Opioids Mallinckrodt vs. Roxanne

[allshepp]

I've read where some believe and others don't about there being any differences in prescription meds. I can assure you that there is absolutely no question that exists that Mallinckrodt Methadone is substantially better than Roxanne. Also, when Sandoz was manufacturing Ritalin sr it worked a great deal better than any other Ritalin sr or er and also worked at least 2 hours longer. Just as well with Klonopin, the blue ones work much better than the green or yellow ones. Someone said there was no difference because the FDA required manufacturers to use the same " ingredients" or formula. Well that's not exactly true. The FDA requires manufacturers' formula to be 95% consistent and you can rest assured manufacturers take advantage of the 5% they have. Another thing is the FDA does not require whatsoever that manufacturers use the same bonding agents to hold their medicine together in the shape of a caplet, tablet, or disket. Therefore some of the bonding agents used by some manufacturers can actually dilute the potency of their medication but they do so anyway to help prevent and make it more difficult for those who crush their medicines for the purpose of sniffing it or shooting it. This is so it is much more difficult to grind it to a powder that can be comfortably sniffed or pass through a needle of a syringe. So in closing; there is a significant difference between a number of prescription medications.

 

[BeachBum4u]

I've read where some believe and others don't about there being any differences in prescription meds. I can assure you that there is absolutely no question that exists that Mallinckrodt Methadone is substantially better than Roxanne. Also, when Sandoz was manufacturing Ritalin sr it worked a great deal better than any other Ritalin sr or er and also worked at least 2 hours longer. Just as well with Klonopin, the blue ones work much better than the green or yellow ones. Someone said there was no difference because the FDA required manufacturers to use the same " ingredients" or formula. Well that's not exactly true. The FDA requires manufacturers' formula to be 95% consistent and you can rest assured manufacturers take advantage of the 5% they have. Another thing is the FDA does not require whatsoever that manufacturers use the same bonding agents to hold their medicine together in the shape of a caplet, tablet, or disket. Therefore some of the bonding agents used by some manufacturers can actually dilute the potency of their medication but they do so anyway to help prevent and make it more difficult for those who crush their medicines for the purpose of sniffing it or shooting it. This is so it is much more difficult to grind it to a powder that can be comfortably sniffed or pass through a needle of a syringe. So in closing; there is a significant difference between a number of prescription medications.

There's a pharmacist that frequents these boards and she may be able to lend some insight into what is and isn't allowed with manufacturing generics. My experience is that there was a time when I would have sworn the Mallinckrodt percocets were pure garbage (I used to call them Mallin-Craps) but now looking back on things, I don't know. I mean the 95% part (and I'm taking your word that the percentage is correct because personally I have no idea) is for the active ingredients. The other 5% are supposed to be "inactive". I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but inactive means just that, as in they should have no real effect, especially with something like pain relieving qualities, at least I would think so. I think we get things set in our minds on some drug and that's it, nothing anyone could say would change our mind. I suppose I just feel like it's probably much ado about not much. There probably isn't some grand conspiracy etc. However with all that being said, I do really really hate when a drug company makes a pill that literally falls apart inside the pill bottle (with a minimal amount of banging about). I mean geez, make a damn pill that stays intact for cryin' out loud!

 

[thelung]

"At a meeting of the FDA’s advisory committee for pharmaceutical science and clinical pharmacology in 2011, Dr. James Hennessey, clinical director of the division of endocrinology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, presented evidence of three different generic formulations of levothyroxine (used to treat hypothyroidism). All were more potent than the branded version and varied from one another. One was 12.5% above, another 9% above, and another 3% above the brand name’s potency. All had been approved as bioequivalent. Noting that “less than 10% dose intervals make clinical differences,” Hennessey told the advisory committee meeting, “These differences are too large.” " a good article about the differences between generics http://fortune.com/2013/01/10/are-generics-really-the-same-as-branded-drugs/

 

[kleinerkiffer]

Sorry, but generica discussion is not allowed here.
I'll let this thread open for Kittycat5 to offer his insight, but will close it afterwards.

 

[Kittycat5]

I dont know what else to say. Are there cases where approved and supposedly bioequivalent products actually werent? Sure. Nobody is perfect. Usually this occurs in an extended or controlled release product. But its still rare as hell. For immediate release forms, its far, far rarer.

Ive always said if you prefer a specific manufacturer, ask for it. Be prepared to be refused as well, as not every pharmacy can or will order everything. But can we please realize the majority of perceived differences among brands is placebo/nocebo. Theres really not a conspiracy here.