Posted by Collete on October 13, 2001, at 13:20:56
In reply to I had a similar experience with generic Ativan, posted by madeleine on October 13, 2001, at 13:02:19
> I never expected that there would be any difference between the generic and the brandname version of lorazepam until I tried them both--not only was the generic version a poorly made product (tended to crumble, which was a big problem for a medication that I needed to carry around in case I needed it) but it was not nearly as effective as the brandname product. Don't quote me on this, but I read somewhere that a generic is only required to demonstrate 80% effectiveness in clinical trials when compared to the original brandname product. I try to get the brandname whenever possible--in my state the doctor has to specify at the bottom of the prescription 'DAW" (dispense as written), otherwise the pharmacy automatically dispenses the generic (even if the brandname is written in the body of the prescription).
>
> This is not to say that there aren't good generics out there, but my theory is that their manufacturers are not necessarily as invested in quality control/effectiveness as the original patent owner.
>
> I don't take Ativan anymore, but I have to say it was a stroke of brilliance to manufacture them in the shape of a capital A . Instant recognition, great product design.
>
> madeleineI am pretty sure that I just read that the culpret in the case of Ativan was Mylan Labs also. I think generics can be useful for those who don't have insurance, provided they are from labs with a proven track record for making the generic. At lease, when trying a new generic, those of us who are now aware, will know what to watch out for! This is such a wonderful board, I only wish I had looked for it sooner! Collette
poster:Collete
thread:80766
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20011007/msgs/81204.html