|
The Union government should prohibit pharmaceutical companies from using the same brand name with different suffixes or extensions for multiple drug formulations. This marketing practice often creates confusion among prescribers, pharmacists and patients, increasing the likelihood of medication errors and incorrect dispensing, said Dr BR Jagashetty, former National Adviser (Drugs Control) to MoHFW & CDSCO and former Karnataka state drugs controller.
Dr Jagashetty’s comments follows the recent notification from the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) dated July 6, 2026 in which it has invited comments on the issue of use of brand name extensions by pharma firms.
Vehemently disagreeing to the notification, Dr Jagashetty said, “Brand names that differ only by a prefix, suffix, or modifier can be easily misread, misheard, or misinterpreted, particularly in busy healthcare settings. Requiring each formulation to have a distinct and unique brand name would strengthen medication safety, improve prescribing and dispensing accuracy, and reduce the risk of preventable adverse drug events.”
It should not be allowed. Even the said circular states it may lead to utter confusion to patients and leads to look-alike and sound-alike (LASA) drugs. One brand has to be assigned to only one type of composition either single or multiple ingredient pharma product just like done in Trade Marks Act, 1999 registration of brands, noted Dr Jagashetty.
The widespread availability of LASA medicines in the pharmaceutical supply chain increases the risk of confusion between drug brand names, potentially leading to dispensing errors in pharmacies. To improve medication safety and reduce preventable errors, India should establish a centralized drug brand name registry that ensures the approval of distinct, non-confusing brand names before they enter the market, Dr Jagashetty told Pharmabiz.
Earlier, Dr Jagshetty had stated that the CDSCO should maintain a registry of all branded drugs in a time-bound manner as it will avoid confusion in medicine dispensing across pharmacy outlets in the country thereby avoiding LASA medicines in the market. In fact, the Union Health Ministry has made some efforts to crack down on LASA brand names of medicines as it could pose serious risk to patient safety.
Remembering the generic names of medicines containing multiple active pharmaceutical ingredients can be challenging for medical practitioners, making brand names a more practical reference in routine clinical practice. However, the absence of a centralized system to regulate and distinguish brand names increases the risk of LASA medicines entering the market. Establishing a comprehensive drug brand name registry that records every approved brand name along with its exact composition would enable systematic screening for confusingly similar names before market approval. Such a registry would strengthen the regulation of pharmaceutical branding and marketing practices, promote compliance with applicable laws, protect consumer interests, and enhance patient safety by reducing medication errors associated with LASA drugs. Also the CDCSO should ensure that the brand name permit can only be cleared with the levy of an appropriate fee and should be approved by a dedicated team headed by an officer in the rank of a Deputy Drugs Controller in the Central government, said Dr Jagashetty.
|