作为药品信息来源的制药商与电话查询的比较:仿制药与品牌药。

J A Generali, L Hogan
{"title":"作为药品信息来源的制药商与电话查询的比较:仿制药与品牌药。","authors":"J A Generali,&nbsp;L Hogan","doi":"10.1177/009286158301700308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A telephone survey was conducted to evaluate and compare drug information received from the pharmaceutical manufacturer in response to a drug interaction question concerning concurrent administration of tetracycline and cimetidine. This study assumes that the pharmaceutical company may often be consulted by the hospital pharmacist seeking information about a particular medication. Forty-five pharmaceutical companies, all marketing tetracycline products, were selected for the study. A conversation protocol was utilized. It was designed to assure consistency and evaluate information received for accuracy, response time, clinical judgement offered, and referrals. Forty pharmaceutical manufacturers responded: 18 brand manufacturers and 22 generic companies. Eleven companies provided information on the interaction identified. Five manufacturers stated that there were no contraindications to concurrent administration of the drugs, one company identified a similar interaction, and five manufacturers successfully provided information identifying the interaction with supportive documentation. Two of the five companies offered clinical judgement as to the clinical significance of the interaction. Both reached different conclusions. The mean time of all phone calls was 4.29 minutes (range 0.39 to 15.41 minutes). The investigator was referred to outside sources by twelve companies. In this study, brand manufacturers performed better than generic companies. Results indicate that few manufacturers are organized to answer drug information requests involving current information sources in a response to a telephone request.</p>","PeriodicalId":51023,"journal":{"name":"Drug Information Journal","volume":"17 3","pages":"195-204"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1983-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/009286158301700308","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of pharmaceutical manufacturers as a source of drug information to a telephone inquiry: generic vs brand.\",\"authors\":\"J A Generali,&nbsp;L Hogan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/009286158301700308\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A telephone survey was conducted to evaluate and compare drug information received from the pharmaceutical manufacturer in response to a drug interaction question concerning concurrent administration of tetracycline and cimetidine. This study assumes that the pharmaceutical company may often be consulted by the hospital pharmacist seeking information about a particular medication. Forty-five pharmaceutical companies, all marketing tetracycline products, were selected for the study. A conversation protocol was utilized. It was designed to assure consistency and evaluate information received for accuracy, response time, clinical judgement offered, and referrals. Forty pharmaceutical manufacturers responded: 18 brand manufacturers and 22 generic companies. Eleven companies provided information on the interaction identified. Five manufacturers stated that there were no contraindications to concurrent administration of the drugs, one company identified a similar interaction, and five manufacturers successfully provided information identifying the interaction with supportive documentation. Two of the five companies offered clinical judgement as to the clinical significance of the interaction. Both reached different conclusions. The mean time of all phone calls was 4.29 minutes (range 0.39 to 15.41 minutes). The investigator was referred to outside sources by twelve companies. In this study, brand manufacturers performed better than generic companies. Results indicate that few manufacturers are organized to answer drug information requests involving current information sources in a response to a telephone request.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51023,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drug Information Journal\",\"volume\":\"17 3\",\"pages\":\"195-204\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1983-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/009286158301700308\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drug Information Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/009286158301700308\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Information Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009286158301700308","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

针对四环素和西咪替丁同时使用的药物相互作用问题,进行了一次电话调查,以评估和比较从制药商那里收到的药物信息。本研究假设制药公司可能经常被医院药剂师咨询,以寻求有关特定药物的信息。45家销售四环素产品的制药公司被选为研究对象。使用了一个会话协议。它的目的是确保一致性和评估收到的信息的准确性,反应时间,提供的临床判断和转诊。40家制药企业做出了回应:18家品牌制药企业和22家仿制药企业。11家公司提供了所确定的相互作用的信息。五家制造商表示,同时给药没有禁忌症,一家公司确定了类似的相互作用,五家制造商成功地提供了识别相互作用的信息和支持性文件。五家公司中有两家就这种相互作用的临床意义提供了临床判断。两人都得出了不同的结论。所有电话的平均时间为4.29分钟(范围为0.39至15.41分钟)。12家公司将调查人员介绍给了外部消息来源。在本研究中,品牌制造商的表现优于非专利公司。结果表明,很少有制造商在答复电话请求时回答涉及当前信息源的药品信息请求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A comparison of pharmaceutical manufacturers as a source of drug information to a telephone inquiry: generic vs brand.

A telephone survey was conducted to evaluate and compare drug information received from the pharmaceutical manufacturer in response to a drug interaction question concerning concurrent administration of tetracycline and cimetidine. This study assumes that the pharmaceutical company may often be consulted by the hospital pharmacist seeking information about a particular medication. Forty-five pharmaceutical companies, all marketing tetracycline products, were selected for the study. A conversation protocol was utilized. It was designed to assure consistency and evaluate information received for accuracy, response time, clinical judgement offered, and referrals. Forty pharmaceutical manufacturers responded: 18 brand manufacturers and 22 generic companies. Eleven companies provided information on the interaction identified. Five manufacturers stated that there were no contraindications to concurrent administration of the drugs, one company identified a similar interaction, and five manufacturers successfully provided information identifying the interaction with supportive documentation. Two of the five companies offered clinical judgement as to the clinical significance of the interaction. Both reached different conclusions. The mean time of all phone calls was 4.29 minutes (range 0.39 to 15.41 minutes). The investigator was referred to outside sources by twelve companies. In this study, brand manufacturers performed better than generic companies. Results indicate that few manufacturers are organized to answer drug information requests involving current information sources in a response to a telephone request.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Drug Information Journal
Drug Information Journal 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Relative Efficiency of Unequal Versus Equal Cluster Sizes for the Nonparametric Weighted Sign Test Estimators in Clustered Binary Data. A Patient Focused Solution for Enrolling Clinical Trials in Rare and Selective Cancer Indications: A Landscape of Haystacks and Needles. Testing in a Prespecified Subgroup and the Intent-to-Treat Population. The Correction of Product Information in Drug References and Medical Textbooks Evaluation of Data Entry Errors and Data Changes to an Electronic Data Capture Clinical Trial Database.
×
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