Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search
|
This article |
| · EPS |
Branded prescribingPatient safety or industry pay day?From Mr A. Dickman, MRPharmS I understand William
Horsley’s concerns about motives behind the
call for brand prescribing (PJ, 11 March, p293) but through the mist
of this cynical world, I hope he can see that it is the patient that
will benefit from such a recommendation. There is a price difference
between some of the leading brands of strong opioids to others, but the
cost of a serious error far outweighs this. In his letter, Mr Horsley
implies that a call for branded prescribing by the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society’s Practice Committee and those members who advise it, could
be due to the influence of the larger pharmaceutical companies that manufacture
the recognised brands of strong opioids. Branded prescribing of strong
opioids is being recommended as a simple, yet effective method of ensuring
a prescriber’s intentions for this class of drug are clear, thereby
avoiding a potentially fatal outcome. It is for patient safety, not for
the pharmaceutical industry, that branded prescribing is being called.
Once a patient has been stabilised on a particular brand of strong opioid,
it is recommended that this treatment is continued, whether it is with
a recognised product, or a newer generic version. Mr Horsley assumes
that the recognised brands will be prescribed over the others. I argue
that this will not be the case. Indeed, in my own locality, the recommended
modified-release morphine product throughout the primary care trust and
hospital is not the so-called brand leader. Andrew Dickman 1. Tong R. The epistemology and ethics of consensus: uses and misuses of “ethical” expertise. J Med Philosophy 1991;16:409–26. |
|
Send your letter to The
Editor |
Previous Topic (Fixed dose
combination medicinal products) |