What's new? Isomers, metabolites and prodrugs, oh my!

A. Vandenberg
{"title":"What's new? Isomers, metabolites and prodrugs, oh my!","authors":"A. Vandenberg","doi":"10.9740/MHC.N186960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The terms racemic mixtures, single isomers, prodrugs, active metabolites, extended-release mechanisms were once remembered as the topics of early pharmacy school curriculum. Now they are often the source of confusion for practitioners and, sometimes, big money for manufacturers. Since 2011, nearly ten percent of the top 100 medications by sales were “new and improved” versions of previously released products with 4-5% being revised psychotropics. Since these “new” products are released as brand name agents under patent protection, they are often priced much higher than their predecessors. Clinical evidence is limited to approval trials – a handful of placebo-controlled and/or active-controlled efficacy studies. Rarely, if ever, are the new agents compared head-to-head with predecessor products. Clinicians are faced with marketing claims that, while true statements (e.g., “The starting dose is the proven effective dose”), may not have data to support clinical impact (i.e., differences in response or remission rates). In a time of financial strain for the healthcare system as a whole, the high cost of these new agents can be a hard pill to swallow. Evaluation of clinical utility must include efficacy, safety and cost as with any new medication. As head-to-head trials are extremely rare with these “new” medications, evidence-based comparisons may be limited to pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of products. It is also important to use clinical common sense to compare new agents to their predecessors.","PeriodicalId":18691,"journal":{"name":"Mental Health Clinician","volume":"23 1","pages":"1-1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental Health Clinician","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9740/MHC.N186960","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The terms racemic mixtures, single isomers, prodrugs, active metabolites, extended-release mechanisms were once remembered as the topics of early pharmacy school curriculum. Now they are often the source of confusion for practitioners and, sometimes, big money for manufacturers. Since 2011, nearly ten percent of the top 100 medications by sales were “new and improved” versions of previously released products with 4-5% being revised psychotropics. Since these “new” products are released as brand name agents under patent protection, they are often priced much higher than their predecessors. Clinical evidence is limited to approval trials – a handful of placebo-controlled and/or active-controlled efficacy studies. Rarely, if ever, are the new agents compared head-to-head with predecessor products. Clinicians are faced with marketing claims that, while true statements (e.g., “The starting dose is the proven effective dose”), may not have data to support clinical impact (i.e., differences in response or remission rates). In a time of financial strain for the healthcare system as a whole, the high cost of these new agents can be a hard pill to swallow. Evaluation of clinical utility must include efficacy, safety and cost as with any new medication. As head-to-head trials are extremely rare with these “new” medications, evidence-based comparisons may be limited to pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of products. It is also important to use clinical common sense to compare new agents to their predecessors.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有什么新鲜事吗?同分异构体,代谢物和前药,天哪!
外消旋混合物、单异构体、前药、活性代谢物、缓释机制等术语曾经是早期药学学校课程的主题。现在,它们经常让从业者感到困惑,有时还会给制造商带来大笔收入。自2011年以来,销售额排名前100的药物中,近10%是以前发布的产品的“新版本和改进”版本,其中4-5%是修订的精神药物。由于这些“新”产品是在专利保护下以品牌名义发布的,它们的价格往往比以前的产品高得多。临床证据仅限于批准试验——少数安慰剂对照和/或主动对照疗效研究。很少,如果有的话,将新产品与旧产品进行正面比较。临床医生面临的营销声明,虽然真实的陈述(例如,“起始剂量是被证明有效的剂量”),可能没有数据支持临床影响(即反应率或缓解率的差异)。在整个医疗保健系统财政紧张的时候,这些新药的高成本可能是一颗难以下咽的药丸。临床效用评估必须包括疗效,安全性和成本与任何新的药物。由于这些“新”药物的正面试验极为罕见,基于证据的比较可能仅限于产品的药代动力学和药效学特性。用临床常识来比较新药和之前的药物也很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pharmacologic treatment of bipolar disorder and comorbid adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder Training student pharmacists to administer long-acting injectable medications AAPP 2024 Annual Meeting Poster Abstracts Clozapine clinical toolkit optimizes inpatient clozapine monitoring Evidence and clinical considerations for the use of serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for the treatment of painful neuropathy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1