Ann: Expanded Heart Protection Discovery for Zantrene, page-179

Recent investor and health care professional of many years, and a prescriber to give context to this post.

I am reading the various threads and am wondering about this SoC idea that's got legs here. Are we referring to those such as Australia's Therapeutic Guidelines (TG)? Or international guidelines for care based on levels of evidence for instance?

The reason I ask is that generally speaking, guidelines for care and prescribing are based on generic drug names, not trade names. A drug protocol as SoC using this definition would mean that a drug regime was being followed, in a particular order or way, at particular doses perhaps, and over specific periods of time. What it wouldn't usually mean, is that only the trade name versions of that drug were being endorsed under those guidelines. An example, something simple, might be using ACE inhibitors for heart failure, but what (at least Australian) TG wouldn't say is that this is only valid if you use a certain brand.

What I may be missing here is the way that cancer drugs are used and the various protocols and guidelines surrounding this, as this is not my area of experience. Maybe the world of cancer drugs is completely different and relies entirely on endorsement of certain brands. Certainly I understand the patent restrictions and monopoly that comes with that before generics can develop, however I did not know that this could preclude any other drug from being prescribed under some notion of SoC, or that there could be implications for medicos if they chose a generic over a brand providing both were approved on the relevant market. The only restriction I am aware of is when a patient says they don't want generic, or it is ticked on the prescription for some reason, or when some brands are listed (in Aus anyway) on the PBS and others are not.

Please be kind even if I have this completely wrong, this is my first RAC post.