Home
Current Issue
Past Issues
Support
About IJME
Jul-Sep2004-12(3)
VIEWPOINT
Cashing in on a brand
name
Vijay Thawani, K J Gharpure
Vijay Thawani, K J Gharpure
Consumers in the Third World get third-rate
treatment from the pharmaceutical industry, who sell them junk in the name of
medicine. This includes formulations banned in the parent country of
international giants (1). These companies have adopted a new technique:
marketing new formulations under old brand names without informing consumers.
These companies exploit people's faith in brand names and the resistance to
generic prescriptions. They also hide behind antiquated laws which do not ban
the launch of new formulations using old brand names.
There are several examples of this practice. This
account describes the substitution of contents in the brand Disprin manufactured
by Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd.
Disprin is known for its aspirin content (acetyl
salicylic acid with calcium carbonate and citric acid). The company launched
'Disprin Plus' with much fanfare. However, the new 'Plus' was actually minus the
aspirin. By prefixing Disprin, the company wanted to retain old consumers. The
suffix 'plus' (without adding anything), was to deceive them. Patients consumed
paracetamol in place of aspirin, knowing little about the effect of the
switchover. Cardiac patients taking aspirin for its platelet inhibitory effects
were in for a shock when these facts were made public. Prescribing doctors were
ignorant of this substitution till the press blew the whistle (2). The
manufacturer had taken everyone for a ride.
This unsavory story goes back to 2001 when aspirin
was brought under the Drug Price Control Order. The National Pharmaceutical
Pricing Authority notified ceiling prices for aspirin and 20 other formulations.
Soon, well-known brands of aspirin disappeared from retail outlets. Evidently
the industry was not willing to market aspirin at the lower profit margin.
Then, two companies, Reckitt Benckiser and
Nicholas, decided to use their brand advantage to introduce Disprin Plus and
Aspro Plus, respectively, containing a different drug, paracetamol (3). Disprin
was sold at Rs 2.25 for 10 tablets but the new price ceiling was Rs 1.70.
Disprin Plus was sold at Rs 9.40 for 10 (taxes extra).
The 'new wine in old bottles' was launched with
much publicity. There were many pages of advertisement but the information that
the brand contained paracetamol, not aspirin, was in very small
print.
In a rare case of solidarity, the Druggists and
Chemists Association of Nagpur boycotted the new product. Their apex body, the
All India Organization of Chemists and Druggists (AIOCD), brought to the
company's notice that the addition of the word 'Plus' created the impression
that the drug was basically aspirin with an addition. This impression was
reinforced by the similarities in design of the two strip packs. The highlighted
addition of the words 'new formula' suggested that it was an improved
formulation-not a different one altogether. The AIOCD also drew the
manufacturer's attention to sections in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which
relate to misbranded and spurious drugs, warning them of the penalties (4).
The adverse publicity affected sales as consumers
of Disprin switched over to other brands. In response, Reckitt Benckiser
inserted an advertisement 'for public information', half-heartedly mentioning
the difference between Disprin Plus and low-dose aspirin (5). But the damage
control exercise failed. Finally, in July 2003, the company withdrew Disprin
Plus and made Disprin re-available in India for a retail price of Rs 2.70 for 10
tablets (Rs 31.56 for 120 tablets, taxes extra). Old wine was returned to the
old bottle.
For a change, chemists and druggists, activists and
the media showed what collective power could do. If only such pharmaceutical
activism can be seen more often, the pharmaceutical industry will stop taking
the patient population for granted.
References
1 Shiva M, Rane W. Banned and Bannable Drugs. New Delhi: Voluntary Health Association of India.
2. Rajendra D. Disprin plus minus aspirin foxes patients. The Hitavada, Nagpur, September 6, 2001.
3. Chronicle Pharmabiz. Aspirin Shortage: industry at fault. [editorial]. Chronicle Pharmabiz. 2001;1:8
4. Rajendra D. Statewide boycott of Disprin Plus. The Hitavada, Nagpur, September 12, 2001.
5 Notice. The Times of India, Mumbai. September 14, 2001.
1 Shiva M, Rane W. Banned and Bannable Drugs. New Delhi: Voluntary Health Association of India.
2. Rajendra D. Disprin plus minus aspirin foxes patients. The Hitavada, Nagpur, September 6, 2001.
3. Chronicle Pharmabiz. Aspirin Shortage: industry at fault. [editorial]. Chronicle Pharmabiz. 2001;1:8
4. Rajendra D. Statewide boycott of Disprin Plus. The Hitavada, Nagpur, September 12, 2001.
5 Notice. The Times of India, Mumbai. September 14, 2001.
VIJAY THAWANI*, K J GHARPURE**, *Associate
Professor in Pharmacology, Government Medical College, Nagpur 440003, India. e
mail:thawani_ngp@sancharnet.in **
Pharmacist, Government Medical College, Nagpur 440003,
India