tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post698352876565253036..comments2024-03-29T06:53:23.405+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Evergreen or nevergreen: that is the questionVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-34507947639784911952010-09-02T18:57:32.393+01:002010-09-02T18:57:32.393+01:00"Firstly, if a patient or doctor has more con..."Firstly, if a patient or doctor has more confidence in products bearing a trade mark that he knows, that confidence represents the brand's added value."<br /><br />I guess the question is are the Docs being confused into prescribing the argenine salt when they intended to prescribe the erbumine salt? <br /><br />If so, where does control over the mark to transition the brand end and misleading the consumer begin?James Wagnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02409399188953903135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-69643999991386859032010-09-02T12:23:15.579+01:002010-09-02T12:23:15.579+01:00I find the argument of "evergreening" a ...I find the argument of "evergreening" a trade mark, of all things, quite odd. <br /><br />Trade marks, when marketed properly, create customer loyalty in every sector. Once it has been established, the proprietor will seek to maintain -or evergreen, if you will- that loyalty. <br /><br />I find it hard to see what's so different in the pharmaceutical sector. Patients and doctors not properly researching whether a generic alternative is available? <br /><br />Finally, a word regarding the argument that "no higher benefit to the patient" is obtained at a higher cost. Firstly, if a patient or doctor has more confidence in products bearing a trade mark that he knows, that confidence represents the brand's added value. Secondly and even considering no added value is created, the same again holds true in other sectors. Smell-alike perfumes are abundant on the market. Yet, some people remain willing to pay excessive prices for the corresponding luxury perfume. What's the difference?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-54020408726461036582010-09-02T07:41:17.215+01:002010-09-02T07:41:17.215+01:00Very interesting posting today. I usually prefer t...Very interesting posting today. I usually prefer to purchase generics over the name brand, but, like many consumers, I too have fallen prey to marketting and though logically know that their is no chemical difference between my favourite trademarked cold remedy and the generic store brand equivalent, for some items I still prefer to buy the branded version. Thus for some consumers it is not a matter of whether or not the patent has expired and consequently the products are the same, but rather a sense of security or trust you have with the products of the former patent holding manufacturer.<br /><br />That being said, not all generics are true equivalents (many patients have drastic lab value differences when switching from Coumadin (tm) to warfarin (generic. And our health care providers most be ever diligent to know when a generic is perhaps not appropriate for a given patient, hence the use of DAW on prescriptions (dispense as written).Jennifer Keplernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-86954168729681166312010-09-02T07:33:56.304+01:002010-09-02T07:33:56.304+01:00There is another important issue here. Sometimes t...There is another important issue here. Sometimes the same drug is formulated differently by a generics company once the patent expires on the drug compound itself. In addition to effects on stability to storage, differences in galenic formulation and between the various salts may well affect the pharmacological profile of the drug as well.<br /><br />Consequently, it is not uncommon for patients moving from a previously patented drug to the generic version after patent expiry, to find that the same molar dose of the same drug has different therapeutic efficacy and a different side effect profile. This derives from the different galenic formulations employed by the originator company and the generics company. There is also a psychological element, in the sense that the patient is given a different box with a different name, however, this can be eliminated by double-blind trials to test the different effects of the different formulations.<br /><br />Indeed the galenic formulations may also be subject to separate patent rights with a later expiry date than the patent on the original drug and not necessarily belonging to the same company.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-60204582323683790402010-09-02T01:42:13.753+01:002010-09-02T01:42:13.753+01:00Some references for info/data in my previous comme...Some references for info/data in my previous comment:<br /><br />Servier Laboratories, <a href="http://www.psa.org.au/site.php?id=1047" rel="nofollow">New COVERSYL Formulation</a>, 3 July 2006.<br /><br />Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, <a href="http://www.psa.org.au/site.php?id=799" rel="nofollow">Coversyl reformulation generates confusion</a>, 25 October 2006.<br /><br />Search results for <a href="http://www.pbs.gov.au/html/healthpro/search/results?term=perindopril&scope=PBS+STATIC&form-type=simple" rel="nofollow">PERINDOPRIL</a> in the current Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157794228297387928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3975395882727781002010-09-02T01:33:16.260+01:002010-09-02T01:33:16.260+01:00I cannot let the Australian reference pass without...I cannot let the Australian reference pass without comment!<br /><br />There has been no "work carried out by the Australian government". In fact, the bioequivalency of the erbumine and argenine salts was demonstrated by LLS itself, which facilitated the approval and listing of the new formulation for use in Australia.<br /><br />The prices are the same again because of voluntary action by LLS. Had LLS wanted to charge more for the new COVERSYL it could have done so, but the government would then presumably not have agreed to subsidise it under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) when there were cheaper generic alternatives available.<br /><br />Whether this reflects "robustness" of the Australian system is no doubt a matter for debate.<br /><br />I am unaware of any reason to suppose that the claims of improved shelf-life for the arginine salt are untrue, and indeed I can only assume that the allegedly "evergreening" patent would not have been granted without empirical evidence of this fact. <br /><br />Certainly in the Australian context improved longetivity in "extreme" conditions is a genuine advantage. Indeed, it might even have justified a slightly higher price per unit, considering the potential savings in transport and storage.<br /><br />By way of comparison, Australian consumers can expect to pay up to $17.63 (£10.85) for 30 Coversyl 2.5mg or generic Perindropril 2mg; up to $23.04 (£14.19) for 30 generic Perindropril 4mg (I could not find a listing for Coversyl 5mg, so it may not be available here); and up to $29.24 (£18.00) for 30 Coversyl 10mg (no generic equivalent listed in this dosage).<br /><br />These are PBS-subsidised prices, so the Australian taxpayer is also contributing. It therefore seems that whichever brand you choose, the British consumer is doing better than the Australian, despite our allegedly "robust" system.<br /><br />Swings and roundabouts, perhaps?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157794228297387928noreply@blogger.com