Asklemmy

43757 readers

1721 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

368

What are some items that really aren't worth paying the expensive version for? (lemmy.zip)

submitted 10 months ago by kzhe@lemmy.zip to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

558 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I saw this post and wanted to ask the opposite. What are some items that really aren't worth paying the expensive version for? Preferably more extreme or unexpected examples.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] cerpa@kbin.social 31 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Not exactly. Just a fun fact and disclaimer that I use generics if at all possible. But my pharmacology class taught that generics can have higher tolerance of error in % of active ingredient. Not usually a big deal unless the drug has a very narrow therapeutic range, meaning too little doesn’t work and too much will harm you. 99.9% of generics is fine. But if you ever wonder if one batch of your med doesn’t seem to work as well this it’s likely that batch was on the lower end of acceptable.

[–] DillyDaily@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

I think this depends where you live, having worked a summer as a trolley runner for blister pack production, we produced thousands of blisters, and at the end of the line half got pharmacy own brand foils and the other half got name brand foils.

Same pills, same packs, same factory same standards and testing, just different ink on the foils. But the pharmacy brands would have shorter contracts so they would only be identical to this name brand for 6 months, then try might get a contract with another factory and be identical to another name brand there.

I know with some drugs (Warfarin is the only one that's instantly coming to mind) it is important to pick a brand and stick with it because the slightest change can effect the therapeutic value.

For myself, I have allergies so sometimes a certain brand or manufacturing company will use a filler, binder or dye I can't have. And frustratingly there are no ingredients lists on pills for fillers and dyes.

[–] Jarlsburg@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That's true but the difference is exceedingly small.

According to 1 FDA study, the mean difference for AUC values between test and reference products was found to be 3.5% in the 2-year period following the Waxman-Hatch Act, and 80% of the absolute differences between generic products approved since 1984 and the corresponding innovator products were within a 5% range.

Debunking a Common Pharmacy Myth: The 80-125% Bioequivalence Rule Jun 8, 2016