Can’t We Do Any Better With Pharma Naming?

Let me start by saying that I understand the challenges of naming new drugs. During my 35 year career as a naming professional, I’ve worked on many assignments for the world’s major pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, J&J, Merck, and Bayer to name a few.

Naming is a tough, and at times, an irrational business—creative yes, but at the same time strategic and legal. With pharma naming, there are FDA regulations, trademark requirements, and global branding and linguistics to deal with, as well as subjective client preferences.

This is why so many new drugs advertised on TV have names that couldn’t be more obscure. They don’t seem to say anything about the medical problem, the formulation, or the treatment. The growing breed of biologics, in particular, has dramatically increased the number of weird drug names we see on a daily basis.

I’ve always believed that a good name meets these challenges while finding something that tells people what the product is all about. Granted that it was easier in the past to do this. Classic pharma names like Bufferin, for buffered aspirin, Allegra and Claritin, for allergies, and Detrol, a Detrusitol-based treatment that works on the detrusor muscle to control overactive bladder, were available and are simple enough to be familiar.

In the last few days, I’ve watched ads for Ozempic, a semaglutide injection for diabetes, Tremfya, a guselkumab drug for psoriasis and Farxiga, a dapaglifozin treatment for diabetes, to name just a few. I’m scratching my head trying to figure out what inspired these name choices.

Yet, some new names do cut through the clutter, or at least make sense to some degree.

Some make a nod to the scientific name by finding several letters that can be played with. For example, there’s Opdiva, a nivolmab treatment for melanoma, Andexxa, which reverses factor Xa inhibitors to enable blood clotting, and Lutathera, a luterium-based therapy for pancreatic tumors. They may not be the simplest names, but they do sound pretty good and are logical and meaningful.

Some others manage to take the extra step of using letter combinations that patients can relate to, such TPOXX for treating smallpox, and Nocdurna, a nocturnal polyuria treatment for excessive urination.

This is not to say that all pharma names have to include a scientific reference to be understandable and effective. For example, Breo is a simple, suggestive name for treating COPD, Ibrance for breast cancer is a pretty, positive name for women to remember, Galliprant treats dog arthritis, and Brilinta, for the prevention of strokes, is just brilliant.

The takeaway. With the amount of cost and effort that goes into developing pharmaceutical names, doesn’t it make sense to create and select ones with strong branding criteria and potential?