- Cf George
- Professor of clinical pharmacology University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 7PX
Confusion over international differences may put patients at risk
The prescribing, supply, and consumption of medicines are common occurrences. In 1994 over 300 million prescriptions were issued in Britain. The drugs involved were referred to either by their proprietary or approved names. Proprietary names are often catchy and easy to remember, and their biological activity is consistent, as opposed to certain generics, for which considerable biological non-equivalence has been shown.1 However, using proprietary names has disadvantages. Firstly, most of them give little idea of the nature of the active ingredients, especially in the case of compound preparations. Secondly, proprietary names encourage illogical prescribing: products whose names begin with the letters in the first half of the alphabet are prescribed significantly more often than those from the latter half. A third problem is the fact that there is little or no international consistency among proprietary names.
By contrast, although the approved name may be more difficult to remember and complex to write, it often reveals the therapeutic category from which the drug is drawn. The approved name can indicate that a drug has more than one active ingredient, and use of generic drugs can lead …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Emergency admissions for diabetes fall by almost 7% in integrated care pilot scheme
Published 24 May 2012
Re: Television shows and education about sexually transmitted infections: no laughing matter
Published 24 May 2012
Re: The scatter of research: cross sectional comparison of randomised trials and systematic reviews across specialties
Published 24 May 2012
Re: Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study
Published 24 May 2012
Reply to Anne Szarewski and Diana Mansour
Published 24 May 2012
Most responses
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (8 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27