Medication Names in the News

From the Journal of the American Medical Association, an article by Hochman M, Hochman S, Bor D, and McCormick D.

News Media Coverage of Medication Research

"Conclusion: News articles reporting on medication studies often fail to report pharmaceutical company funding and frequently refer to medications by their brand names despite newspaper editors' contention that this is not the case."

In the comments, the authors say:

• They searched articles in Lexis-Nexis, and did not look at television and radio.
• It is important for physicians and patients to know how research is funded so they can assess whether commercial biases may have affected the results.
• Generic names are preferable, so that patients and physicians learn the generic names.
• Using the generic names could reduce errors and decrease unnecessary health care costs.
• News publications should consider having written policies about using generic names and indicating study funding.

(Read the abstract at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/13/1544)

My thoughts: I agree with the authors in spirit, but the practical matters of news make it difficult to consistently use generic names.

While I can't address the newspaper aspect of the article from experience, since I've only worked in TV, I can surmise that writing out the generic name, followed by the trade names in parentheses, takes up column inches that would be needed to explain the main points of the drug study. Similarly, in television, it would take precious seconds for me to track, for example, "sildenafil, also known as Viagra," every time I mentioned a drug. Especially when I only have 75 to 90 seconds for my report.

Furthermore, in broadcast, what reporters write has to be conversational. Nobody (except for doctors) talks that way. If I just use the word "sildenafil" alone no one would know what I'm talking about, whereas "Viagra" is generally recognizable. I would have to use both, which takes up valuable time.

And as much as reporters and the physician authors of the JAMA article would like to think that viewers are hanging on every word that comes out of a reporter's mouth -- tain't so. People listen in short-hand. They're making dinner, chasing children, surfing the web while the TV is on. Sildenafil is a meaningless word in short-hand. Viagra registers.

The authors would argue the reason for that is because we don't use the generic names enough in everyday conversation. But the drug companies have made sure to dub their products with the most unpronounceable polysyllabic generic names (rofecoxib, trastuzumab, sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim) so that people are forced to use the much easier-to-say and easier-to-listen-to brand names (Vioxx, Herceptin, Bactrim).

In an ideal world, the generic names would have exclusivity. This is a far from ideal world, where time and space is money for the news outlet. With the practical demands of news, I don't see brand names going away any time soon.