Errors associated with co-names of medicines: The nomenclature of combination medicinal products.

In comparison to the efforts required to bring a new drug or formulation to the clinic, bestowing a name on a medicine is relatively simple. However, if the name we choose causes confusion-by making its contents ambiguous or if it is too alike another drug-it can precipitate clinical errors. This prompted the World Health Organization to set up the International Nonproprietary Naming Committee in the 1970s to select unambiguous names for drugs. Unfortunately, multidrug products-which are becoming increasingly popular-do not fall under the remit of conventional International Non-proprietary Nomenclature. We have identified 26 combination formulations that have been historically named with the co-drug format in the United Kingdom. Most of them have also been prescribed in the United Kingdom in the past year, and although several of them are not prescribed very often, 11 were prescribed more than 2000 times. In this paper, we have explored the literature to identify prescribing errors with co-drug products and found several idiosyncrasies that have caused drug errors in the past. We advocate for a standard nomenclature (state the international nonproprietary name [INN] of each component followed by dose information in the x + y format) for these products on the box and in prescribing resources. We hope that this will enhance clarity and safety during prescribing and administration, particularly for high-volume drugs like paracetamol + codeine (co-codamol), amoxicillin + clavulanic acid (co-amoxiclav) and trimethoprim + sulfamethoxazole (co-trimoxazole).

Competing Benefits and Competing Hazards: The Benefit to Harm Balance in Individual Patients in Rational Therapeutics.

For any therapeutic intervention in an individual, there is a balance between the potential benefits and the possible harms. The extent to which the benefits are desirable in a given condition depends on the efficacy of the intervention, the chance of obtaining it and the seriousness and intensity of the condition. The extent to which the harms are undesirable depends on the nature of the hazard that can lead to harm, the chance that the harm will occur and its seriousness and intensity. Rational therapeutic decisions require clinicians to consider competing courses of action, with potential benefits of different desirability and potential harms of different undesirability. They also have a duty to explain to the patient, for the contemplated interventions, both the possible benefits and the potential harms that the patient may consider significant. In an individual patient, it is necessary to consider (a) the probabilities of benefit from both intervention and non-intervention and (b) the probabilities of harm from both intervention and non-intervention. However, there are several potential problems. Here, we consider how failure to distinguish maximum benefits from probable benefits, or hazards (potential harms) from probable harms, and failure to consider all the competing probabilities may lead to imperfect therapeutic decisions. We also briefly discuss methods to assess the benefit to harm balance.