Search

Study Objective: To evaluate clinical and safety outcomes among transplant recipients whose tacrolimus was converted from the brand-name formulation to a generic formulation., Design: Retrospective analysis., Data Source: Clinical databases and electronic records from a large, integrated health care system in California., Patients: A total of 234 clinically stable, adult transplant recipients (renal, liver, and heart) whose tacrolimus was converted from the brand-name formulation to a generic formulation between October 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010, according to a physician-approved protocol., Measurements and Main Results: For each patient, pre- and postconversion tacrolimus trough concentrations and serum creatinine concentrations were analyzed. Data were also collected on the percentage of patients who required dosage titration, drug cost savings, and rates of reversion to brand-name tacrolimus, biopsy-proved acute allograft rejections, and mortality. No significant differences were noted in mean ± SD pre- and postconversion tacrolimus trough levels (6.74 ± 1.61 vs 6.96 ± 2.31 ng/ml, p=0.137) or serum creatinine concentrations (1.33 ± 0.48 vs 1.36 ± 0.82 mg/dl, p=0.302). The mean ± SD percent change in tacrolimus trough concentration was 5.63 ± 32.95%. Thirty-six patients (15.4%) required dosage titration. Six patients (2.6%) reverted back to brand-name tacrolimus. No deaths or acute rejections occurred. Use of the generic product saved each patient an average of $45/month in drug acquisition cost and $26/prescription copayment., Conclusion: Clinical experience as well as research data show that use of generic tacrolimus results in trough concentrations that are comparable to the brand-name drug. Given the lack of adverse events reported and the cost savings recognized, conversion from brand-name tacrolimus to generic tacrolimus should be encouraged. Since dosage titration may be required, close therapeutic drug monitoring is recommended., (© 2012 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.)

Generic antiepileptic drugs achieve blood concentrations similar to those of innovator drugs in healthy volunteers, but their comparative effectiveness has not been well evaluated. Thus, we assessed the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of innovator versus generic antiepileptic drugs. We searched the MEDLINE database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science for studies that evaluated innovator and generic antiepileptic drugs in patients with epilepsy and reported data on prespecified outcomes. We extracted data on study design, interventions, quality criteria, study population, baseline characteristics, and outcomes. Compared with initiation of innovator antiepileptic drugs, initiation of generic antiepileptic drugs did not significantly alter seizure occurrence (relative risk [RR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.18; strength of evidence: low) or frequency (standardized mean difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.08-0.14; strength of evidence: low), withdrawals due to lack of efficacy (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.41-2.54; strength of evidence: low) or adverse events (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.28-2.20; strength of evidence: low), pharmacokinetic concentrations (maximum, minimum, or area under the curve [strength of evidence: low]), or a myriad of adverse events (strength of evidence: low or insufficient) in clinical trials. In qualitatively evaluated observational studies, switching between forms of antiepileptic drug (innovator to generic, generic to generic) may increase the risk of hospitalization (strength of evidence: low), hospital stay duration (strength of evidence: low), and a composite end point of medical service utilization (strength of evidence: insufficient) but may not increase outpatient service utilization (strength of evidence: low). Data are limited predominantly to carbamazepine, phenytoin, and valproic acid. Clinical trials are limited by small sample size, short-term nature, and lack of specification of A-rated generic products (generics that the United States Food and Drug Administration has deemed bioequivalent to the innovator drug). Observational trials lack full accounting for confounders and have inherent limitations. With a low strength of evidence, it appears that initiating an innovator or generic antiepileptic drug will provide similar efficacy, tolerability, and safety but that switching from one form to the other may be associated with more hospitalizations and longer hospital stays., (© 2012 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.)

Survival after solid organ transplantation has increased in the era of tacrolimus and mycophenolate. This increased survival could be due in part to the broad clinical use of these potent and specific agents for maintenance immunosuppression. These drugs have enhanced specificity and potency for T and B lymphocytes compared with their predecessors, cyclosporine and azathioprine. Between 2008 and 2010, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved several generic formulations of both tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil. Deciding whether generic products can be safely substituted for the innovator product is a clinical dilemma similar to that which occurred when generic formulations of cyclosporine became available. We describe the concerns regarding generic immunosuppression use, summarize expert opinion and consensus statements in transplantation, analyze the potential impact of generic substitution, and provide estimates of populations affected based on generic drug market penetration. Formulary considerations such as cost, availability, and potential drug ordering and drug selection errors are described, and transplant coordinator and patient perspectives are reviewed. Finally, general recommendations about the use of generic maintenance immunosuppression in solid organ transplant recipients are provided. Although more research is needed to confirm clinical and therapeutic equivalence and pharmacoeconomic benefit, generic immunosuppressants can be safely substituted for innovator products as long as patients consistently receive the same product, patients and clinicians are aware of when substitutions occur, and enhanced therapeutic drug monitoring is provided during the transition.

The use of generic drugs has become increasingly common in clinical practice. However, for drugs with a narrow therapeutic index, such as warfarin, there may be some concern regarding the definition of bioequivalence. Clinical studies that compared brand name and generic warfarin products provided conflicting results. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of the literature to better assess the characteristics of each generic warfarin product. Several sources were searched, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, electronic records of meetings' abstracts, and reference lists of included articles. Articles were considered relevant if they were original studies, enrolled patients receiving oral anticoagulant treatment, and compared any approved generic warfarin with brand name warfarin in at least one clinical, laboratory, or management outcome. Eleven studies, with a total of more than 40,000 patients, were included; five were randomized controlled trials, and six were observational studies. In three crossover trials evaluating the mean difference of the international normalized ratio (INR) after switching to the alternate formulation of warfarin, no statistically significant difference was found between patients randomly assigned to receive brand name or generic warfarin. The two other randomized trials found no significant differences in the magnitude or number of dosage changes between patients switched to brand name or generic warfarin. The results of the observational studies are more conflicting, suggesting different features for different generic warfarin products. In these observational studies, the time in the therapeutic range and the number of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications were similar in studies that compared the anticoagulation control before and after the switch to a generic warfarin product. In one observational study, however, a change in therapeutic INR control after the switch to generic warfarin was reported at the individual patient level. The results of our systematic review suggest that generic warfarin products may be as safe and effective as brand name products and that patients may be safely treated with these products. However, closer monitoring may be reasonable when switching brands, as variations in individual INR response may be seen.

Study Objectives: To determine the odds of antiepileptic drug substitution among patients who had an epileptic event requiring acute care-ambulance service, emergency department visit, or hospitalization-relative to patients who did not have an event, and to compare these results with those from a recent study involving a similar method but different patients., Design: Case-control analysis., Data Source: United States health care claims from the PharMetrics database., Patients: A cohort of patients aged 12-64 years with a primary diagnosis of epilepsy between October 1, 2005, and December 31, 2006; 991 cases (patients who experienced an epileptic event requiring acute care) and 2973 controls (patients who did not have an event) were matched in a 1:3 ratio for sex, age, and type of epilepsy., Measurements and Main Results: Using discordant pairs analysis, we calculated the odds ratio of an epileptic event that required acute care occurring in patients whose antiepileptic drug underwent substitution to an A-rated (therapeutically equivalent) alternative (switch from branded product to generic, generic to branded, or generic to generic) versus those whose drugs were not substituted. For matched data, 109 (11.0%) of 991 cases had an A-rated antiepileptic drug substitution in the 6 months before the event, whereas only 186 (6.3%) of 2973 controls had a substitution (odds ratio 1.84, 95% confidence interval 1.44-2.36). Our results were similar to those of a previous study involving a different patient database, which showed substitution rates of 11.3% for cases versus 6.5% for controls (odds ratio 1.81, 95% confidence interval 1.25-2.63). Our sensitivity analyses were robust, and we found a temporal relationship in that numerous substitutions occurred in the month before the acute event., Conclusion: Patients who had an epileptic event requiring acute care were about 80% more likely than matched controls without an acute event to have recently had an antiepileptic drug substitution. Our replication of a previously published case-control analysis revealed a similar association between substitution involving A-rated antiepileptic drugs and subsequent epileptic events requiring acute care, thereby lending credibility to the findings.

Background: Substitution of generic warfarin initially was discouraged because of concerns regarding therapeutic failure or toxicity. Although subsequent research with AB-rated (i.e., bioequivalent) warfarin did not confirm initial concerns, the issue is not settled for all clinicians., Objectives: We sought to provide additional information regarding the clinical and economic impact of warfarin conversion by analyzing a real-life sample of patients receiving long-term anticoagulation therapy who were switched from brand name to generic warfarin., Methods: Patients who had been taking warfarin for at least 180 days and had received uninterrupted oral anticoagulation 90 days before and 90 days after switching to generic warfarin were included. The switch date was based on the first time generic warfarin was dispensed from our pharmacies. The primary end point was the calculated amount of time each patient's international normalized ratio (INR) values were within the patient-specific target INR range in the 90 days before and after the switch. Data regarding adverse events and medical resource utilization were also collected. Pharmacoeconomic analyses were performed., Results: The analysis included 2299 patients. The overall difference in calculated time INR values were below (22.6% before vs 26.1% after switch, p<0.0001) and within (65.9% before vs 63.3% after switch, p=0.0002) the therapeutic INR range was statistically but not clinically significant. Only 28.0% of patients experienced a change in therapeutic INR control of 10% or less, 33.1% experienced INR control that improved by greater than 10%, and 38.9% experienced INR control that worsened by more than 10%. The difference in total treatment costs associated with brand name and generic warfarin was 3128 dollars/100 patient-years in favor of the generic product. Sensitivity analyses revealed that cost savings associated with warfarin conversion in this health care system were highly dependent on the difference between warfarin costs and cost of treating anticoagulation-related adverse events., Conclusions: Most of these patients were successfully switched from brand name to generic warfarin. However, supplemental INR monitoring is warranted when one warfarin product is substituted for another to allow timely detection of those patients who experience significant changes in anticoagulation response.

Every prescription written for a generic drug requires an act of faith by the prescriber that any one of the several available products will be therapeutically equivalent to the innovator (brand name) products. Concerns about this act of faith have been expressed for many years, particularly in the wake of the generic scandals that occurred in 1989-1990, and especially relative to the drugs with a narrow therapeutic range. We contend that these drugs are actually the least likely to pose problems in ensuring therapeutic equivalence, but that new criteria must be established for bioequivalence because the present system is wasteful and is stifling innovation in the industry. We propose four suggestions to the scientific and regulatory communities that we believe could assist in modifying the process such that innovation is encouraged and practitioners are reassured relative to the appropriateness of using generic drugs.