Do generic drugs work?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I've had the flu, actual proper doctor diagnosed flu, that knocked me down for a week and i have have chest infections. the symptoms are very different. about the only thing they have in common is a high temperature.

Symptoms vary from person to person. A patient comes in complaining of a sore throat, serious fever that comes and goes, lethargy, a cough that won't settle and feels like burning in their chest. "Does it produce anything?". "Yeah, I suppose".

Could easily be either a 'flu or a chest infection. Sometimes will be easier than others to tell. And if the patient decides that they want a prescription, they'll attend the GP and rattle off the symptoms that they know will work.

animaal wrote: »

Can doctors prescribe placebos?

The short answer is no, doctors cannot misinform a patient about what they're prescribing. So you cannot tell a patient that you're prescribing antibiotics and give a prescription for sugar pills. Some doctors do, but it's risky, it could get you disciplined or struck off. The patient has a basic right to be fully informed, which unfortunately means blind placebos are out.

However, doctors will prescribe what are called "dirty" placebos - the patient is fully informed about what's being prescribed, but the doctor is pretty sure they will not be effective for the condition. The most common one being antibiotics as an anti-viral, but prescription pain killers are often used too.

There is a body of evidence suggesting that placebos can be effective even when the patient knows they're placebos. The act of intervention itself appears to be an important factor. This would give scope for a doctor to prescribe sugar pills and tell the patient that's what they're doing. The working theory I believe is that patients feel better because the doctor is so confident that they're not dying and don't need treatment.

knipex wrote: »

2050 !!! You wish

Talk to any intensive care doctor or nurse. Its already started. People die every day due to antibiotic resistant infections. Pan resistant infections were being reported in the journals 5 \ 6 years ago. They don't even make headlines any more. 8 years ago they were resorting to bring back antibiotics that were banned in the 60's and 70's due to toxicity.

This^^^^^^

I went to see my Doctor with Tonsillitis last August.He said that even nasty infections like that are "self limiting" and the bodys immune system would take care of it in 7-10 days
He gave me a prescription but advised me to wait another 1-2 days before commencing the course as it would only shorten the attack by approximately 24-48 hrs anyway
Is it our desire for the quick fix that causes us to rush to the pharmacy???

ArrBee wrote: »

My personal experience is that medicines that are supposed to be the same, can and do perform differently in a patient. for me the question has never been generic vs patent holder but generic vs other generic.
The vast difference in result from seemingly "exact identical" products would have me believe there can be a difference for any medicine between brands.

Note: this does not mean generic is inferior

As i said earlier generic does not mean exactly identical. It just means they have the same active ingredient. Other stuff like fillers and the release mechanism can be different which is why some generics will work better for you than others.

knipex wrote: »

Not only do they work but they save patients and the healthcare system a fortune.

Generic medicines are copies of branded medicines who's patents have expired and are manufactured to the same standards as branded medicines.

That is true for antibiotics, beta blockers, proton pump inhibitors, as well as aspirin, paracetamol and Ibuprofen.

For a very very small minority of patients some of the "non active" ingredients, (fillers, bulkers, coloring etc) on some brands may cause side effects not experienced when using other brands using different non active ingredients but that's not a generic v's branded issue.

Excellent summary. Add to that chemo therapy and even recent high tech immunology meds.

Dial Hard wrote: »

Regression to the mean. They should genuinely teach about it in school.




This is a genuine question about which I've always been curious (but not enough to ask elsewhere, clearly): how does your body "know" what the full course is??? How does it "know" whether you've finished it, stopped a day early or just forgot to take the last dose of a three-times-a-day course???

Your body doesn't know, the bacteria do. if you dont kill all of them off with the antibiotic the ones that remain will be resistant. That is the conventional wisdom. there is some very recent research that suggests this is not completely true but for the moment the conventional wisdom still holds sway.

Martina1991 wrote: »

Augmentin is a broad spectrum antibiotic. It's usually given as a "one size fits all".

If a patient had a swab, phlegm or urine sample taken, the bacteria causing the infection would be identified and then a more suitable antibiotic should be prescribed.

The over-reliance of augmentin means that bacteria can adapt to it, develop ways to resist it and become more difficult to treat.

The primary issue with this is time to get lab results and lab capacity. Plus people just wont wait.

murpho999 wrote: »

You do realse it's a regulated industry and generics have to be the exact same as the originals.

It's not like a brand v supermarket own brand.

No they don’t have to be the exact same and in most cases they are not. The active ingredient must align to a specification and the manufacturer must meet certain standards but the active ingredient is generally a minor component of the overall formulation (for example a tablet or inhaler). The bioavailability of the active can vary dramatically pending on how it was formulated and how it is delivered into the body. Formulation will be an area where the bluechip pharmas will have a significant edge on the generics. The impact of formulation is very dependent on the type of treatment.

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Generic drugs are patented drugs the patent on which has expired. All drugs have a exclusive manufactures life span to make it worth the R&D in the first place.

That's it.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has fallen for the "if it's cheaper it must be worse" scam which has kept many products prices artificially high.

The government's attitude to ex-patented drugs is a scandal costing hundreds of millions a year every year.

Yes, and surprised more ppl are not aware of this.

- so in a way generic medicine is just "old" enough medicine that can be produced/sold as generic.

Assuming the drug patent is a 20 years deal for the original owner; if the product doesn't get withdrawn within the time frame, and becomes generic, can it mean there is more certainty that this drug is effective ?

- but since we have planned obsolescence in pharma also ...so often old means its not innovative enough

Danzy wrote: »

No difference bar label.

There is, sometimes generics are more effective, sometimes less, sometimes the same

Doesn't really matter if it's only a bit of a cold you have

Matters a bit if a lot of effort has gone into getting a tricky thing just right - like say epilepsy meds

Hence you have ye olde "Do not substitute" on some prescriptions

Generic drugs are like yellow pack corn flakes.

Similar to the real thing but lower quality.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

this is not true

Trust him, he's a Doctor.

Then look at his created threads, maybe not :pac:

Dr Brown wrote: »

Generic drugs are like yellow pack corn flakes.

Similar to the real thing but lower quality.

Absolutely and quantifiably not true.

Dr Brown wrote: »

Generic drugs are like yellow pack corn flakes.

Similar to the real thing but lower quality.

This is absolute rubbish.

The drugs are regulated and have to comply with standards.

They are the exact same.