Coordinators

Other Contributors

About Us

www.clpblog.org

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen's Consumer Justice Project, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Intervention by Non-Class-Member Objectors | Main | Libor: a new penalty, against a backdrop of business as usual »

Monday, December 17, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b7a769e2017d3edaed6f970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Study: Generic Drug Label Warnings Are Often Different From the Brand-Name Labels on Which They Are (Supposedly) Based:

Comments

Louise


Most of the difficulties reside in the terminology: Bioequivalent does not mean identical. It simply means that although the drug formula may have been changed, perhaps to keep costs down or to simplify manufacturing, the initial activity of the proprietary product must be preserved. Nevertheless, the requirement from the FDA may not mention the degree to which such activity must be preserved. Doing that would require the generic company to perform a protocol of tests which would bring back the generic product to the level of the initial one in research costs and possibly lose its “generic” label in the process.
That is why many patients complain that a generic drug does not work as well as the proprietary one or that it causes new adverse side-effects.
On the other side of the issue, lets us consider what might happen if, in the process of amending an original drug composition, a generic drug company discovers that its own new protocol has unexpectedly removed some of the original adverse side-effects. Can this company modify its warning label accordingly or does it need FDA approval to do so? In this second option, it would then be required to take its “generic modified” drug through a series of clinical trials for FDA approval. This would defeat the purpose of making a generic drug.
It seems that only way out is for the FDA to compel generic drug manufacturers to adhere to the original formula without any variation, thus keeping the ADR and the warning label constant. Any other variation would need to be re-assessed in its own merit.
N.B.[Streamlining between State laws and Federal laws would be greatly appreciated also.]

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

November 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30