Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
In the UK, GPs have been always advised to prescribed generics on medications (like pregabalin) rather than trade names (like lyrica). There are exceptions when there is a concern on the bioavailability of the product (like carbamazepine and lithium, to cite just two examples).
There are benefits to it, not just in cost, but in pharmacies having the choice of different providers to get the medication that could be limited if only one of the possible manufacturers of the drug is chosen.
Not all medications are prescribed according to current licences. It is argued that in those cases, the doctors are responsible, rather than the manufacturer on the effects of the prescribed drug. Sometimes it happens because anecdotal benefit has been seen outside the chemical remits and although perhaps some clinical evidence is around licences have not changed (there is a cost to it for a pharmaceutical company to change the licence), sometimes because licences do not cover for certain ages - particularly children.
The question this threat to litigation from Pfizer to doctors triggers to me is what if all doctors decide not to prescribe anything outside licence, anything not generic? Will it benefit the patients, will it benefit the NHS, and what about pharma itself?
Research is the basics of modern medicine. All protocols are based on clinical evidence, and knowledge is not just based on clinical trials but also on case studies, which themselves trigger new trials, new possibilities. If you look back in the history of medicine even some great findings have been the consequence of unexpected results and observations (viagra and penicillin for example).
Pharmaceutical companies have tried always ways to prevail in this changing environment, having different formulations, variations in chemicals, but arguing that a generic does not have the same effect as a trade-named product is a step too far.
The article does not clarify the main point here: there is a difference between off-label prescription and infringement of a patent. If a doctor prescribes a generic pregabaline for pain, they are prescribing off-label; this is not a crime but it has its consequences, potentially including the reimbursability of the medicine by the third payer (e.g. NHS in the UK). If the manufacturer of the generic tried to add the indication for pain, that would infringe the patent. Therefore the judgement is fair, as the company seems to have misinformed doctors and healthcare officials, but at the same time care should be taken by all doctors when prescribing off-label.
Re: Pfizer loses UK patent for blockbuster pain drug after threats to doctors. A step too far.
In the UK, GPs have been always advised to prescribed generics on medications (like pregabalin) rather than trade names (like lyrica). There are exceptions when there is a concern on the bioavailability of the product (like carbamazepine and lithium, to cite just two examples).
There are benefits to it, not just in cost, but in pharmacies having the choice of different providers to get the medication that could be limited if only one of the possible manufacturers of the drug is chosen.
Not all medications are prescribed according to current licences. It is argued that in those cases, the doctors are responsible, rather than the manufacturer on the effects of the prescribed drug. Sometimes it happens because anecdotal benefit has been seen outside the chemical remits and although perhaps some clinical evidence is around licences have not changed (there is a cost to it for a pharmaceutical company to change the licence), sometimes because licences do not cover for certain ages - particularly children.
The question this threat to litigation from Pfizer to doctors triggers to me is what if all doctors decide not to prescribe anything outside licence, anything not generic? Will it benefit the patients, will it benefit the NHS, and what about pharma itself?
Research is the basics of modern medicine. All protocols are based on clinical evidence, and knowledge is not just based on clinical trials but also on case studies, which themselves trigger new trials, new possibilities. If you look back in the history of medicine even some great findings have been the consequence of unexpected results and observations (viagra and penicillin for example).
Pharmaceutical companies have tried always ways to prevail in this changing environment, having different formulations, variations in chemicals, but arguing that a generic does not have the same effect as a trade-named product is a step too far.
Competing interests: No competing interests