I wrote a book recently (self-published, but now picked up by a legit publisher). It's a memoir of my surgical training. In it, I mention seeing the drug "Narcan" do its thing and commented that the name was based on "narcotic antagonist," and noted that those really were the good old days: drug names actually meant something. Now, it's marketing, focus groups, etc.
Posts: 1505 | Location: Puget Sound, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
This is a PDF file site. The below quote is an example of the data on that site.[/URL]
quote:
A major challenge in the naming of new drugs faces marketers. Global companies want a name to be a worldwide mark. Clean-slate or “asemantic” names (they have no meaning but sound good) are the easiest to trademark in the United States and are thought to be necessary for worldwide marks.
In the US simple descriptive names (“relational” names) are increasingly difficult to register due to tighter FDA restrictions on descriptive names. In addition, to clear naming agencies in Europe, names cannot be real words.
Based on our work in the industry over the past decade, RTi-DFD knows that doctors want “relational” names, and do not want names without meaning. They generally resist purely “asemantic” names. When used, these names must be learned by the professional and require a great deal of marketing dollars and detail support by the pharmaceutical company to gain awareness and trial.
In contrast to “asemantic” names, “relational” names assist the physician in identifying the nature of the drug. These names can be related to the generic name, the category of drugs, the action or method of action, the organ(s) impacted, its physiological impact and/or its impact on the patient.
RTi-DFD believes that good marketing practice, where a brand strategy is defined, calls for that strategy to drive naming. “Relational” names are most efficient in communicating the Brand Strategy to the market target. The dilemma for marketers then, is to not only develop relational names that resonate with the market target, but ones that can also pass worldwide trademarking.
That recognition drove us to develop “Relational Asemantics”. RTi-DFD changes the names that doctors like – “relational” names – just enough to pass worldwide trademarking. This new class of names – “Relational Asemantic”, will remind the doctor of the original name both in sound and relationship.
A few examples:
Advair (advantage air for asthma)
Amerge (Emerge from pain and the darkness of the room you hide from the light in with a migraine)
Balestra (a gentle balance for diabetes)
Rescuron (rescue the axon or neuron after a stroke)
RTi-DFD’s name generation process recognizes the value of supporting the desires of the physician, encompassing the needs of communicating the brand strategy, and addressing the worldwide trademark challenge. By developing “asemantic” appearing names that have a “relational” foundation to the market target, the names sound familiar to the market target yet are not the same as the original “relational” name.
The physician recognizes the link to the category / action / impact and, therefore, the name is more efficient than the purely “asemantic” name. Thus, Relational Asemantics.
Posts: 9086 | Location: PA, USA | Registered: 06-05-02
Interesting article posted by Sherasi. This whole discussion centers around the choice of proprietary names based on marketing considerations.
But there's another level of drug naming that I've often wondered about -- the non-proprietary (often but erroneously called "generic") names of drugs. Where do they come from?
To use Sid's example: Narcan® is the proprietary name of naloxone HCl. But the latter, according to the PDR, is a shorthand name for the chemical (-)-17-Allyl-4, 5a-epoxy-3, 14-dihydroxy-morphonan-6-one hydrochloride.
And Sherasi's example of Advair® is the propritary name for a combination of fluticasone proprionate (a corticosteroid) and salmeterol xinafoate (a beta adrenergic agonist). But fluticasone proprionate is actually the chemical S(fluromethyl)6α,9-difluoro-11β,17-dihydroxy-16α-methyl-d-oxoandrosta-1,4-diene-17β-carbothioate, 17-propionate.
So let's say you're an organic chemist developing pharmaceuticals, and you've designed and synthesized (or discovered and isolated) a molecule whose official name -- one of those long mouthfuls illustrated above -- is determined entirely by standard organic chemical nomenclature. How, then, do you make the leap to a short (if not very memorable) name such as naloxone, fluticasone, or salmeterol?
This has been bugging me for a long time!
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Professor,
Posts: 1990 | Location: U.S. | Registered: 06-03-02
One of the physicians I worked with gave me a tiny bit of drug history with one of the medications my patient was taking. Here is what he said (more or less):
When the drug Prilosec was being developed for marketing, it was originally named "Losec" (developed out of the words 'low secretions').
The drug was marketed as such at first, but medical professionals found that perscriptions were being filled as "Lasix" instead by accident.
So back to the drawing board the marketing people went and added the "Pri" to the beginning creating "Prilosec".
(Prilosec is a drug that moves Hydrogen ions from the stomach to reduce the Acid levels, hence "low secretions")
One other cool piece of info about this med used to treat Reflux (GERD), is that it is NOT an antihistamine (one of the few meds that is used to treat GERD that isn't an antihistamine).
Posts: 9086 | Location: PA, USA | Registered: 06-05-02
Another example of a drug whose trade name had to be changed was Mazecon, which evidently got confused (by completely dyslexic doctors and nurses?) with Mivacron and was soon changed to Romazecon.
Posts: 1990 | Location: U.S. | Registered: 06-03-02
