Discussion

Because verification of the current status of all generic and proprietary drugs is beyond the scope of this review, it is possible that given trade names have been “retired” as the parent drugs are withdrawn from use, only to be sequentially applied to newer generic drugs. Even when drug names are recycled in this manner, prior uses would still persist in standard texts and in the memory of senior physicians.

With the advent of international travel and widespread movement of refugees and immigrants, a proprietary drug prescription issued in one country might be misinterpreted by health care workers in another. In many cases, trade names are similar, if not confusing. For example, Ibimicyn (author' emphasis) is one of many names for ampicillin in Italy, whereas Ibimycin is a doxycycline preparation sold in Thailand. A simple misreading of the word“Monocid” (cefonicid or clarithromycin) could result in a patient receiving Monocide (bioallethrin; Fischer, Israel), a pyrithroid insecticide. Similar examples include Celex, a trade name assigned to cephalexin (Millimed, Thailand) and clonixin (Farmo Quimica, Chile), a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug; or Vermin, which might be dispensed as either piperazine citrate (Steger, Mexico) or as verapamil (Ratiopharm, Finland).

Perhaps the most extreme example of confusion in drug trade names is the marketing of rifampicin as Ricin by Atlantic (Hong Kong and Thailand). A traveler found to be transporting Ricin while boarding an airplane in Bangkok could encounter considerable inconvenience!

Beyond considerations of cost and efficiency, the use of trade names in prescribing anti-infective drugs might result in confusion and even harm to the patient. The marketing of redundant trade names for drugs used in other medical specialties should be investigated. Presumably, the availability of electronic databases will prevent similar ambiguities as future drug trade names are generated.