Advertisement

Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 683–687 | Cite as

Information provided by generic and brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers in response to a request

  • Fernando Fernandez-LlimosEmail author
  • Isabel Vazquez Gomez
Research Article

Abstract

Aim

To assess the medical information provided by manufacturers in response to a specific request, and to compare the responses between generic and brand-name companies.

Setting

Community pharmacy in Spain.

Method

A systematic request for product monographs was made between 1999 and 2002 to manufacturers registering new medicines in Spain. A standardised letter was sent to the medical affairs departments. If there was no reply after 3 months, a second standardised letter was sent requesting the monograph. Blood derivatives, intravenous medicines, and radiological contrast agents were excluded.

Main outcome measures

The delay that occurred in receiving information and the type of material sent in response to the request was compared between the two types of companies.

Results

About of 833 medicines from 185 manufacturers were registered during the time period studied. After applying exclusion criteria, 805 medicines, including 419 (52.0%) generic and 386 (48.0%) brand-name products, were analyzed. No replies were received for 242 (30.0%) requests 183 (43.7%) generics and 59 (15.3%) brand-names; P < 0.005). We received 369 (65.5% of 533) replies after the first request: 140 of 236 (59.3%) generics and 229 of 327 (70.0%) brand-names (P = 0.009). The average response delay was 9.7 days [CI95%: 8.65–10.68]. There was a statistically significant difference between generic and brand-name companies after the first request (P = 0.001), but not after the second request (P = 0.312).

Conclusion

Brand-name manufacturers reply more often, more quickly, and with better quality information than generic manufacturers.

Keywords

Drug Information Services Generic drugs Branded drugs Pharmaceutical Industry Spain 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the staff of International Science Editing, Shannon, Ireland, for their editorial assistance.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest that could have biased the results or conclusions. The authors have attended courses and lectures funded by the pharmaceutical industry, both generic and brand-name companies.

Funding

No external funding was received for this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Avorn J, Soumerai SB. Improving drug-therapy decisions through educational outreach. A randomized controlled trial of academically based “detailing”. N Engl J Med 1983;308(24):1457–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anonymous. Talking about drug treatments-who should say what to whom? the second DTB symposium. Drug Ther Bull 1994;32(5):35–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Health and Public Policy Committee, American College of Physicians. Improving medical education in therapeutics. Ann Intern Med 1988;108(1):145–7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, Fields KK, Bennett CL, Adams JR, Kuderer NM, Lyman GH. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet 2000;356(9230):635–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liberati A, Magrini N. Information from drug companies and opinion leaders. BMJ 2003;326(7400):1156–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prosser H, Almond S, Walley T. Influences on GPs’ decision to prescribe new drugs-the importance of who says what. Fam Pract 2003;20(1):61–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    World Health Organization. Conference of Experts on the Rational Use of Drugs. Nairobi, Kenya; 1985. p. 25–29 November.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cardarelli R, Licciardone JC, Taylor LG. A cross-sectional evidence-based review of pharmaceutical promotional marketing brochures and their underlying studies: is what they tell us important and true?. BMC Fam Pract 2006;7:13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cooper RJ, Schriger DL. The availability of references and the sponsorship of original research cited in pharmaceutical advertisements. CMAJ 2005;172(4):487–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Council Directive 83/570/EEC of 26 October 1983 amending Directives 65/65/EEC, 75/318/EEC and 75/319/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products. Official Journal L 332, 28/11/1983 p. 1–10.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fernandez-Llimos F, Loza MI. Product monographs supplied by drug manufacturers to community pharmacists in Spain. Ann Pharmacother 2000;34(3):407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Castillo Perez P. [Pharmacological information and the drug industry. The role of its medical departments]. Med Clin (Barc) 1987;89(7):288–95.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Council Directive 92/28/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the advertising of medicinal products for human use. Official Journal L 113 of 30.4.1992, p. 13.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products. Official Journal L 147 of 9.6.1975.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keng A, Coley RM. Evaluating the accuracy of citations in drug promotional brochures. Ann Pharmacother 1994;28(11):1231–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vazquez Gomez I, Fernandez-Llimos F, Gastelurrutia MA. Response of the pharmaceutical industry to a specific consultation. Aten Primaria 2005; 35(4): 219–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fernando Fernandez-Llimos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Isabel Vazquez Gomez
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Social Pharmacy, Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Center for Pharmaceutical Research and PublishingRedondela (Po)Spain

Personalised recommendations