The side-effects of pharmaceutical naming
It’s a little ridiculous that prescription drugs can be advertised to the public. Why should your TV tell you what medications you need? Isn’t that your doctor’s job? It’s all part of something called DTC (Direct To Consumer) advertising which, at the current time, is permitted in just two countries: New Zealand and the United States. In this country, DTC advertising has become a four billion dollar business.
According to the FDA, the first televised ad for a prescription drug appeared in 1983. Modern-day prescription drug advertising really started in 1996, however, with a television ad for allergy medicine Claritin. According to Advertising Age magazine, Claritin pioneered the practice of simply promoting the drug name and referring consumers to a magazine ad, phone number or website for more information. This was a way around FDA requirements regarding disclosure of drug-related side effects. If you don’t say what it does, you don’t have to list side effects.
FDA regulation is what makes marketing pharmaceuticals so complicated. In fact, it is littered with promotional land mines. Imagine having a huge ad budget to promote a product – and then being handed a playbook of regulations that restricts what you can name it, what you can and can’t say about it, and how creative you can be in describing it. That pretty much defines the current regulatory environment.
The reality is when it comes to naming a drug, pharmaceutical companies and their agencies have one hand, if not two, tied behind their backs.
Before drugs were advertised directly to consumers, branding didn’t matter much. The name could simply incorporate the chemical composition or a technical reference to the drug’s properties, because it was intended for medical professionals. Add the consumer to the mix, and all hell breaks loose. Today, pharmaceutical companies are desperately trying to add marketing pizzazz to drug names while they suggest what the drugs are for – under onerous regulatory guidelines.
The result is names that range from barely passable to downright ludicrous: Abilify (bipolar disorder), Boniva (osteoporosis), Caduet (high cholesterol and high blood pressure), Celebrex (osteoarthritis), Chantix (smoking cessation), Cymbalta (depression), Flomax (enlarged prostate), Levitra (erectile dysfunction), Lipitor (high cholesterol), Lyrica (fibromyalgia), Requip (restless leg syndrome), Spiriva (COPD), Valtrex (herpes),Viagra (erectile dysfunction), the list goes on…
Okay, I get Boniva, because it relates to bones. Caduet at least tells me there’s a dual purpose to the drug. It’s pretty obvious what Flomax does. I guess Viagra suggests renewed vitality. But Cymbalta sounds like a new kind of musical instrument. Lyrica belongs in a song. Chantix could be a weird prayer. Levitra sounds like a butter substitute. Spiriva seems like a virus I’d rather stay away from. Isn’t Valtrex a comic book villain?
These names sound vaguely like they come from some kind of cyber candy store run by giant companies trying to peddle their sugar-coated chemicals. Oh wait. That’s where they do come from.
