Virtualy all people have a bad oppinion of generics.
Can I ask, are your bad experiences limited to generic analgesics, or have you had (for examply) infections that didnt go away after using a generic antibiotic, ulcers that didnt heal after using generic Zantac?
Honestly, I don't have a bad opinion of generics. No bad experiences. Was delighted when Prilosec came out with generic, and the price club version is working just fine. Antibiotics, fine, psych drugs, fine, OTC benadryl, fine.
I know you're asking for bad stories, but I just want to give you some balance.
Actualy, i have never had a problem with generics here in Australia, but I was the only person who didnt dislike them on the other thread.
I have sort of noticed that it is drugs with subjective effects (analgesics, tranquilisers) that people claim the brand is better, not usualy antibiotics or laxatives or cholesterol lowering pills
That is because my pain meds allow me to get out of bed and function. Its more crucial to pain patients.. Ask any of us... If Im getting -20 in my laxatives [if I would ever get a prescription laxative] it wouldnt affect me as pain as my pain meds would. I honestly think they scrimp on narcotic generics big time. Thats where the money is...
Sure, I understand that Izzy (although, thank god, i have never experienced it)
Given the incredibly premiums charged for brand names, and the fact that isuarance (in the US) or the national health schem (here in Australia) isnt going to accept that, would it make more sense to prescribe a slightly higher dose of an inexpensive generic than pay a 400% premium for the brand?
Izzys mom... th examply of a laxative was stupid, and facetious, I appologise, it sounded like I was beliteling people.
Can i use the example of an antibiotic, say in a person with a seriious infection like pneumpnia..... would they have more chance of dying if they were treated with Amoxyycilli Capsules instead of brandname Amoxil?
Generics are fine when they are your "baseline"....i.e. you've always used them for your particular condition, and don't cross over to different companies.
Conversely, generics are an issue when one has previously used the brand....Or your condition is life threatening. I wouldn't use generic BP meds, heart meds, or chemo. Just too much @ stake.
In my particular case, the generic fentanyl patches don't stick nearly as well, and because they have 20% less active ingredient, I must rely on my BT meds more often. In general, I don't feel nearly as well...Which is a BIG issue. I've even noticed issues patch to patch, which I don't with the brand.
For my allergy meds, I use generics and don't notice any issues. I guess if it's 20% less antihistimine and decongestant, it's not that big of a deal. Also, the binding agents aren't critical.
One last example....I have a friend who is pregnant and her Doc instructed her to pay the premium co-pay for her brand prenatal vitamins. He told her there are absorption problems with the generics.
In summary, I think a lot of these issues with brands vs generics are dependent of the "class" of drugs as well as the purpose/reason for taking them. In many cases, generics are perfectly acceptable.
Can anybody provide a link to where it is stipulated that generics can contain 20% less drug than stated on the label, as i cant find any reference to it anywhere.
We aren't allowed to post links. However, as stated in the first post, the legislation that permits the 20% variation is the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1999. A simple search will yield lots of useful information.
As i read it, they arnt allowed to contain 20% less active... the standard applied to drugs is the same regardless of the manufacturer.
The 20% comes from the fact that blood levals and AUC have to be +/- 20% of thoe produced by the originator.
I don't mean to disagree, but they are permitted 20% less of both inactive and active ingredients. I have done a lot of research on the topic, including spoken to several pharm. reps, and it is indeed 20%.
you could get 20% more relief with a generic.
Possibly.....As I stated in my OP. However, very unlikely. The whole purpose of the Hatch Waxman act is price control. Manufacturers aren't going to willingly put more cost into a product unless there are some absorption issues.
In Australia, the tolorance is +/- 10%
Much better than the U.S., that's for sure.
Just as any fyi, if you search for the original thread back in May, you'll see a post by someone who was taking 10Mg of methadone I think....She sent it off to have it analyzedm and it came back as 8.1mg....19% difference.