Should Brand Names for Drugs Be Banned?

I had an interesting conversation with Terence Young of Canada's Drug Safety Canada organization, and he floated an interesting idea: He believes that drug brand names should be banned, internationally, and all drugs should be known by only by their single generic name.

Mainly, he argued, it's a safety issue: There shouldn't be any confusion over the drugs that doctors and patients are taking and prescribing. He cited three well-known examples:

+ Wellbutrin for depression and Zyban for smoking (both GSK), which are both the same drug.

+  Propulsid and Prepulsid, a now removed J&J drug that was marketed under different names in the US and Canada (disclosure: Young's daughter died after taking Prepulsid).

+ And Thalidomide, originally marketed for morning sickness, which was removed years ago from the market because it caused birth defects. Now it's being researched for multiple myeloma patients, and it's back on the market as an "analogue", Revlimid.

Having the same drug marketed with different names in different countries or for different indications increases the chances of confusion, overdose, and side effects, Young argues.

He has a point.

But let's suppose for a minute that this actually came to pass ... wouldn't it be the case that drug companies would simply give their generic chemicals more attractive sounding names? For instance, Pfizer would probably have asked that torcetrapib be called "Cetrapib," or something. Not great, but OK, right?

Well, it turns out that most generic names are controlled by the nomenclature of the generic class they're in, the method of action, and various drug committees like USAN and WHO.

So even though Young's proposal will never come to pass in the US -- PhRMA would likely forbid the Senate to do it -- it is actually feasible.

Comments

[Prescription Access Litigation]

Let's not forget about another two-name drug -- Prozac (fluoxetine) for depression is also available in pink (no kidding) as Sarafem for "premenstrual dysphoric disorder," a "disease" widely considered to be a prime example of disease mongering.

No doubt pharma and its defenders would decry any limits on the names of drugs as violative of free speech.

Maybe instead generic makers should be allowed to give their products flashy names? Perhaps more people would use the dirt-cheap and very effective antihypertensive diuretics, instead of the expensive Calcium Channel Blockers if, instead of "hydrochlorothiazide" it was called "Calmadex" or "Pressure-down" or something like that.