Talk:Escitalopram oxalate

Well, I would say this is once again an example how strange the current patent laws are. If it's allowed to patent the isolated enantiomer of an already patented molecule as a "new" substance, sure companies will do it! This is not the fault of Lundbeck. I just don't understand what is considered "new" by the patent lawyers about a product that is essentially just the half part of an already known product... So I also don't understand the people critisizing Lundbeck. I would only understand it if the scientific data about the superiority of the S-enantiomer would be somehow faked or manipulated. I don't know if there is evidence for that. And concerning the price: at least in Switzerland the prices for the therapy are identical, given that the R-enantiomer is reported to be 30-fold less potent and can be ignored in terms of effectiveness. The biggest available package of 98 tablets is even cheaper than the respective one for citalopram. If this is the case in other countries too, the notion "but considerably more expensive" should be removed from the article.

-- David Andel