An editorial published in the latest AIFA Bulletin of Information on Medicines (BIF) is dedicated to the "advantage of equivalent medicines", and to the combination "savings-quality", which aims above all to clarify some elements, in terms of generics, still the subject of perplexity or controversy. "Probably - we read - too often we have talked about equivalent drugs starting from this point: savings. This has created a lot of distrust, even among health professionals. From the requests for information we receive, it is clear that the prescriber or pharmacist has been led to think that the NHS's choice to rely on the equivalent drug is based above all on cash reasons, perhaps neglecting the quality element". Although it is understandable to register distrust and skepticism, not always disinterested, this economy not only produces savings - AIFA reiterates - but also the possibility of buying innovative medicines without giving up effective and safe therapies by now consolidated. So: it's not just about savings. AIFA - in its bulletin - thus goes back to specifying some aspects of the equivalents. Starting, for example, from the purity of the raw materials and their quality which "are certified with identical procedures for both equivalent medicines and those covered by patents. Even the suppliers are often the same". And therefore - says the Agency - "it must be clear that this is not where the price savings of non-branded medicines develop". "Even the controls in the production procedures, the inspections and the verification that each medicine is produced according to guaranteed standards – continues the editorial – are identical for all medicines, regardless of the patent coverage. It is important to understand that no medicine is exactly identical to the other, therefore it is necessary to refer to rigorous standards that guarantee that any variability remains within the different individual response to the medicine. This is a problem that those who produce medicines face regardless of the patent coverage of the molecule". Another 'delicate' point: the substitutability of one medicine with another, which – according to AIFA – "must be managed above all from a medical point of view. That is, without prejudice to the bioequivalence of patented medicines with those that have lost their exclusivity, there may be medical reasons why the prescriber prefers to continue treatment with a particular specialty: the inability to manage different packaging, the patient's individual response, and other considerations, can count as exceptions to the general rule. This can of course happen both with medicines equivalent than with the originators and cannot question the procedures for verifying the quality of the medicinal product which are, in fact, the same". Lastly, the BIF recalls that "of the top 20 drugs by NHS expense, no less than 18 will lose (or have already lost) patent coverage within 7 years. A significant fact for the economy of the National Health Service - underlines the Agency - since these drugs accounted for around 30% of the entire public pharmaceutical expenditure in 2006 alone. now that advantage".
Source "pharmacist33”
