Is "X" the new "Z"?

Is "X" the new "Z"?

          

      While watching (insert your favorite TV show here) the other night, it occurred to me that I was seeing an abnormally high percentage of "new and better" drugs whose names begin with the letter X. That's odd enough, since X is the third from last in usage frequency in English. Stranger yet, the "Xs" are invariably  pronounced as "Z", which is essentially tied with X for that third from last spot.  Just for information's sake,  "J" and "Q" are 25th and 26th respectively. So, because I have this kind of time,  I had to ask, "Why this trend?"  It turns out that this is apparently derived from the same basic place as housing development, Auto models  and country club names - that is, the name has little bearing on the actual product.

         We commonly refer to Jazz as the original American art form, but certainly Advertising is a close second. while Jazz is good for your soul and reflects the artistry and virtuosity of the performer, advertising is based on one simple commandment - make the public  want, and think they need, shit you would otherwise probably not buy. Period. At the turn of the century, advertising was more about announcing the availability of a given product and its price.  Flash ahead to 2014 and the lines of people camping outside an Apple Store to be among the first to purchase a product they've never seen, but which, Apple's adverts assure them, they must have, or risk being unhip. A century ago advertising told you how much apples cost per pound.  Today it tells us why they are the next "great/new/ must have" thing.

          I have already blogged at length on Auto model names and how housing development names are chosen. I even volunteered to do it (make up names) for half of whatever they currently pay the idiots who do it.  A review of these literary masterpieces would reflect my belief that truth in advertising is a good thing. There are no deer at Deer Island, no Bay in Bay Springs, etc. Likewise, auto names , especially Asian ones, are simply inventions of letters that somehow, to the Asian mind sound attractive - Elantra, Camry, Miata, etc.  

          Let's return  to the naming of drugs, before I mindlessly digress into a perhaps related, but less germane, rant. A partial list of recent "X" named drugs gives us:  Xalatan, Xalkori, Xanax , Xarelto,  Xeljanz,  Xeloda,  Xenazine,  Xenical, Xeomin, Xgeva, Xiaflex,  Xifaxan, Xofigo, Xolair, Xopenex, Xtandi, Xyntha, Xyrem, Xyzal..... ad nauseum. None of these names, it should be noted, even hints at the drug's usage.

          Less recently, drug companies at least made an attempt to name a drug in a manner that suggested, however vaguely, at the drug's purpose. "Abilify" at least had the root of the word "ability" or "able", probably in an effort to assure the user that they would somehow be more "able", or gain the ability, to refrain from strangling their spouse in a fit of depression.  "Abreva" shortens (abbreviates) the length of time your cold sore lasts.  "Lipitor" sounds a bit like it might relate to lipids (fats) which to most of us is related to cholesterol. "Replens" replenishes tears. "Elavil" elevates mood. And Dulcolax, Exlax and Turbolax....well, you can see where I'm going with this!

          Enter the "X pronounced as Z" drugs, none of which names convey any detectable sense of usage or purpose.   Of 1436 products added to the British National Formulary (BNF, and the only source I could find for this rant) between 1986 and 2005, more than a fifth had names that began with z or x or contained a prominent x or z within them. In 1986, only 19 branded drugs began with one of these letters. Over the next two decades, the number of brands beginning with a z increased by more than 400% (to 63) and those beginning with an x increased by 130% (to 16). In the same period, the overall content of the BNF grew by only 80%.

          Why this proliferation of exotic "nonsense names"?  I would propose that it could possibly  reflect  the fast rate at which new products were being introduced, the fact that the difference between many “me too” drugs was more apparent than real, the immense rewards that were seen to accrue from innovative marketing, and the fact that the ploys available for use in the naming of drugs are so restricted. I believe it more likely, however,  that we as consumers are unaccustomed to seeing the "X" and "Z" words and their relatively infrequency in everyday language makes them stand out in memory. It would have been of no consequence two or three decades ago, since we saw little prescription drug advertising in media. Now we are urged to "Ask your doctor about......"

          We also see the kindly grandpa at the secret fishing hole which he can now reach with son and grandson because of a product which ameliorates his COPD. Medical issues which used to be the subject of doctor patient discussion are now cleverly abbreviated so we all can enjoy them.  "Afib", "COPD", "Low T", "PAD" are all examples  of recent entries. We've come a long way from "Father John's Cough Medicine" which treated ....(wait for it) coughs! It should however, in fairness,  be noted that it was loaded with Cod liver oil and tasted of licorice and had relatively little effect on coughs.  

         So who cares? Obviously Big Pharma cares truly, madly deeply, since the actual production cost of drugs like atorvastatin is essentially dirt cheap, since it is essentially  a calcium salt!), While "on patent" for the previous 20 years, Lipitor made Pfizer a ton of money for a very small R& D cost. Off patent, and produced in many places, it is so cheap, that I actually get it free (no co-pay)  using an on line pharmacy.

          All the "X" drug manufacturers hold out that same hope for  their drugs, and advertising is slanted at the rosy outcomes and positive results possible with these new and cool sounding medications. Xenecal is a classic example. It doesn't even treat a real medical condition, rather is a prescription weight loss aid. Interestingly enough it is designed to be used with a low fat diet and weight maintenance,(which would seem to  preclude the need for its use! Because it is advertised on TV as a miracle weight loss drug in the USA, the most obese nation in the world excluding Samoa,  many ask for it without considering the other things Xenecal can do for you. That list includes:  oily spotting in your undergarments; oily or fatty stools; orange or brown colored oil in your stool; gas with discharge, an oily discharge; loose stools, or an urgent need to go to the bathroom, inability to control bowel movements; an increased number of bowel movements; stomach pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, rectal pain; or weakness, dark urine, clay-colored stools, itching, loss of appetite, or jaundice (yellowing of the skin or eyes). problems with your teeth or gums; cold symptoms such as stuffy nose, sneezing, cough; fever, chills, sore throat, flu symptoms; headache, back pain; or mild skin rash. This only the list of common  side effects. maybe one should just put down the cheeseburger?   

         This barrage of medical products isn't going away, as Big Pharma has very deep pockets, grossing $460 billion annually, and reaches into them often. House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell each were individually awarded over $130,000 by the Pharmaceutical industry, this year. Pfizer alone spent $1.37 million buying members of Congress. Although Their major players would have us believe that their profits are all used for Research & Development, that is also grossly misleading. Merck was very public about having spent $1 billion dollars to bring Vioxx to market. They were relatively quiet  about the $2.5 billion in sales it generated in its first year on the market.   That's a 150% return on investment in the first year, and after that it's mostly profit, as manufacturing costs are low. Of course, even though Merck tried to disguise the heart attack frequency increase in Vioxx users, it was forced to recall and stop production about five years later. In addition to its own studies, on September 23, 2004 Merck apparently received information about new research by the FDA that supported previous findings of increased risk of heart attack among rofecoxib (Vioxx) users . FDA analysts estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks, 30 to 40 percent of which were probably fatal, in the five years the drug was on the market.

         So keep on being grabbed by those catchy "X" and "Z" drug names.  Just remember, they are after your money first, your well being second.  If you use their product and get better, well, that's 

nice, too.