16（16）

医薬品相互作用研究

Vol.42, No. 1（2018）

医薬品相互作用研究
一
般論
文
42（1） 16-22 （2018）

Comparison of functional usability between brand-name and generic topicalanti-inflammatory analgesics.
Munetaka MARU1,2）, Tomoya SAKURADA1）, Eriko KOBAYASHI1）, Nobunori SATOH1）
1）

Department of Social Pharmacy, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chiba University
2）
Maru Corporation, Ltd.
（Received August 25, 2017; Accepted November 6, 2017）

For topical anti-inflammatory analgesics, it is not only the efficacy but also the functional usability which areimportant factors for patients in their choice of drugs. However, little information is available on the functional
usability of generic drugs (GEs). The aim of the study was to compare the functional usability between brand-namedrug (BR) and GEs topical anti-inflammatory analgesics in order to define any superiority in the functional usabilityof these drugs.
The questionnaire survey on the functional usability of BR and GEs of Ketoprofen Tape (patches) was conductedon patients having previously used the patch form of topical anti-inflammatory analgesics.
We received 245 responses from the patients. Respondents regarded “Efficacy”, “Securely adhering” and “Norashes” as important. The most dissatisfaction with patch use was “Difficultly applying/re-applying”. Respondents
having used both BR and GE rated the functional usability for BR better than that for GE.
Respondentsʼ dissatisfactions were indicated much more frequently in functional usability than in efficacy. Thus,
the functional usability may be a trigger for the patient to change drugs. Further, a large individual difference wasobserved in patientsʼ responses concerning the functional usability. Even with the use of the same type of patch, thefunctional usability perceived by each patient might differ.
This study revealed that functional usability differs among BR and GEs, and the patientʼs perception of functional
usability patients also varies among patients, indicating that functional usability may be important when patientsuse a patch and that their needs for functional usability is varied.
Key Words: transdermal patches, ketoprofen, drug information, generic medicines, questionnaire survey

Introduction

56.2% as of September 2015 5）. To further reduce

Recently in Japan, the national medical carethe drug cost, the MHLW set the target of thisexpenditure has increased more rapidly than theshare at 80% or above as early as possible

increase in national income due to advancedb e t w e e n 2 0 1 8 a n d 2 0 2 0 5 ）. G E s h a v e b e e n

aging 1）; the year-specific estimated medical costs

a p p r o ve d b a s e d o n c o n f i r m e d b i o e q u i v a l e n c e .

exceeded JPY 30 trillion in 2001 and reached

However, medical staff are st ill concerned thatJPY 40 trillion in 20142 ）,3 ）. In response to thisGEs might be inadequate compared tosituation, the Ministry of Health, Labour andb r a n d - n a m e d r u g ( B R ) i n q u a l i t y, i n f o r m a t i o n

Welfare (MHLW ) addressed a reduction in drug

service by manufacturers and stable supply. This

cost as part of the strategy to make medical careanxiety may prevents the promotion of GEs 1）,6）.

more efficient, and the Ministry began to

Topical anti-inflammatory analgesics are

establish an environment to promote the use ofcommonly used to cure various types of pain 7 ）.

generic drugs (GEs) by revising the prescription

Since the patches are applied directly to the skin,4）

form in the 2006 Revision of Medical Fee . The

it was reported that not only anti-inflammatory

quant ity share of GEs among the medical drug

and analgesic effects but the functional usability,

products was 46.9% in September 2013 andsuch as removing and stretching were also

〒260-8675 千葉県千葉市中央区亥鼻1-8-1 千葉大学大学院薬学研究院社会薬学
Department of Social Pharmacy, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chiba University
1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba-shi, Chiba 260-8675, Japan
連絡著者：丸宗孝 e-mail: acwa4684@chiba-u.jp Tel/Fax:043-226-2884

医薬品相互作用研究

important factors for drug change by patients
8）,9）

Vol.42, No. 1（2018）17（17）

quest ions: 1) characterist ics of the respondent. In the previous study(age, sex and the patches used), 2) importantwhich invest ig ated the importance of 4 factors

factors related to using the patch, 3) satisfaction(“Efficacy”, “Safety”, “Economics” and “Functionaland dissatisfaction with the patch, 4) whether or

usability”) when patients used or selected topical

not they had changed their patch and, if

10）,

applicable, the reason for change, 5) previous

83.9% of patients using BR patches and 84.8% of

use of BR and GEs and the name of GE used, 6)

patients using GEs patches replied that theevaluation of the comparison of functional

functional usability was an “Important” orusability between BR and GEs, and 7) the reason“Rather important” factor. The patients changed

for return to BR.

and patient satisfaction

ant i-inflammatory analgesic patch pro ducts

their patches mainly due to dissatisfaction with

We obtained the responses in the form offunctional usability such as “Rash/skin irritation”

multiple choice for [questions 1), 3), 4), and 5)

and “Easily peeling during application”.

(partially narrative)], selection of the top 1 to 3

Moreover, the patients requested to change their[among the options for 2), 3), 7)], and rating ofpatches to another specific patch mainly due to“Easiness to apply”, “Smell”, “Degree of

dissat isfact ion w ith the ant i-inflammatory anda d h e r e n c e”, a n d “ E a s y r e m o v a l ” u s i n g 1 t o 5

analgesic effect and also because of “Easily

scale as well as “Pain severity with removal”

peeling during applicat ion”. These results

using 1 to 5 scale for 6).

indicate that “Functional usability” may serve as
an important criteria when patients select the
drugs

10）

2. Statistical analysis. However, bioequivalence has been

A chi-square test was performed for theobserved between BR and GEs, without the

proportion of BR versus GE users satisfied withevidence that functional usability would be thetheir patch. The important factors using thesame level. Furthermore, it is difficult to evaluate

patch, dissat isfact ion w ith their patch, and thefunctional usability based on the documents

reasons for return from GE to BR, assuming thatprovided by manufacturers, such as the package

the top 1, 2, and 3 items was reg arded as 3, 2,

i n s e r t o r a n i n t e r v i e w f o r m . We c o m p a r e d t h e

and 1 points, respect ively, the mean score wasfunctional usability of between BR and GEs ofcalculated by dividing the total score by the

Ketoprofen Tape, one of the most popular topicalnumber of respondents for each item. The

anti-inflammatory analgesics, in order toresultant mean scores were examined according

evaluate the functional usability of these drugs.

to the drug product used, gender, and age groupbased on the Mann-Whitney U-test. Differences

Methods

in pain severity in the ratings of impression from

We conducted a self-completed anonymous

using BR and GEs between the respective users

quest ionnaire for pat ients who have used BR-A

were examined based on the Studentʼs t-test. The

or one of GE-B, -C, -D, or -E for Ketoprofen Tapestatistical significance level was set at a p-value

20 mg through 21 insurance pharmacies of the

below 0.05. All analyses were conducted using

Maru Corporation.

SPSS (version 20.0, IBM, Japan).

The respondents received an explanation
describing the purpose and contents of thisResults

study and anonymity of this questionnaire. They

1. Characteristics of respondents (age, sexconsented to reply to this questionnaire. Thisand the patches used)study was approved by the Ethical Review Board

We conducted the questionnaire betweenof the Graduate School of Pharmaceutical

December 2014 and March 2015 and obtained

Science, Chiba University.

the responses from 274 subjects. The responses
for 29 subjects, for whom some responses were

1. Questionnaire
The quest ionnaire consisted of the follow ing

related to missing baseline information, were notincluded; therefore the analysis set consisted of

18（18）

医薬品相互作用研究

Vol.42, No. 1（2018）

245 subjects. Among the entire analysis set, thepatch are listed in Table 1. These factors were

proportion of respondents aged 60 years or“Efficacy”, followed by “No rash”, and “Securely

older was 81.6% (n = 200) and that of female

adhering” in BR users, while they were “Efficacy”,

was 68.2% (n = 167). BR users accounted forfollowed by “Securely adhering”, and “Easy

78.4% (n = 192) of all responders; those aged 60

removal” in GE users. According to the sex, theyears or older 80.7% (n = 155) and females

important factor using the patch was “Efficacy”,

71.4% (n = 137). GE users accounted for 21.6%

followed by “Securely adhering”, and “Medication(n = 53) of all respondents; those aged 60 years

a s p r e s c r i b e d b y p h y s i c i a n” f o r m a l e s , w h i l e i t

or older 84.9% (n = 45) and females 56.6% (n =w a s “ E f f i c a c y ”, f o l l o w e d b y “ N o r a s h”, a n d

30).

“Securely adhering” for females. According to theAmong 53 GE users, the product used was B inage g roup, the important factor was “Efficacy”,
followed by “Securely adhering”, and “No rash” in

9 users, C in 23, D in 4, and E in 17.

respondents younger than 60 years, while it was

2. Important factors related to using the patch“Efficacy”, followed by “No rash”, and “Securely

Two hundred forty three of 245 respondents

adhering” in those aged 60 years or older. Whenr e p l i e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n : “Q : O n w h a tcomparing the individual items, the respondents

important factors do you consider when using ayounger than 60 years considered “Securely

patch to reduce pain or inflammation?”.

adhering” as more important compared to those

The important factors related to the use of theaged 60 years or older (p < 0.05).

Table 1. The important factors using the patch (n = 243)
“Q: On what important factors do you consider when using a patch to reduce pain or inflammation?”BR
n = 190

GEn = 53P- valueMalen = 77

Femalen = 166

P- value

Youngerthan 60years
n = 452.13±1.16
1.02±1.10
0.33±0.77
0.87±1.16
0.44±0.79
0.04±0.21
0.31±0.76
0.16±0.42
0.20±0.55

60 years orolder
n = 198

P- value

0.253
0.739
0.860
Efficacy
1.97±1.27
2.17±1.24
2.05±1.28
2.00±1.16
1.99±1.29
0.922
0.290
0.015*
Securely adhering
0.73±1.05
0.70±1.03
0.81±1.08
0.68±1.03
0.65±1.03
0.051
0.455
0.563
Easy removal (i.e., painless)
0.34±0.77
0.60±1.01
0.34±0.79
0.42±0.86
0.41±0.85
0.148
0.452
0.461
No rashes
0.81±1.11
0.53±0.87
0.65±0.97
0.80±1.11
0.72±1.05
0.442
0.001*
0.088
No smell
0.36±0.76
0.26±0.66
0.10±0.38
0.45±0.84
0.31±0.73
0.932
0.125
0.220
Smell
0.03±0.19
0.04±0.28
0.00±0.00
0.04±0.26
0.03±0.21
0.631
0.931
0.088
Easily applying /re-applying
0.49±0.89
0.57±0.95
0.47±0.82
0.52±0.94
0.55±0.93
0.025*
0.435
0.491
Good stretchability
0.17±0.49
0.04±0.28
0.13±0.47
0.14±0.44
0.14±0.46
0.000*
0.777
0.216
Low cost
0.07±0.36
0.36±0.76
0.14±0.56
0.13±0.46
0.12±0.48
Well-recognized name
0.500
0.319
0.899
0.04±0.28
0.04±0.19
0.08±0.42
0.02±0.13
0.02±0.15
0.04±0.28(pharmaceutical company)
0.907
0.125
0.282
Color
0.04±0.29
0.02±0.14
0.00±0.00
0.05±0.32
0.00±0.00
0.05±0.29
0.325
0.047*
0.116
Prescribed by doctor
0.52±0.97
0.38±0.84
0.66±1.07
0.40±0.87
0.36±0.91
0.52±0.95
0.454
0.334
0.499
Recommended by pharmacist
0.01±0.10
0.00±0.00
0.00±0.00
0.01±0.11
0.00±0.00
0.01±0.10
0.454
0.334
0.499
Recommended by family/friend
0.01±0.10
0.00±0.00
0.00±0.00
0.01±0.11
0.00±0.00
0.01±0.10
0.358
0.943
0.407
Others
0.04±0.30
0.00±0.00
0.04±0.34
0.02±0.22
0.00±0.00
0.04±0.29
Mean ± S.D. was calculated by dividing the total score by the number of respondents for each item, assuming the top 1, 2, and 3 items as 3, 2, and 1 points,
respectively.
P < 0.05 (Mann-Whitney U test)

3. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction for the patch

apply ing/re-apply ing”, followed by “Rash”, andTwo hundred forty of 245 respondents replied“Efficacy” for BR users while “Difficultly

to the following question: “Are you satisfied with

apply ing/re-apply ing”, followed by “Painful

the patch that you are now using?”, 197

r e m o v a l ”, “ E f f i c a c y ”, a n d “ R a s h” f o r G E u s e r s .

r e s p o n d e n t s ( 8 2 . 1 % ) a n s w e r e d “ Ye s” w h i l e 4 3

There was no item associated with a significant(17.9%) answered “No”. The number of users who

difference between BR and GE users.

were satisfied was 154 (82.4%) for BR (n = 187),
while it was 43 (81.1%) for GE (n = 53). In

4. Experience of prescription change and thecontrast, the number of users dissatisfied was 33

reasonfor BR and 10 for GE. The details of these

Two hundred forty of 245 respondents replied

dissat isfact ions are shown in Table 2. The item

to the follow ing quest ion: “Have you consulted

indicated as a dissatisfaction was “Difficultly

with your doctor/pharmacist about changing the医薬品相互作用研究

Vol.42, No. 1（2018）19（19）

Table 2. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the patch (n = 43)“Q: Are you satisfied with the patch that you are now using?” (select 1, 2 or, 3 items.)
BRGE
P- valuen = 33n = 10
Poor efficacy
0.921
0.52±1.12
0.60±1.27
Insecurely adhering
0.487
0.45±1.09
0.00±0.00
Painful removal
0.419
0.33±0.92
0.80±1.32
Rash
0.524
0.94±1.32
0.60±1.27
Unpleasantly strong smell
0.09±0.52
0.20±0.63
0.766
Too weak smell
0.00±0.00
0.00±0.00
Difficultly applying /re-applying
0.854
1.03±1.26
1.20±1.55
Bad stretchability
0.899
0.06±0.35
0.00±0.00
The product is GE.
0.00±0.00
0.00±0.00
Less recognized product name
0.899
0.03±0.17
0.00±0.00
Color
0.00±0.00
0.00±0.00
Others
0.27±0.88
0.40±0.84
0.681
Mean ± S.D. was calculated by dividing the total score by the number of respondents for each item,
assuming the top 1, 2, and 3 items as 3, 2, and 1 points, respectively.
(Mann-Whitney U test)

patch for any reason leading to the change?”, 53

The reason for change was primarily(22.1%) respondents answered “Yes”.

“Insecurely adhering” (29.4%), followed by “Rash”

Fifty one of 53 respondents replied to the(29.4%), and “Change to GE to reduce drug cost”

following question: “Q: Why did you ask to(27.5%) (Fig. 1).

OthersColorLess recognized name

Change to GE to reduce cost

Bad stretchability

Difficultly (re-)applying

Too weak smell

Smell

Rash

Painful removal

Insecurely adhering

Poor efficacy

change prescription for the patch?”.

Fig.1. Experience of prescription change and the reason (n = 51)“Q: Why did you ask to change prescription for the patch?”

5. Functional usability from using BR and GEs

exception of those who provided no response,

We identified 46 respondents who had

indicated their ratings based on 1 to 5 scale

experienced both BR and GEs and information

concerning “Easiness to apply”, “Smell”, “Degree ofregarding the specific products that they had used.

adherence”, and “Easy removal” (Fig. 2A).

GE used was B in 9 respondents, C in 21, D in 6,

For “Easiness to apply”, “Degree of adherence”,

and E in 10. Among them, 45 respondents, with thea n d “ E a s y r e m o v a l ”, B R w a s b e t t e r r a t e d t h a n

20（20）

医薬品相互作用研究

Vol.42, No. 1（2018）

either of GE-B, -C, -D, or -E. For “Easiness to

GE-E (2.90 ± 0.32), and GE-B (2.78 ± 0.67).

a p p l y ”, G E - E ( 2 . 4 0 ± 0 . 8 4 [ m e a n ± S . D. ] ) w a s

H o w e v e r, f o r t h e F u n c t i o n a l u s a b i l i t y - r e l a t e dbest rated, followed by GE-C (2.29 ± 0.95), GE-D

items other than “Smell”, GEs were all associated(2.14 ± 0.90), and GE-B (2.11 ± 0.93). Forwith a great S.D. with variation in the responses.

“Deg ree of adherence”, GE-E (2.70 ± 1.06) was

Among the 46 respondents experiencing both

best rated, followed by GE-D (2.57 ± 1.40), GE-B

BR and either of GE-B, -C, -D, or -E, 44(2.33 ± 0.87), and GE-C (2.29 ± 1.20). For “Easy

respondents, except for those who provided nor e m o v a l ”, G E - B w a s b e s t r a t e d ( 2 . 6 7 ± 1 . 1 2 ) ,response, rated “Pain severity with removal”

followed by GE-E (2.60 ± 0.70), GE-D (2.57 ±based on 1 to 5 scale (Fig. 2B). When comparing

1.40), and GE-C (2.43 ± 0.99). For “Smell”, GE-B,

this item between BR and individual GEs, there- C , - D, a n d - E w e r e r a t e d s i m i l a r l y t o B R ; G E - D

was no significant difference in pain severity(3.14 ± 0.38) followed by GE-C (2.92 ± 0.83),

between any GE and BR.

（Mean score）（Mean score）

Fig.2: Evaluation of Functional usability for BR versus GEA) Easiness to apply, Smell, Degree of adherence, and Easy removal (n = 45)
B) Pain severity with removal (n = 44)

医薬品相互作用研究

Vol.42, No. 1（2018）21（21）

applying”, and “Painful removal”. According to the6. The reason for return from GE to BR
Twenty-two respondents have experienced returna g e g r o u p , “ I n s e c u r e l y a d h e r i n g”, f o l l o w e d b yfrom GE to BR. Their reasons to return from GE to“Difficultly applying”, and “Rash” were indicated by

BR are summarized in Table 3.

respondents younger than 60 years, while

T h e r e a s o n s i n c l u d e d “ I n s e c u r e l y a d h e r i n g”,“ I n s e c u r e l y a d h e r i n g”, f o l l o w e d b y “ D i f f i c u l t l y“Difficultly applying”, and “Rash”; male respondents

applying”, and “Poor efficacy” was given in thoseindicated “Insecurely adhering”, “Difficultly

aged 60 years or older. There was no significant

applying”, and “Rash” while female respondents

difference in the reasons between both sexes as

indicated “Insecurely adhering”, “Difficultly

well as between the age groups.

Table 3. Reasons for return from GE to BR (n = 22)“Q. If applicable, for what reason did you return to BR?” (select 1, 2 or, 3 items).

Poor efficacy
Insecurely adhering
Painful removal
Difficultly applying
RashComparable cost
Unpleasant smell
Unfavorable color
OthersAll
respondents
n= 22
0.55±1.01
1.09±1.31
0.55±1.06
0.95±1.36
0.59±1.14
0.18±0.66
0.00±0.00
0.00±0.00
0.55±1.10

Male
n=9

Femalen = 13P- value

0.67±1.12
1.00±1.32
0.56±1.13
1.00±1.32
0.78±1.20
0.33±1.00
0.00±0.00
0.00±0.00
0.33±1.00

0.46±0.97
1.15±1.35
0.54±1.05
0.92±1.44
0.46±1.13
0.08±0.28
0.00±0.00
0.00±0.00
0.69±1.18

0.695
0.896
1.000
0.794
0.601
0.896
0.512

Younger than
60 years
n=80.38±0.74
1.25±1.49
0.50±0.93
1.13±1.36
0.63±1.19
0.38±1.06
0.00±0.00
0.00±0.00
0.63±1.19

60 years orolder
n = 140.64±1.15
1.00±1.24
0.57±1.16
0.86±1.41
0.57±1.16
0.07±0.27
0.00±0.00
0.00±0.00
0.50±1.09

P- value
0.815
0.664
1.000
0.616
0.920
0.815
0.920

Mean ± S.D. was calculated by dividing the total score by the number of respondents for each item, assuming the top 1, 2, and 3 items as 3, 2, and1 points, respectively.
(Mann-Whitney U test)

applying/re-applying” rather than “Efficacy”. The

Discussions
This study revealed that patients put emphasis

report by Abe et al. 1 2 ） suggested that BR and theon “Efficacy” when using a patch, as well as theindividual GEs patches have distinctive physicalitems related to functional usability from using,features. This may result in a difference ins u c h a s “ S e c u r e l y a d h e r i n g” a n d “ N o r a s h”,

functional usability from using and, in turn,regardless of the product used, gender, and age

influence the scores of satisfaction.

group. The respondents younger than 60 years

In the respondents experiencing prescription

rated “Securely adhering” as more significantly

change, we examined the reasons. The 3 top

important compared to those aged 60 years or

responses were “Insecurely adhering”, “Rash”, and11）reported that

“Change to GE to reduce cost”. This result is similar

generally younger people are associated with ato the important factor when using a patch

higher amount of sweat ing. A difference in thep r o d u c t , a s s h o w n i n Ta b l e 2 . T h e r e f o r e , s u c htrends of responses according to the age groupfunctional usability is likely to represent an

may be influenced by a difference in age-related

important motivation of drug change by patients.

skin condition.

Furthermore, in the respondents experiencing botholder. Kobayashi and Razia

Concerning the satisfaction of the patch that the

BR and GEs and returning from GE to BR, therespondents were currently using, they werereason was “Insecurely adhering” and “Difficultly

highly sat isfied for both BR and GEs, although

apply ing”, which were related to funct ional

about 20% of the respondents indicated that theyusability, rather than “Efficacy”. The motivation ofwere dissatisfied. In these respondents, wereturn to BR may be related to functional usability.

conducted a survey on what aspects of their patch

According to these results, it may be possible toabout which they felt dissatisfied. Both BR and GE

propose an option to change from one GE tousers had the top dissatisfaction for impression

another GE based on considerations of the physicalfunctional usability-related items of “Difficultly

features specific to individual patch products, in22（22）

医薬品相互作用研究

addition to the change from GE to BR product.
We c o m p a r e d t h e m e a n s c o r e s o f f u n c t i o n a lusability rated by the respondents experiencing
both BR and GEs. For “Easiness to apply”, GEs wereVol.42, No. 1（2018）

Trend of Medical Expenditures - FY 2001.
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/topics/medias/year/01/
1.html Acccess2017-06-08.
３）The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare:

all rated lower compared to BR. For “Deg ree ofTrends of Medical Expenditures - Estimates ofadherence”, GE-D and -E were rated similar to BR-A,

National Medical Expenditure for FY 2014.

although GE-B and -C were rated as low. For “Easy

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/topics/medias/year/14/

removal”, GE-B, -D, and -E were rated as similar todl/iryouhi̲data.pdf Access2017-06-08.

BR-A although GE-C was rated as difficult removal.

４）The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare:GEs used for this study were not rated as equivalent

Explanetion materials for “Critical issue

to or better than BR-A in the mean scores ofverification” hearings.

“Easiness to apply”, “Degree of adherence”, andhttp://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/gskaigi/worki“Easy removal” among the respondents. However, ang/dai2/siryou3.pdf Access2017-06-08.

variation in individual responses was observed, and５）The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare:some responses indicated better functional usability

Market Share of Generic Drugs.

of “Easiness to apply”, “Degree of adherence”, andhttp://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-1“Easy removal” for GEs compared to BR. According

0800000-Iseikyoku/0000114903.pdf

to these results, it was suggested that the patientʼs

Access2017-06-08.

impression of functional usability is individually６）Miura S, Ishida T, Nakagami M et al.: A

different, even if with the same drug product. Since

Questionnaire Survey of the Current Status of

the report by Abe et al. 1 2 ） demonstrated physicalUse of Generic Products. Journal of Japanesefeatures of the patch products, pharmacists are able

Society of Hospital Pharmacists., 44(5),to utilize the information on these physical features719-722, 2008.

when selecting a patch product for patients who７）Tokyo Pharmaceutical Association: The 4th

feel dissatisfied about the functional usability whencommunity-based survey on actual usage.

using their product.

http://www.toyaku.or.jp/jittaityousa̲No4.pdf
Access 2014-06-01.

Conclusion
This study revealed differences in funct ional

８）Minowa T, Watanabe K, Takeda S et al.: Survey ofPatientsʼ Evaluation of Pressure Sensitive

usability in using BR compared to GEs. When using

Adhesive Tape Containing Loxoprofen Sodium

the patch products, patients consider not only the

Hydrate (Loxonin® Tape 100mg). Journal of New

efficacy but also such functional usability as

Remedies & Clinics., 59(8), 1437-1445, 2010.

important factors. Functional usability was found to９）Saita A, Inoue A, Ishibashi H et al.: A Questionnaire

be important in patientsʼ satisfaction of the patch

Survey of Patients Comparing the Usability of

products as well as related to the motivation to

Brand-name and Generic Ketoprofen Tapes.

change the patch product. Further, without

YAKUGAKU ZASSHI., 128(5), 795-803, 2008.

classification of BR and GE, it was suggested that10）Fujino K: A survey on actual prescription of brandthe individual patientʼs needs related to needs vary.

versus generic products of topicalanalgesic/anti-inflammatory patches. Journal of New

Conflicts of Interest: COI
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Remedies & Clinics., 62 (11), 2148-2158, 2013.
11）Kobayashi Y and Razia S: Skin Aging. Biomedical
Gerontology., 32(4), 15-19, 2008.

References
１）The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare:12）Abe C, Oka R, Onodera T et al.: Comparative
Assessment of Physical Properties ofPromotion of the Use of Generic Drugs.

Brand-name and Generic Transdermal-patch

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/seisaku/2012/03/01.ht

Preparations. The Journal of Community

ml Access2017-06-08.

Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Science., 8(1),２）The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare:

67-7, 2016.