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.
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.
Authors: B Djulbegovic; M Lacevic; A Cantor; K K Fields; C L Bennett; J R Adams; N M Kuderer; G H Lyman Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-08-19 Impact factor: 79.321