Use Of Generic Names Research Articles

Trade names or approved names. Part 1. The situation Substitution: right or wrong?

Summary Drug economy has always been and will continue to be important for hospitals. Substitution, as an aid to economy, requires reappraisal in the light of our developing knowledge of formulation and resultant bio-availability. The continued unqualified use of generic names in teaching and prescribing requires re-examination as a part of the problem and this highlights the need for better communication between medicine and pharmacy.

Prescription Change: Methyldopa for Levodopa

To the Editor.— In his letter (222:210, 1972), Dr. Engelman describes instances where the use of generic names had led to errors in filling prescriptions, and he suggests that the use of a brand name might be advantageous. There is another safeguard that can be very helpful in preventing errors. I refer to including the intended purpose of the drug in the labeled instructions. Had the directions read: tab 1 qid for blood pressure, the pharmacist would certainly have recognized that methyldopa was intended, not levodopa. This is an added advantage of the procedure, the primary purpose being to better identify the drug to the patient. The system is equally applicable in prescribing brand name drugs, which are also often confusingly similar.

Generic Terminology and the Cost of Drugs

In recent years, a great deal of interest has arisen in belief of some that by using generic terminology in all prescription writing, a distinct saving in the cost of drugs to patients will result. In several Senate hearings and in the public utterances by the various legislators and union executives, it is obvious that they, as well as many of the lay public and some physicians, feel that use of generic names for prescription drugs will lead to a distinct lowering in the price of drugs to the patient. Because of the wide interest in this problem, we will attempt to provide various views and some thoughts on issues involved from the viewpoints of the general public, a member of a state legislature, physicians, and pharmacists. <h3>The Public's View</h3> Drug prices are of great concern to the general public in view of the fact that every citizen, whether ill

Generic vs. Trade Names

To the Editor:— In recent years the growing controversy over generic versus trade names has focused attention, directly or indirectly, on the practicing pharmacist. The strong wishes of the pharmaceutical industry to use trade names rather than generic names has resulted in curtailing an important function of the pharmacist, who by training and education is logically suited to make decisions about the value of a drug product. Much criticism of the use of generic names is based on the supposition that the patient will suffer, since inferior or substandard dosage forms will be given. The implication is, of course, quite clear. The pharmacist does not have the background or the ability to make a decision about a drug product whereas the physician has. I believe it is well recognized by both medical practitioners and pharmacists that, in many instances, the physician knows less about the drug products than the pharmacist,

GENERIC NAMES AND TRADE NAMES

To the Editor:— The editorial, What's in a Name?, which appeared inThe Journal, Aug. 6, page 1580, recommending wider use of generic names, contains a number of interesting facts but omits mention of some rather important considerations. The trade name of a drug represents a very substantial contribution of time and effort given to chemical, pharmacological, and clinical research. The owner of that trade name, in his own self-interest, must protect that investment by rigid quality controls, so that every tablet or teaspoonful will have exactly the same ingredients, the same physical characteristics, and, therefore, the same pharmacological action as every other tablet or teaspoonful. In contrast, many purveyors of drugs under generic names are under no such compulsion, since they sell mainly to those who want something just as good—only cheaper. The physician who purchases an automobile, an air conditioner, a shirt, or even a pack of cigarettes

Correction

I AM indebted to Eugene S. McCartney for calling attention to an error in my article on "The use of generic names as common nouns," SCIENCE, Vol. 96, p. 252. " Pelomyxa carolinensis ," line 13, should be omitted, for "carolinensis" is not a noun in the genitive case, but an adjective in the nominative case.

CORRECTION

I AM indebted to Eugene S. McCartney for calling attention to an error in my article on "The use of generic names as common nouns," SCIENCE, Vol. 96, p. 252. "Pelomyxa carolinensis," line 13, should be omitted, for "carolinensis" is not a noun in the genitive case, but an adjective in the nominative case.

An Endorsement of the Use of Generic Names as Common Nouns

An Endorsement of the Use of Generic Names as Common Nouns

The Use of Generic Names as Common Nouns

The Use of Generic Names as Common Nouns

The Use of Generic Names as Common Nouns

The Use of Generic Names as Common Nouns

LV. On the right use of generic names in natural history; according to the opinions of MM. Curvier and DeCandolle

LV. <i>On the right use of generic names in natural history; according to the opinions of</i> MM. Curvier <i>and</i> DeCandolle