Posted by chemist on April 27, 2005, at 12:29:55
In reply to Re: Olanzapine story, generics suck???, posted by ixus on April 27, 2005, at 1:50:01
> Hi Chemist,
> is the international name (olanzapine) also patented? It is the biggest question for me how it could be, that Adamed used name "olanzapine".
> /ixushello there, chemist here...the naming schemes are quite well established, in the international realm. olanzapine is the generic USAN (united states adopted names) word for a chemical compound that is further described using nomenclature from the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS, and olanzapine has the registry number [132539-06-1]). olanzapine is also the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) which is under the World Health Organization (WHO) that would be perhaps more relevant here. then, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) naming conventions are given, which indicate structure and, for instance, whether the substance is a particular stereomer - usually. we are supposed to refrain from the form-, acet-, prop-, etc. naming conventions and use meth-, eth-, prop-, instead. but i digress...
in this regard, my earlier assertion in re: polymorphs not being subject to patent is incorrect, and for reasons that are at least semantic and at most related to the conformational arrangement of the atoms in the molecule. more on that in a bit.
next up is the CAS name, and olanzapine is known as 2-Methyl-4-(4-methyl-1-piperazinyl)-10H-thieno[2,3-b][1,5]benzodiazepine.
additional names are not in the monograph i am grabbing this information from (the Merck Index, Twelfth Edition): however, one can usually tell which pharma came up with the stuff, as there are codes for drugs for which an NDA has been filed and a patent has been granted. in the case of olanzapine, the drug was known as LY-170053 (LY = Eli Lilly and Co., also A, Ro = Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.).adamed - i have been through their website, and note that my maternal grandmother emigrated to the u.s. from Lodz in the early 1920's - states that they are marketing drugs for compassionate need and of high quality. this is not unlike the indian drug companies who have raised the ire of patent-holders in the u.s. the goal is admirable, but remember that all parties are businesses and the ultimate goal is to make a profit. this goes for lilly and adamed and the city of Lodz, which lured adamed from Pienkow, offering a production facility (and employment opportunities) and access to the medical academy. this is the way it works.
back to the patents. the trademark for eli lilly's patented formulation of olanzapine is Zyprexa. this means only lilly can market it under that name. there are variations - SM, TM, etc. - but the registered trademark is what matters. adamed chose Zolafren, the english/american hints at ``Zoloft'' and ``-phren'' from schizophrenia coming to my mind. likewise, adamed chose the name Luteina for their progesterone drug, and i immediately think of luteinizing hormone, which is exactly what i am supposed to think: female sexual development (and male, but more pronounced in women, at least to me), hormones, and the association is made. that, and it being a carcinogin. but no trademark infringement.
anyhow, the sterochemistry of the compound is something that falls under the patent class, as opposed to intellectual property or intellectual capital. mixtures of stereomers are afforded patents (adderall, ritalin, e.g.), as are new formulations, such as the olanzapine + fluoxetine combo trademark Symbyax (lilly, and this is another extension of prozac, after Serafem). the name Symbyax is a trademark and one can see Prozac and Zyprexa if one looks hard enough - that's the idea. brand loyalty. diphenhydramine is used by the masses, and we all call it Benadryl, although parke/davis' 1947 patent long expired and the company actually was absorbed by wyeth. or american home products. it's very convoluted...anyhow, enough, all the best, chemist
poster:chemist
thread:489699
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050423/msgs/490366.html