These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Generic OCs bioequivalent, but much maligned.
    Journal: Contracept Technol Update; 1989 Jun; 10(6):77-81. PubMed ID: 12342313.
    Abstract:
    Although generic oral contraceptives (OCs) are bioequivalent to brand-name formulations, many family planning professionals do not prescribe the significantly lower-priced generics. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, for example, has refused to approve generic OCs for use in the organization's clinics, presumably because of concerns about their equivalent efficacy and safety. However, much of this skepticism may be fueled by misleading marketing by brand-name OC manufacturers. Sales representatives have reportedly told clinicians that generic OCs can be as much as 20% different from brand-name formulations, despite evidence collected by the US Food and Drug Administration confirming that there is virtually no difference except in terms of inert ingredients. In the case of many formulations, the variability between the generic and brand-name products is no different than the variability found between different lots of the same brand-name drug. Another obstacle to wider use of generic OCs is that discounts for large volume purchases make brand-name OCs the best buy for family planning clinics. Clinicians also note that clients complain of minor side effects whenever OC brands are changed, even if the compounds are the same. As the price of medication continues to rise, the more widespread availability of generic OCs will be especially important for teenagers and other low-income clients.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]