Dr. Laskin and I have had a bit of a back and forth discussion about the names to use for our treatments in lung cancer. The preference for our clinical meetings is to use the scientific, generic names for drugs — erlotinib instead of tarceva, pemetrexed instead of alimta, etc. That convention has evolved because we feel that using the “trade names”, the marketed names that sound zippier, or at least easier to remember (aloxi instead of palonosetron), is too commercial, like doing a little advertising for the company or the drug rather than being more pure and sticking to the science and the scientific names for the drugs.
When I give a talk to oncologists, I routinely use the scientific names, but sometimes docs will give feedback asking you to use the marketed names because it’s easier to remember which drugs you’re talking about when you don’t use the 4-5 syllable names. So my approach since I started writing here has been has been to use the trade names, because I presume that most patients and family members find these names much easier to remember and keep track of: hence tarceva instead of erlotinib and sutent instead of sunitinib.
But Dr. Laskin’s posts had included the generic names of drugs until I changed them based on my own presumptions, and our discussion makes me reflect that we should ask you directly what you would prefer. Given that about a third of respondents feel that pharmaceutical company support for GRACE could compromise the integrity of the information provided (based on the poll conducted here over the last month), I don’t think I should make decisions for the reading audience. Let members/viewers decide whether you would prefer the generic names or the marketed names.
So now there’s a poll: please just mark your preference. Avastin or bevacizumab?
posted by Dr. West @ 7:54 pm link to this post
Loading ...
March 13th, 2008 at 12:15 am
I have a write-in candidate: “both of the above.” Somewhere in each article, preferably towards the beginning, it would be nice to have both the trade name and the scientific name — makes searching more reliable. Aside from that, most users would probably prefer to see the trade name, especially if there’s only one company making the drug. Thinking back to when I was a regular patron at the corner chemo pub, I wonder what the reaction would have been if, toward the end of a long day, the head nurse approached my IV stand with a huge syringe and I said “oh, that must be the bevacizumab!” But on the other hand, I just remembered that she’s from Canada… Aloha,
Ned
March 13th, 2008 at 3:31 am
I don’t mind one way or the other, but as Ned has said, perhaps “both of the above” would be a good way of dealing with this issue. In my own case, I do a lot of work with flora and fauna that are are described using their scientific binomials, so reading about drugs described by their scientific names isn’t too much of a problem. That said, in natural history publications, it’s not unusual to see the common name of a organism (when one exisits), followed by the scientific name in brackets - or sometimes the reverse. That helps to make information more accessible to a wider range of readers. I think the same could be said in this case, so perhaps the use of scientific with trade names for drugs is the better way. I do think it’s good practice to include the scientific name somewhere in a piece because there can be multiple trade names for a drug, which can be confusing. And, I think that’s particularly true when the readership is international as it seems a lot of drugs are commonly known by different trade names from country to country.
Just my two cents worth.
bev
March 13th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I agree, having both listed would be great. I am always trying to remember both names and the more I see them together the easier it will be to learn/remember them.
In fact something I would really like to see is a list of the common lc drugs that are being used and maybe a brief description of how each works or at least what category they fit into. I have searched for such a list but have not found anything that is easy to read.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I like the “both” option, at least for the first time the drug is mentioned in a posting. The drugs I get from the pharmacy show both the trade name (listed first) and the generic name below that. It really helps, especially if you are doing an internet search. If you have only the trade name you tend to get the drug comany’s promotional material first; if you use the generic you tend to get actual research and/or studies. So I would be in favour of using both.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Ditto to all of the above comments — both is most useful (perhaps add it as a third choice to the survey).
March 13th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Thanks — those are great ideas. I’ve restarted the poll with two additional answers, both of which start with using both names at the first mention of a drug in a post, and differing in just the preferred terminology after that.
I think it would be pretty easy to generate a list of commonly used drugs for cancer, including both generic and trade names. It would be a bit of a challenge to include the mechanism of action of the chemo drugs (do people really care how gemcitabine and taxol work, or is it more a desire to know what the “targeted” drugs are supposedly doing?). But we’ve got Dr. McCune, a PharmD, as part of the GRACE faculty, and she could really help us generate this kind of feature. It could also potentially include the more commonly seen side effects with these agents.
Thanks for the tips. For those of you who voted already, I’m sorry to have erased your votes. Please revote, and we’ll be happy to follow the will of our audience.
-Dr. West
March 16th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Agree with all the above who vote for both at least in the opening of the article. I’m a flower lover like Bev, and the first thing I thought of was how hard it was to remember their scientific names unless and until I saw them together many many times.
Judy
March 16th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
thank you all for your comments. I will be happy to use both, or stick to the trade names.
for what it’s worth i’ll share the reason i try to use the generic names, and it’s not because i love the intimidating, tongue twisting sound of them.
ethically i feel that i have to be very aware of any potential influence of the pharmaceutical industry and i think these catchy names are part of this. i want to remember that it’s a poisonous drug i’m giving someone, not a fun ride at Disney. and before i sound too puritanical, i fully disclose that i get paid honourariums by pharma for delivering talks, i have research projects supported by pharma, i happily allow them to send me to conferences to present data on clinical trials etc etc. i have no shame in my interactions with pharma, but i am always aware of it and i think carefully of how it might be perceived by the general public or my patients.
so, to me trying to use the generic names has become part of that.
does that change the polls?
March 16th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Makes a lot of sense to me! Glad to see that you’re so self-reflective about it.–Neil
March 16th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I admire your perspective. As far as changing my vote, only so far as to support using the generic name with the trade name in parenthesis only in the opening of the article so patients can recognize it. Then I’d have no problem with using the generic in the remainder of the article.