular eyeliner brush that I wash after each use. Latisse has noticeably helped bring back my eyelashes. They are longer & thicker. Regardless of what anyone says this product works for most people. I for one am happy to continue to use it as long as I can. Thank you for letting me have my opinion on this product. Elena