Search

Background: Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), often associated with increased intraocular pressure (IOP), can lead to permanent damage of the optic nerve, concomitant visual field loss, and blindness. Latanoprost, a prostaglandin F2α analogue, reduces IOP and is used to treat glaucoma. In this clinical trial, we evaluated the efficacy of Latanoprost Polpharma, a generic preservative-free latanoprost 0.05 mg/ml eye drops solution, in lowering IOP when compared to the originator Xalatan ® (latanoprost 0.005% ophthalmic solution, Pfizer)., Methods: This was a Phase III, multicentre, randomized, investigator-masked, cross-over, comparative, non-inferiority trial carried out in 5 sites in Hungary and Russia. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the non-inferiority of the test product when compared to the reference product with respect to the differences in the mean diurnal IOP on Day 1 (baseline) and Day 29. The secondary endpoints included efficacy, ocular tolerance, safety, and usability. We recruited adult patients (18-75 years) with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension., Results: Forty-nine patients were randomised and received at least one dose of the test or reference product. A virtually identical reduction of the mean diurnal IOP of 7.04 ± 2.14 mmHg or 7.17 ± 2.11 mmHg was found after treatment with test or reference product, respectively (N = 44). In the intention to treat analysis, the reduction was 7.29 ± 2.53 mmHg (95% CI: 6.55-8.04) or 7.43 ± 2.78 mm Hg (95%CI: 6.61-8.24) after treatment with test or reference product, respectively (N = 47). There were no serious adverse events., Conclusions: Latanoprost Polpharma was shown to be non-inferior to Xalatan ® . Both investigational products were equally well tolerated and safe. The data show a trend in favour of the test product with regards to the severity of hyperaemia and to the velocity of remission of ocular discomfort. Latanoprost Polpharma, being preservative-free, also avoids the cytotoxicity of benzalkonium chloride, the side effects of which may affect patient compliance and lower the quality of life., Trial Registration: The study had the ethical and regulatory approval from the National Institute of Pharmacy and Nutrition (OGYEI, OGYEI/41,779- 11/2018) and the Ethics Committee for Clinical Pharmacology (KFEB) of Hungary and from the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation (MOH of Russia) prior to the beginning of the study (642/25.12.2018) (clinical trial identification number: 848,300,144/0103/1 - POP03; IND number/EudraCT number: 2018-001727-39)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Estradiol valerate (Progynova ® ) is used as hormone therapy to supplement estrogen deficiency. This study aimed to assess the bioequivalence of an estradiol valerate tablet and its generic form, under fasting and fed conditions., Methods: A randomized, open-label, single-dose, 2-period crossover study was conducted on healthy postmenopausal Chinese female volunteers under fasting and fed conditions. For each period, the subjects received either a 1 mg tablet of estradiol valerate or its generic. Blood samples were collected before dosing and up to 72 hours after administration. Plasma levels of total estrone, estradiol, and unconjugated estrone were quantified using a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method., Results: A total of 54 volunteers were enrolled in this study. The primary pharmacokinetic parameters, including C max , AUC 0-t , and AUC 0-∞ , were similar for the two drugs under both fasting and fed conditions, with 90% confidence intervals for the geometric mean ratios of these parameters, all meeting the bioequivalence criterion of 80-125%. A total of 48 adverse events (AEs) were reported in the fed study compared with 24 AEs in the fasting study., Conclusion: Estradiol valerate and its generic form were bioequivalent and well tolerated under both fasting and fed conditions., Competing Interests: The trial staff interpreted all data for this study independently from the sponsor. Li Zhang, Mupeng Li, Lianlian Fan, Fangfang Liu, Peiwen Zhang, Qian Huang, and Gang Mai are employees of the Deyang People’s Hospital, and Jianzhong Shentu is an employee of the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine. The authors have no other relevant affiliations, financial involvement, or interests in any organization or entity related to the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript., (© 2024 Zhang et al.)

Background and Objective: Azithromycin is the first azalide antibiotic that is related to the macrolide family of antibiotics. Bioequivalence studies in China are initiated by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), which supports a generic consistency evaluation program for ensuring that generic products manufactured in China meet the required standards and provide equivalent therapeutic effects to their reference products. This study aimed to assess the bioequivalence of two azithromycin tablets under both fasting and fed conditions in healthy Chinese volunteers., Methods: This was a single-center, open-label, single-dose, randomized, three-way crossover trial with two independent groups (fasting group and fed group). A total of 72 healthy Chinese subjects (36 subjects in the fasting state and 36 subjects in the fed state) were enrolled and randomized to treatment. Blood samples were collected from 0 to 120 h after a single oral dose of a 250-mg generic azithromycin tablet (test, T) or branded azithromycin tablet (reference, R). The plasma concentrations of azithromycin were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC‒MS/MS). A non-compartmental analysis method was used to estimate the pharmacokinetic parameters. Adverse events were documented., Results: In a fasting state, the bioequivalence of maximum plasma concentration (C max ) was evaluated using the reference-scaled average bioequivalence (RSABE) approach (within-subject standard deviation, S WR > 0.294), and the bioequivalence of area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to the time of the last measurable plasma concentration (AUC 0-t ) and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC 0-∞ ) were evaluated by the average bioequivalence (ABE) method (S WR <  0.294). The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of T/R for C max was 106.49%, while the 95% upper confidence bound was <  0. The GMRs of AUC 0-t and AUC 0-∞ were 103.34% and 101.28%, and the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the test/reference were 95.90-111.35%/94.85-108.15%, respectively. In the fed state, the RSABE approach was applied to estimate the bioequivalence of C max (S WR >0.294), and the ABE approach was applied to estimate the bioequivalence of AUC 0-t and AUC 0-∞ (S WR <  0.294). The GMR for C max was 99.80%, while the 95% upper confidence bound value was <  0. The GMRs of AUC 0-t and AUC 0-∞ were 97.07% and 98.15%, and the 90% CIs of the T/R were 90.02-104.68% and 90.66-106.25%, respectively. All adverse events were mild and transient., Conclusions: The trial indicated that the test and the reference azithromycin tablets were bioequivalent and well tolerated in healthy Chinese volunteers under both fasting and fed conditions., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials, ChiCTR2300071630 (retrospectively registered in 19/05/2023)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Objective: Venlafaxine hydrochloride extended-release (ER) capsules are commonly used to treat depression and anxiety disorders. Evaluation of the bioequivalence of generic formulations with reference products is essential to ensure therapeutic equivalence. The objective of this study was to evaluate the bioequivalence, safety, and tolerability of Chinese-manufactured venlafaxine hydrochloride extended-release capsules compared with USA-manufactured EFFEXOR ® XR in healthy Chinese volunteers under fed conditions., Methods: A randomized, open-label, single-dose, crossover study was conducted. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive the test formulation (one 150-mg ER capsule manufactured in China) or the reference formulation (one 150-mg ER capsule manufactured in the USA). The bioequivalence of the two drugs was assessed using the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last sampling time (AUC 0-t ) and the maximum observed concentration (C max )., Results: A total of 28 subjects were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive a single dose of either the test or reference capsule. All the subjects completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety analyses. The mean AUC 0-t and C max of venlafaxine and its active metabolite O-desmethylvenlafaxine were comparable between the test and reference products with both parameters close to 100% and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals within the specified 80-125% bioequivalence boundary. Safety was also assessed between the two products and all adverse events (AEs) in this study were mild in severity., Conclusions: Both the test and reference venlafaxine hydrochloride ER capsules were bioequivalent and showed a similar safety and tolerability profile in the population studied., Clinical Trials Registration: This study was registered at the Drug Clinical Trial Registration and Information Publicity Platform ( http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/index.html ) with registration number CTR20211243, date: June 1, 2021., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common abnormal heart rhythm in elderly patients. Rivaroxaban has been widely used for stroke prevention. The anticoagulant response to rivaroxaban increases with age, which may make elderly patients susceptible to adverse outcomes resulting from small differences in bioavailability between generic and brand products., Methods: We designed a cohort study of ≥65-year-old inpatients with AF. Sociodemographic and laboratory measures of qualified patients who received brand or generic rivaroxaban for at least 72 hours at the study hospital from January 2021 to June 2023 were collected retrospectively. The primary outcome was the incidence of bleeding., Results: A total of 1008 qualifying patients were included for analysis, with 626 (62.1%) receiving brand rivaroxaban and 382 (37.9%) receiving generic rivaroxaban. After propensity score matching and weighting to account for confounders, the odds ratios comparing brand vs generic rivaroxaban (95% confidence intervals) for the bleeding was 1.15 (0.72-1.82). Results from subgroup analyses of patients with age ≥85, HAS-BLED score ≥ 3, containment of antiplatelet drugs, and female patients were consistent with the primary analysis., Conclusion: It provides evidence regarding the clinical safety outcome of generic rivaroxaban in the elderly AF population that may be particularly susceptible to adverse outcomes resulting from small allowable differences in pharmacokinetics., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (© 2024 Chen et al.)

Background: The 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline was a paradigm shift in lipid management and identified the four statin-benefit groups. Many have studied the guideline's potential impact, but few have investigated its potential long-term impact on MACE. Furthermore, most studies also ignored the confounding effect from the earlier release of generic atorvastatin in Dec 2011., Methods: To evaluate the potential (long-term) impact of the 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline release in Nov 2013 in the U.S., we investigated the association of the 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline with the trend changes in 5-Year MACE survival and three other statin-related outcomes (statin use, optimal statin use, and statin adherence) while controlling for generic atorvastatin availability using interrupted time series analysis, called the Chow's test. Specifically, we conducted a retrospective study using U.S. nationwide de-identified claims and electronic health records from Optum Labs Database Warehouse (OLDW) to follow the trends of 5-Year MACE survival and statin-related outcomes among four statin-benefit groups that were identified in the 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline. Then, Chow's test was used to discern trend changes between generic atorvastatin availability and guideline potential impact., Results: 197,021 patients were included (ASCVD: 19,060; High-LDL: 33,907; Diabetes: 138,159; High-ASCVD-Risk: 5,895). After the guideline release, the long-term trend (slope) of 5-Year MACE Survival for the Diabetes group improved significantly (P = 0.002). Optimal statin use for the ASCVD group also showed immediate improvement (intercept) and long-term positive changes (slope) after the release (P < 0.001). Statin uses did not have significant trend changes and statin adherence remained unchanged in all statin-benefit groups. Although no other statistically significant trend changes were found, overall positive trend change or no changes were observed after the 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline release., Conclusions: The 2013 ACA/AHA Guideline release is associated with trend improvements in the long-term MACE Survival for Diabetes group and optimal statin use for ASCVD group. These significant associations might indicate a potential positive long-term impact of the 2013 ACA/AHA Guideline on better health outcomes for primary prevention groups and an immediate potential impact on statin prescribing behaviors in higher-at-risk groups. However, further investigation is required to confirm the causal effect of the 2013 ACA/AHA Guideline., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: South Africa is home to a multi-ethnic society with a large range of cultures and lifestyles. Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. South Africa is known to have one of the highest incidence rates of hypercholesterolaemia in the world, especially among the Caucasian population., Aim: The aim of this retrospective chart review was to establish whether a multisource simvastatin (Simvotin ® , Ranbaxy, a Sun Pharma company) maintained the cholesterol-lowering effect after switching from the innovator brand Zocor ® (MSD South Africa) in the public-sector hospitals. Since prescribers often doubt the registration requirements of multisource products based on bioequivalence alone, this research was done to confirm similar clinical outcomes in a real-world setting., Methods: More than 200 charts were identified from patients treated for hyperlipidaemia. Patients were treated for at least six months prior to and again six months after the switching of brands in order to meet criteria to be eligible for inclusion. The lipid values at initiation of therapy as well as before switching (visit 1 and 2) had to be available and again six months after treatment on the multisource product (visit 3)., Results: No significant change was observed in the lipid control after switching, confirming similarity., Conclusion: This real-world evidence should allay any fears of generic inferiority of this important medicine in the treatment and prevention of high cardiovascular risk in patients requiring lipid-lowering therapy.

Biosimilars (BS) are promoted worldwide because of the high cost of biologics. However, patients are apprehensive about switching to BS. For some diseases, several factors, which may be disease-dependent, influence patients' acceptance of switching to BS. Herein, we evaluated whether factors influencing acceptance for switching were disease-dependent among Japanese patients with different diseases. This cross-sectional study involved pharmacists' interviews with patients who used or planned to use biologics. Demographic and clinical characteristics were retrospectively investigated using the patients' medical records. Multivariate logistic regression showed that switch refusal was associated with a history of adverse reactions to biologics (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 3.38 [1.35-8.44]), history of complaints related to disease activity (3.57 [1.53-8.32]), and unacceptability of generic drugs (7.62 [2.70-21.60]). Subgroup analyses suggested that the unacceptability of generic drugs was a common factor, regardless of the disease. Concomitantly, histories of adverse reactions to biologics and complaints related to disease activity were disease-dependent factors. Healthcare professionals should help patients in selecting BS, considering these factors according to the disease.

Generic medication is a product that contains the same active substance and pharmaceutical characteristics as brand-name medications. Generic medications are cost-effective and comparable to brand-name medications in terms of clinical endpoints. However, the use of generic medications instead of brand-name medications is a debatable issue among patients and healthcare providers. Two patients with essential hypertension experienced side effects after switching to different generic antihypertensives (one generic medication to another generic medication). Adverse drug reactions, including, hypersensitivity, side effects, and intolerance, should be identified through present and past medical history and clinical characteristics. The adverse drug reactions in both patients were more likely to be side effects of the medications after switching to different generic antihypertensives produced by different companies (patient 1: enalapril and patient 2: amlodipine). The side effects were possibly caused by the different inactive ingredients or excipients. These two case reports emphasise the importance of monitoring adverse drug reactions throughout the course of treatment and communicating with patients prior to switching to a new generic medication.

Background/aims: Entecavir (ETV) can suppress chronic hepatitis B (CHB) virus replication as a standard of treatment drugs. For the treatment of CHB, affordable generic drugs may be more widely used in developing and undeveloped countries. However, there is little real-world data regarding the clinical efficacy of switching from entecavir-brand-name drugs (ETV-Brand) to entecavir generic drugs (ETV-Generic) with 0.5 mg once daily. The aim of the study was to evaluate the antiviral activity and safety of ETV-Generic in comparison to ETV-Brand in CHB-patients., Methods: In this single-center, retrospective, 175 treatment-naïve-CHB-patients were assigned to receive 0.5 mg of ETV-Brand per day for a least 2 years and then switched to ETV-Generic for 6 months for analysis. The primary efficacy endpoint was a sustained virological response in comparison of the rate of undetectable serum Hepatitis B deoxyribonucleic acid (HBV DNA) as the sustained virologic response at baseline and 6 months after switching. Secondary efficacy endpoints were the comparison of the alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels between before and after switching and ALT normalization. Renal safety consideration was reported on changing the estimated glomerular filtration rate., Results: From baseline to 6 months, the rate of undetectable HBV DNA and ALT levels remained stable as compared ETV-Brand period with ETV-Generic for 6 months. The rate of undetectable HBV DNA were 81.1%in ETV-Brand versus 88.0%in ETV-Generic (p = 0.05 CI 0.1-13.5%). ALT levels were 27.2 IU/L (CI 24.8-29.6 IU/L) in ETV-Brand versus 26.2 IU/L (CI 24.0-28.4 IU/L) in ETV-Generic (p = 0.55). Both endpoints were not significantly different between ETV-Brand and ETV-Generic treatments. Kidney function did not significantly differ from ETV-Brand (80.8, interquartile range [IQR]: 66.6-95.3 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) to ETV-Generic treatment period (80.3, IQR: 65.6-93.5 mL/min/1.73 m 2 )., Conclusion: In treatment-naïve CHB-patients, the efficacy and safety profiles of switching from ETV-Brand to ETV-Generic showed no difference. Concluding the ETV-Generic comes to exciting virologic responses and rare adverse events., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

More than thirty antiseizure medications (ASMs) are available for treating epilepsy. ASMs differ in their potency and efficacy in controlling seizures by acting on diverse targets in the brain, often with variable pharmacokinetics. Moreover, nearly 30% of people with epilepsy have drug-resistant or intractable seizures. Generic substitution of ASMs is a complex issue. It is thought that frequent generic substitution in people with epilepsy may cause problems because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules allow too much variability across products. The standard bioequivalence range (80% to 125%) appears too broad for many ASMs, especially those exhibiting little separation between therapeutic and toxic levels. Hence, sub-therapeutic concentration may lead to therapeutic failure with seizure recurrence, which could be life threatening. A supra-therapeutic level could result in adverse effects or compliance issues. There are reported issues with generic substitutions of phenytoin, topiramate, levetiracetam, carbamazepine, and lamotrigine. There is discussion in the epilepsy community about additional guidelines, including designation of generic ASMs as Narrow Therapeutic Index (NTI) drugs and how patient education plays a role in generic substitution. Overall, based on the published evidence on specific generic ASMs, FDA bioequivalence standards are not the cause of problems with generic ASM substitution. Rather, it is imperative that physicians and pharmacists provide adequate patient education on what to expect when switching to generic ASMs, including changes in medication shape and color. Another suggestion would be to consider that all ASMs be considered for inclusion in NTI class to prevent the clinical outcome issues associated with generic ASM switching. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: There are critical aspects to consider when switching from a brand name antiseizure medication (ASM) when a generic becomes available or switching between generics. Generic ASMs are interchanged with little consideration of differences in therapeutic equivalence and other clinical factors. This article describes key issues on generic substitution of ASMs and highlights critical pharmacotherapeutic issues associated with generic ASMs., (Copyright © 2022 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.)

This retrospective multi-institutional database analysis aimed to evaluate the blood-pressure-lowering efficacy and clinical outcomes of a generic versus brand-name nifedipine for hypertension management. A total of 12 693 patients who were prescribed a generic or brand-name nifedipine between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, were identified from the Chang Gung Research Database of Chang Gung Memorial Hospitals, Taiwan. Among them, 2112 (21.4%) were prescribed generic nifedipine. After propensity score matching, both the generic and brand-name groups consisted of 2102 patients. At a mean follow-up of 3 years, the changes in office systolic (p for interaction = .791) and diastolic blood pressure (p for interaction = .689) did not differ significantly between the patients who received the generic and the brand-name nifedipine. There was no significant difference between the two study groups regarding the composite of all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.85-1.13; p = .774). In conclusion, the generic nifedipine was comparable to its brand-name counterpart regarding office blood pressure reduction and the composite cardiovascular outcome for the treatment of patients with hypertension., (© 2022 The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of branded and authorized generic (AG) celecoxib for chronic pain patients with osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and low back pain (LBP), using real-world cost information for loxoprofen and pharmacotherapy for gastrointestinal bleeding., Methods: This cost-effectiveness analysis was performed as a long-term simulation using the Markov model from the Japanese public healthcare payer's perspective. The analysis was conducted using loxoprofen with real-world weighted price by branded/generic distribution (hereinafter, loxoprofen with weighted price) as a comparator. In the model, we simulated the prognosis of patients with chronic pain by OA, RA, and LBP treated with loxoprofen or celecoxib, over a lifetime period., Results: A cost-increase of 129,688 JPY (1,245.00 USD) for branded celecoxib and a cost-reduction of 6,268 JPY (60.17 USD) for AG celecoxib were recognized per patient in lifetime horizon, compared to loxoprofen with weighted price. No case was recognized to reverse the results of cost-saving by AG celecoxib in one-way sensitivity analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of branded celecoxib attained 5,403,667 JPY/QALY (51,875.20 USD/QALY), compared to loxoprofen with the weighted price., Conclusion: The current cost-effectiveness analysis for AG celecoxib revealed its good value for costs, considering the patients' future risk of gastrointestinal injury; also, the impact on costs due to AG celecoxib against loxoprofen will be small. It implies that the disadvantage of AG celecoxib being slightly more expensive than generic loxoprofen could be offset by the good cost-effectiveness during the prognosis., Competing Interests: Yusuke Karasawa and Kazutaka Nozawa are employees of Viatris Pharmaceuticals Japan Inc. Shigeki Zeniya and Tatsunori Murata are employees of CRECON Medical Assessment Inc. Satoshi Soen has received consulting fees, speaking fees, and/or honoraria from Asahi Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli-Lilly Japan, and UCB Japan. Choitsu Sakamoto has received lecture rewards from Pfizer Japan and Astellas. Isao Kamae declares no conflicts of interest associated with this manuscript. The competing interests do not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Aim: This study aimed to compare the incidence of infusion site reactions (ISRs) induced by intravenous administration of brand-name and generic vinorelbine (VNR) for treating non-small cell lung cancer., Method: This single-centre retrospective cohort study was conducted by medical chart review of VNR infusions. ISRs were defined as symptoms around the infusion site, including pain, redness and swelling. ISRs requiring treatment were defined as ISRs requiring treatments including steroid ointments, vein repuncture and local steroid injections., Results: In all, 1973 VNR infusions were administered to 340 patients (brand-name 141 patients, generic 199 patients). ISRs and ISRs requiring treatment were observed in 161 and 100 patients, respectively. The ISR incidence per patient and per injection was significantly higher in generic VNR-treated patients than in brand-name VNR-treated patients (53.3% vs 39.0%, P = 0.0112 and 15.0% vs 9.9%, P = 0.0008, respectively). The frequency of ISRs requiring treatment was also significantly higher in the generic group (per patient 36.7% vs 19.2%, P = 0.0005; per injection 11.3% vs 5.5%, P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that generic VNR was significantly associated with an increased risk of ISRs (per patient adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.775, P = 0.0155; per injection AOR 1.672, P = 0.004) and ISRs requiring treatment (per patient AOR 2.422, P = 0.0012; per injection AOR 2.286, P = 0.001)., Conclusion: Intravenous infusion of generic VNR was associated with an increased risk of ISRs. Further research is needed to elucidate the mechanism underlying the increased incidence of ISRs with generic VNR., (© 2020 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Background: To evaluate the bioequivalence between test and reference formulations of perindopril tert-butylamine under fasting and fed conditions and to assess their pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety profiles., Method: A randomized, open-label, single-dose, crossover trial was conducted in healthy Chinese subjects. Test or reference perindopril tert-butylamine tablets (4 mg) were randomly given to subjects under fasting (2-period crossover, with an administration sequence of test tablet (T), reference tablet (R) or RT) and fed (4-period crossover, with an administration sequence of TRTR or RTRT) conditions, while each single administration was followed by a 14-day washout period. The plasma concentrations and corresponding non-compartmental PK parameters of perindopril and perindoprilat were determined. The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean (GM) ratio (test/reference) for C max , AUC 0-t , and AUC 0-∞ (perindopril) was both within the range of 80-125 %. Safety assessments including vital signs, physical examination, laboratory examination, 12-lead ECG and reports of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were carefully documented., Results: A total of 64 subjects (32 in each trial) were randomized and all completed the trials. Regardless of fasting or fed trials, the PK characteristics of perindopril and perindoprilat for the test formulation were similar to those of the reference formulation (all P > 0.05). The 90 % CIs of the geometric mean (GM) ratio for C max , AUC 0-t, and AUC 0-∞ , respectively, were 92.86-106.81 %, 98.44-102.88 % and 98.48-103.02 % under the fasting condition and 90.64-110.04 %, 96.95-101.90 % and 96.83-101.78 % under the fed condition, which were both within the pre-specified range of 80-125 %. A total of 10 (31.3 %) fasted subjects and 11 (34.4 %) fed subjects experienced 11 and 24 TEAEs, respectively, all of which were within the severity of grade 1. The incidence of TEAEs and drug-related TEAEs were similar between test and reference formulations (all P > 0.05) and no serious TEAEs or deaths occurred during the trials., Conclusions: The test and reference formulations of perindopril tert-butylamine tablets (4 mg) were bioequivalent and well tolerated in healthy Chinese subjects under fasting and fed conditions., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Lenalidomide is an effective immunomodulatory derivative drug used in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). It is available in original and generic forms in Turkey, but there is no clinical study that has compared the effectiveness and adverse events (AEs) of the generic and original forms of lenalidomide. We compared the effectivity and AEs of generic and original lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM)., Materials and Methods: Patients with RRMM using original or generic lenalidomide were evaluated retrospectively. Overall response (OR), complete response (CR), very good partial response (VGPR), partial response (PR), stable disease, and progressive disease rates and hematologic and nonhematologic AEs were evaluated in these RRMM patients. The results were described as numbers, frequencies, and percentages and were analyzed using PASW 19.0 for Windows with chi-square and Fisher exact tests., Results: The number of patients using original lenalidomide was 55 and the number of patients using generic lenalidomide was 43. The OR rate was 67.2% for patients using original lenalidomide and 60.4% for those on generic lenalidomide. CR and VGPR rates were 14.5% and 45.4% in the original group while the CR and VGPR rates were 20.9% and 18.6%, respectively, in patients using generic lenalidomide. Hematologic AEs were similar in the two groups while some nonhematologic AEs were less common in the original lenalidomide group than the generic group. Only pyrexia as a grade 3-4 AE was more common in the original lenalidomide than the generic lenalidomide group., Conclusion: This study showed that the generic form of lenalidomide has similar efficacy with the original form of lenalidomide in the treatment of RRMM. The AEs of original lenalidomide were generally fewer than those of generic lenalidomide. Further studies involving a larger number of patients with RRMM would be useful for comparing the efficacy and AEs of original and generic lenalidomide.

Background/aims: Clinical equivalence of generic antiviral agents for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) has not been demonstrated, particularly in cases with previous antiviral resistance. Entecavir 1 mg is prescribed frequently as a mono- or combination therapy in antiviral-resistant CHB patients. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of switching to generic entecavir 1 mg (Baracle ® ) in CHB patients taking brand-name entecavir 1 mg (Baraclude ® ) alone or in combination with other nucleotide analogs after the development of antiviral resistance., Methods: This study was a single-arm prospective study. The primary endpoint was undetectable HBV DNA (<20 IU/mL) at 12 months after switching treatment. The biochemical and serologic responses, virologic breakthrough, and antiviral resistance rates were also evaluated., Results: Forty CHB patients with undetectable HBV DNA through the brand-name entecavir 1 mg treatment as a mono- or combination therapy after developing antiviral resistance to nucleos(t)ide analogs were enrolled in this study. No significant difference in the HBV DNA non-detection rate was observed between the baseline and 12 months after switching therapy (p=0.324). Furthermore, non-inferiority of the generic entecavir 1 mg to the brand-name entecavir 1 mg with 10% margin in maintaining undetectable HBV DNA was demonstrated (95% CI -2.80 to 8.20%). Similarly, no difference in the biochemical response rate was observed after switching therapy. Serum hepatitis B e antigen loss was observed in 12.5%. No virologic breakthrough was reported., Conclusions: Generic entecavir 1 mg is a reasonable alternative to the brand-name entecavir 1 mg in antiviral-resistant CHB patients with viral suppression.

Introduction: use of generic drugs is common. However, there is still concern among patients and physicians that brand name drugs are more efficient. The aim of the study was to compare efficacy and tolerance between two forms of cisatracurium: brand name versus generic name., Methods: it´s a crossover, randomized, double-blind physiological trial. Patients admitted for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure with PaO2/FIO2 < 200mmHg despite optimized ventilation and sedation thus requiring non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), were enrolled. Patients received consecutively, in a random order, cisatracurium brand name (Nimbex®) and generic (Cisatrex®) over two-hour period separated by one-hour washout period. Neuromuscular function was monitored by a calibrated train-of-four (TOF) stimulation device. Paralysis time delay to reach TOF of 2/4, recovery kinetics and tolerance were monitored. The number needed to demonstrate a significant difference in time delays to reach a TOF of 2/4 between the two forms of cisatracurium was estimated at 22 patients., Results: twenty-two patients were included. Eight (36.4%) had acute respiratory distress syndrome; 8(36.4%), acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 3(13.6%), status asthmaticus. Median [IQR] SAPS II at admission, 28.5 [22, 41]. PaO2/FIO2, 121 [81, 156] mmHg. Paralysis time delays were respectively, 80 [50, 112] vs. 87 [65, 115] minutes, in Nimbex® group and Cisatrex® group; (p=0.579). Within the recovery period, the between two-studied drugs´ difference in TOF was at 0.25±0.96; p=0.64. There were no significant hemodynamic differences., Conclusion: the present study revealed no significant differences in efficacy nor in tolerance between cisatracurium brand name Nimbex® and generic name Cisatrex® in hypoxemic ventilated patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright: Nesrine Fraj et al.)

Data regarding the long-term outcomes of generic antihypertensive drugs are limited. This nationwide retrospective database analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a generic versus brand-name nifedipine for hypertension treatment. Patients who were prescribed generic or brand-name nifedipine between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2013, were identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. The efficacy outcomes included all-cause mortality and the composite cardiovascular (CV) outcome, including CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for heart failure. Safety outcomes included headache, peripheral edema, constipation, acute kidney injury, hypotension, syncope, new diagnosis of cancer, and cancer death. Among the 98 335 patients who were eligible for analysis, 21 087 (21.4%) were prescribed generic nifedipine. Both the generic and the brand-name groups included 21 087 patients after propensity score matching. At a mean follow-up of 4.1 years, the generic nifedipine was comparable to the brand-name drug with regard to all-cause mortality (7.2% vs. 7.1%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.09) and the composite CV outcomes (11.6% vs. 11.9%; HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.92-1.03). The generic nifedipine was associated with higher rates of headache, peripheral edema, and constipation but a modest reduction in the risk of newly diagnosed cancer (7.1% vs. 7.8%; subdistribution HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.97). The risks of acute kidney injury, hypotension, syncope, and cancer death were not significantly different between the two groups. In conclusion, the generic nifedipine was comparable to the brand-name drug with regard to the risks of all-cause mortality and the composite CV outcome. The finding of cancer risk could be chance and should be interpreted with caution., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

We assessed the safety and efficacy of a generic form of ledipasvir-sofosbuvir for the treatment of hepatitis C virus infection in Egyptian adolescents and compared the results with those of treatment with the brand-named form. The generic form resulted in a high response rate, significant improvement in liver function, and mild adverse effects. These results are comparable with those of the brand form at a reduced price., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

To assess bioequivalence of a generic dabigatran etexilate capsule in healthy Chinese subjects under fasting and fed conditions. This was an open-label, single-center, randomized four-period crossover study with a 7-day washout period. A single oral dose of 150 mg generic dabigatran etexilate capsule (test drug) or a commercial dabigatran etexilate capsule (Pradaxa ® , reference drug) was given to healthy volunteers under the fasting and fed conditions. Plasma concentrations of total and free dabigatran were detected using a validated HPLC-MS/MS method. A noncompartmental method was used for pharmacokinetic analysis and established coagulation assays were applied for pharmacodynamic analysis. The 90% CIs of the test/reference ratios of C max , AUC 0-t , and AUC 0-∞ for the total dabigatran concentration were 92.57%-106.58%, 91.63%-106.32%, and 92.54%-106.17%, respectively, under fasting condition, and 99.30%-110.74%, 98.58%-105.37%, and 97.75%-103.99%, respectively, under fed conditions. The 90% CIs of the ratios of the parameters for the free dabigatran were 93.18%-106.98%, 92.13%-107.10%, 92.89%-106.48%, respectively, under fasting condition, and 100.05%-110.89%, 99.37%-106.23%, 97.59%-103.98%, respectively, under the fed condition. Additionally, the upper limit of the 90% CIs for σWT/σWR was below 2.5. There were no significant differences in the coagulation parameters including thrombin clotting time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and anti-IIa activity between the two preparations. The generic dabigatran etexilate capsule is bioequivalent to the brand-named product in healthy Chinese volunteers under fasting and fed conditions. The two products have comparable pharmacodynamic parameters, with a good safety profile. In addition, food intake influences absorption of both products in a similar way., (© 2020 The Authors. Pharmacology Research & Perspectives published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, British Pharmacological Society and American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.)

Background: Adherence and persistence with diabetes medication play an important role in glycemic control and may differ by medication class. However, there is a lack of research comparing diabetes medications in patients with renal impairment, despite the challenges and higher burden associated with managing this population., Objective: To compare adherence and persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and nondialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) treated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors versus pioglitazone., Methods: This retrospective cohort study used Truven MarketScan administrative claims databases from 2009 to 2015. One-year adherence for patients with T2DM and nondialysis CKD who initiated therapy with either a DPP-4 inhibitor or pioglitazone was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC) following an initial dispensing, and PDC ≥ 0.80 was coded as adherent. Persistence was calculated as the days between the index date and last day with the index medication on hand, based on the end of the last days supply or the end of follow-up (i.e., 365 days), whichever occurred first. Multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate confounder-adjusted differences between the groups for adherence and persistence., Results: The final cohort included 9,019 patients (DPP-4 inhibitors: 7,002; pioglitazone: 2,017). In the adjusted analysis, DPP-4 inhibitor users demonstrated a 1.41 (95% CI = 1.25-1.59) higher odds of being adherent compared with pioglitazone users. Overall adjusted HR for persistence was 0.74 (95% CI = 0.69-0.79), which favored DPP-4 inhibitors compared with pioglitazone. Relative to 2010, persistence with pioglitazone decreased in 2011-2012 and then increased in 2013-2014. In the subgroup analysis, DPP-4 inhibitors first had lower (2010: OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.70-0.87; 2011-2012: OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.54-0.66) and then similar (2013-2014: OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.88-1.19) hazards of nonpersistence compared with pioglitazone., Conclusions: Among patients with T2DM and nondialysis CKD, the use of DPP-4 inhibitors was associated with better adherence compared with pioglitazone. However, following the approval of generic pioglitazone and associated lower cost sharing after 2012, the magnitude of difference in adherence between the medication classes reduced. Similarly, safety warnings in 2011 and approval of generic products in 2012 may have affected pioglitazone persistence, leading to first higher and then similar hazards for nonpersistence with pioglitazone as compared with DPP-4 inhibitors. These shifts in the results for pioglitazone warrant further investigation and close monitoring of the population initiating this medication., Disclosures: No funding was received for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. An abstract for this study was presented as a podium presentation at the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 2019 Annual Meeting; May 18-22, 2019; New Orleans, LA.

Introduction: Imatinib is standard therapy for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). In February 2016, a generic formulation entered the US market. Physicians and patients are frequently concerned about whether switching from original to generic drugs may affect the efficacy and/or safety., Materials and Methods: This is an observational retrospective study using medical charts of patients diagnosed with CML in the chronic phase who were treated with original imatinib from the year 2000 to 2017 and who were subsequently switched to generic imatinib., Results: In this study, 38 patients have switched to generic imatinib. Before the switch, responses were assessed on all patients, all of them were in CCyR and 36 (95%) were in MMR, including 28 (74%) with MR4.5. Patients have received generic imatinib for a median of 19.4 (range, 3.4-46.3) months. Molecular responses after switching were stable in 89%, improved in 8%, and worsened in 3% of patients. After switching, 15 (39%) patients reported new or worsening adverse events, including 5 (13%) patients with edema, 8 (21%) muscle cramps, 7 (18%) nausea, 6 (16%) diarrhea, and 5 (13%) fatigue., Discussion: Bioequivalence studies demonstrated the same rate and extent of absorption of generic imatinib compared to the original form, which led to the FDA approval. In our observational series, most of the patients maintained their responses and none lost MMR. Adverse events noted were mild and well tolerated., Conclusion: A change from original to generic imatinib appears to maintain efficacy and be generally safe. More patients and longer follow-up are required to confirm these observations., (© 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: While several generic preparations of levodopa/carbidopa and levodopa/benserazide (LBD) are currently available, pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence and therapeutic equivalence studies with levodopa generics are not available in Italy. Lack of data on generic formulations is a critical factor for their limited use in this country and often lead patients to refuse the generic version of the branded drug., Methods: An experimental, 2-centre, randomized, double-blind, 2-sequence, noninferiority cross-over study was designed to evaluate both the PK equivalence and clinical equivalence of multiple doses of the generic preparation of LDB, Teva Italia, compared to the originator (Madopar). Forty-three out-patients with a diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease on LDB, were recruited and randomly assigned to 1 of 2 study sequences: generic-originator or originator-generic. Clinical evaluations were performed at the end of each study period. A PK study with an LDB fixed dose (100 + 25 mg) was performed in a subpopulation of 14 subjects., Results: Clinical data showed a reduction of 0.49 and 1.54 in the mean UPDRS III scores for the LDB and the originator, respectively. The 95% CIs [-2.21: 0.11] of the mean difference original vs LDB are smaller than the clinically significant difference of 3 UPDRS III points, supporting the conclusion that the treatment with LDB is not inferior to the originator. No statistically significant differences were found with respect to area under the curve to last dose, half-life, maximum concentration, time to maximum concentration and last observed concentration., Conclusion: These findings prove the therapeutic clinical equivalence as well the PK equivalence of the generic LDB and the originator (Madopar)., (© 2019 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Purpose: The aim of this study is to assess the bioequivalence of a new generic formulation and the branded formulation of levocetirizine dihydrochloride in healthy Chinese volunteers under fasting and fed conditions, and food-intake effect on the pharmacokinetic properties is also evaluated., Patients and Methods: Volunteers were randomly allocated into two groups to receive a single oral dose of generic formulation and branded formulation under fasting or fed conditions, respectively. Blood samples were collected at designated time points. Plasma concentrations of levocetirizine were determined by UFLC-MS/MS. Safety evaluations were carried out through the study. The main pharmacokinetic parameters of the two formulations of levocetirizine were calculated using non-compartmental analysis incorporated in WinNonlin ® 7.0 software., Results: Forty-nine volunteers were enrolled; 46 completed the studies. Under fasting and fed conditions, the 90% confidence intervals for the geometric mean of generic/branded ratios were in the range of 94.75-107.24% and 99.98-114.69% for the maximum observed concentration, and 97.13-102.50% and 98.36-103.98% for the area under the concentration-time curve. As a result of food intake before administration, the reduced rate and extent of absorption of levocetirizine were observed. Both formulations were generally well tolerated, with no serious adverse reactions reported., Conclusion: The two formulations demonstrated essentially identical pharmacokinetic profiles and were all well within the FDA/CFDA bioequivalence standards. Meanwhile, food intake can delay the absorption rate and reduced the bioavailability of levocetirizine in healthy Chinese volunteers., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2019 Cheng et al.)

Objective: To determine whether levothyroxine (L-T4) preparation (generic vs brand) affected hospitalization for cardiovascular events., Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis using a large administrative claims database, OptumLabs Data Warehouse, creating two 1-to-1 propensity score-matched cohorts initiating generic or brand L-T4. Patients were followed for a mean of 1.0±1.2 years (range, 0-9.3 years). We included 87,902 propensity score-matched patients (43,951 patients per cohort) initiating generic or brand L-T4. Variables included in matching were age, sex, race/ethnicity, residence region, selected comorbidities, and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score. Patients with previous use of any thyroid preparation, amiodarone, or lithium were excluded. Primary outcomes were the event rates for hospitalizations for incident atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or stroke., Results: In the generic L-T4 cohort, 35,242 (80.2%) were women and 7327 (16.7%) were 65 years of age or older; in the brand L-T4 cohort, 34,633 (78.8%) were women and 8092 (18.4%) were 65 years of age or older. We found no differences in event rates (events per 1000 person-years) for 4 outcomes comparing generic and brand L-T4 therapy: (1) atrial fibrillation (1.82 vs 2.19; hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% CI, 0.90-1.65; P=.19); (2) myocardial infarction (2.12 vs 1.83; HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.64-1.17; P=.35); (3) congestive heart failure (2.27 vs 2.00; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66-1.18; P=.41); and (4) stroke (3.10 vs 2.38; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-1.00; P=.05). Stratification by age group revealed no differences., Conclusion: In patients with newly treated hypothyroidism, cardiovascular event rates were similar for generic and brand L-T4., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: To date there exist no internationally recognised Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) that clearly outline universally accepted standards for manufacturing highly active or sensitising ingredients. The pharmaceutical industry is faced with a twofold problem: determining which drugs need dedicated production areas and identifying the different regulations required in different countries. The aim of this paper is to find, by comparing the current regulations of the various Regulatory Agencies, the differences between containment requirements for the production of highly active or sensitising ingredients., Methods: An analysis of the following Regulatory Agencies' GMPs was performed: Europe (EMA), China (CFDA), Mexico (COFEPRIS), United States (FDA), Canada (Health Canada) Brazil (ANVISA), India (CDSCO), PIC/S and WHO in order to examine the differences in terms of  containment requirements set by the different Regulatory Authorities for the manufacture of highly active or sensitising ingredients., Results: Our analysis found that the majority of Regulatory Agencies require that beta-lactams (sensitising materials) be produced in dedicated and segregated facilities. For "certain" highly active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), COFEPRIS, FDA, HC, EMA, PIC/S and WHO require that they be produced in facilities similar to those required for beta-lactams, while CDSCO, CFDA and ANVISA require that production takes place in segregated areas. Further differences between the Agencies  have emerged regarding classes of highly APIs that require dedicated production., Conclusion: A study of GMP adopted by Regulatory Agencies has uncovered significant differences, in particular concerning containment requirements for the production of APIs. For this reason, the harmonisation of GMP following  up-to-date quality standards based on cutting-edge science which are globally applicable is fundamental and will benefit companies and patients alike. Pharmaceutical companies would not be obliged to follow requirements enforced by the State in which they intend to manufacture a product, and patients would benefit from high-quality drugs regardless of their place of production.

There is a need of a relatively simple and inexpensive method for the determination of relative potency of various generic brands of antibiotics in comparison to original products. The current study describes an agar diffusion method which can be performed in any microbiology laboratory, is cheap (costs $2 per test) and its results can be available after overnight incubation. The results show that neither all generics are reliable nor are all generic antibiotics of poor quality., Competing Interests: None

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of generic and branded irbesartan for 8 weeks in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension., Patients and Methods: We screened 221 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After exclusion per study criteria, 177 subjects were randomized to receive 150 mg generic irbesartan (n=91) or branded irbesartan (n=86) as the intention to treat set. The primary efficacy endpoint of this study was the change in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) from baseline to 8 weeks between the generic and branded irbesartan groups. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the change in mean SiDBP at Week 4 from baseline and the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) at Weeks 4 and 8 from baseline in both groups. All safety issues were evaluated., Results: At Week 8, the generic and branded irbesartan groups showed significantly reduced SiDBP (-10.3±8.0, -10.7±7.7 mmHg, all P <0.0001) compared with baseline values, and the mean between-group difference in SiDBP change after 8 weeks of treatment was -0.4±1.2 mmHg, showing the non-inferiority of generic irbesartan vs branded irbesartan. Furthermore, secondary efficacy, which was the mean change of SiDBP from baseline at 4 weeks, was comparable between the two groups (-9.4±8.1 vs -9.9±7.4 mmHg, P =0.69). There were no between-group differences in mean changes of SiSBP after 4 or 8 weeks of treatment ( P =0.78, P =0.97, respectively), or in the incidence of adverse effects (16.7 vs 24.4%, P =0.20)., Conclusion: Generic irbesartan treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension has shown effective antihypertensive effects comparable with the branded irbesartan treatment, with similar incidence of adverse effects., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Background: High blood lipoprotein concentrations are one of the major risk factors for cardiovascular diseases. Drug therapy is the base of treatment; statins in particular. Both brand-name and generic presentations are available for statin therapy of high cholesterol levels. Factors that may influence their use in routine medical practice include, among others, patient persistence and adherence to treatment as prescribed by physicians. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to provide real-world evidence of treatment persistence and adherence and their consequences on economic and patient outcomes of generic versus brand-name statins routinely used to treat high cholesterol levels in Spain., Methods: Existing real-world electronic medical records abstracted from a database of two regions in Spain were analyzed. The analysis compared generic versus brand-name statins data from subjects' who started treatment between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2012. Treatment persistence, adherence expressed as medication possession ratio (MPR), healthcare resource utilization and their costs were analyzed together with patient's at-goal rates of low-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-c), incidence of any major cardiovascular event (CVE) and all-cause mortality during a 5-year follow-up period. Multivariate analyses were applied., Results: A total of 13,244 records were included. Persistence was lower with generics; adjusted hazard ratio -HR- [95% confidence interval]: 0.86 [0.82-0.91], p < 0.001) and MPR was also lower: 61.5% vs. 65.1% (p < 0.001). Less patients with generics reached their LDL-c goal: 39.2% [38.3-40.2%] vs. 42.0% [40.2-43.7%]; adjusted odds ratio; 0.87 [0.80-0.95], p = 0.003. Compared to brand-name statins, the observed probability of occurrence of a CVE; HR: 1.31 [1.15-1.50], p < 0.001, and also all-cause deaths; HR: 1.36 [1.15-1.62], was significantly higher with generics; p < 0.001 in both cases. Adjusted mean total healthcare cost per patient was also higher with generic than with brand-name statins: €9118 (9059-9176) vs. €7980 (7853-8808) [adjusted difference: €1137 (997-1277), p < 0.001]., Conclusion: This retrospective cost-consequences analysis found poorer treatment persistence and adherence in patients who first started therapy with generic instead of brand-name statins in routine medical practice in Spain. Also, patients receiving generics were more unlikely to reach LDL-c goals, showed increased probability of having CVE and all-cause mortality at a higher cost to payers.

Background and Aim: Patient-reported outcomes and experiences are indicative of the impact and the quality of care. Thioguanine, a generic drug initially developed for leukemia, has been explored and relicensed as a certified treatment for patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). The patients' perception of this treatment has not been evaluated before. In this study, we aimed to assess self-reported experiences with thioguanine for IBD., Methods: Questionnaires were sent out to members of the Dutch National Crohn's and Colitis patient organization. The Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire (SATMED-Q) was used to address questions regarding the satisfaction and impact of thioguanine therapy on the disease and their daily life. Furthermore, data on demographics, disease and (historical) treatment characteristics were collected. Open-ended questions were used for additional comments to the questionnaire., Results: A total of 173 organization members (73% female) reported to be previous or current users of thioguanine. A total of 74% were satisfied with the effectiveness of thioguanine, whereas 5% were not. Eighty percent of the respondents were satisfied with the quality of care. A good or excellent impact on daily life was reported by 54%. A neutral or bad impact on daily life was reported by 40% and 6%, respectively. Improvement of disease activity was reported by 58%. This remained stable or worsened in 39% and 3%, respectively., Conclusion: In this self-report survey, among thioguanine treated patients with IBD who had failed with traditional therapies, 80% reported satisfaction with medical care and 74% with the effectiveness of the therapy. In the evaluation of new or rediscovered therapies, patient-reported outcomes and experiences should be considered as a key instrument.

Introduction: The Colombian national pharmaceutical policy establishes as a strategy the generation of greater pharmaco-epidemiological research at the national level, especially in the case of antibiotic drugs. Objective: To provide local pharmaco-epidemiological evidence regarding the effectiveness, conditions of use and safety of generic meropenem and cefepime in a tertiary hospital in Bogotá. Materials and methods: We conducted a descriptive, longitudinal and retrospective drug utilization study. The data were collected from the medical histories of all the patients who had cefepime or meropenem prescribed. Results: We included 82 patients treated with cefepime and 91 treated with meropenem in the study. Most of the patients were in services different from the intensive care unit (taking cefepime: 59.8%, and meropenem: 52.7%). Only 21.9% of the patients treated with cefepime and 49% of those treated with meropenem were seen by an infectious disease specialist. The antibiogram was performed for 47% and 60% of the patients treated with cefepime and meropenem, respectively. The most frequent indication for cefepime were respiratory infections and for meropenem, genitourinary ones. Therapeutic success rates were 61.7% for cefepime and 63.0% for meropenem. Conclusions: This study contributes evidence regarding the therapeutic performance of two generic antibiotics used in tertiary hospitals. There were no reports of therapeutic failure during the study period. In the cases of non-response, pharmacokinetic alterations, unfavorable clinical conditions, and inappropriate choice of antimicrobial treatment were identified as frequent factors.

Purpose: Levetiracetam is one of the most widely used antiepileptic drugs, but the evidence related to the safety of substitution from brand name to generic levetiracetam is scarce. The present study evaluated the risk of increased frequency of seizures after replacement of a brand-name levetiracetam with a generic product., Methods: We enrolled patients with epilepsy who were treated with branded levetiracetam for at least 6 months of sustained use. Patients were advised to switch to the generic levetiracetam. We analyzed data from 6 months before, to 6 months after, generic substitution. Increased seizure frequency was defined as a≥ 50% increase in seizure frequency after conversion date compared with seizure frequency before the conversion date. We analyzed changes in seizure frequency and performed subgroup analysis according to changes in seizure frequency., Results: We analyzed 148 epilepsy patients. Among the 148 patients, 109 (73.6%) were seizure-free before substitution and 105 patients remained seizure-free after switching. After generic substitution, an increased seizure frequency was noted in seven patients (4.7%), and a decreased seizure frequency was noted in 10 (6.8%). Patients with decreased seizure frequency were significantly younger (p = 0.035) than those with an unchanged seizure frequency., Conclusion: This study suggests that the risk of increased seizure frequency after generic substitution was minimal. The generic substitution of levetiracetam was generally safe, although larger prospective studies are warranted to corroborate our findings., (Copyright © 2018 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Generic antiepileptic drugs (AED) are significantly cheaper than brand name drugs, and may reduce overall health care expenditures. Regulatory bodies in Europe and North America require bioequivalence between generic and innovator drugs with regard to area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and peak plasma concentration (C max ); strict cutoff values have been defined. The main issue is if bioequivalence ensures therapeutic equivalence. Are switches from brand to generic, or between generic AEDs entirely safe or potentially harmful in patients with epilepsy? We summarized and evaluated the available evidence from bioequivalence, health care utilization, and clinical studies on safety of generic AEDs. In most cases, variations in AUC and C max were negligible when comparing innovator and generic AEDs. Due to interindividual pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability, measured differences between innovator and generic drugs may be the same as differences between different lots of the same brand. Studies from several countries based on insurance data have reported an increase in health care usage after switch from brand to generic AEDs; switchback rates are significantly higher for AEDs compared to other compounds. Patients may be confused, and nonadherence may increase, when AEDs are switched between manufacturers, perhaps due to changes in medication shape and color. But clinical studies do not report changes in seizure frequency and tolerability attributable to generics. Sufficient evidence indicates that most generics are bioequivalent to innovator AEDs; they do not pose a relevant risk for patients with epilepsy. However, some patients are reluctant towards variations in color and shape of their AEDs which may result in nonadherence. We recommend administering generics when a new AED is initiated. Switches from brand to generic AEDs for cost reduction and between generics, which is rarely required, generally seem to be safe, but should be accompanied by thorough counseling of patients on low risks., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc. © 2018 International League Against Epilepsy.)

Background: Clopidogrel is one of the most commonly prescribed medications because of its ability to improve clinical outcomes for a broad range of cardiovascular conditions. After patent protection expired for Plavix in 2012, many healthcare systems adopted generic clopidogrel as a strategy to reduce healthcare costs., Methods and Results: We conducted a population-based observational study to determine whether generic clopidogrel was noninferior to Plavix. Patients who were hospitalized with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) from 2009 to 2014 in Ontario, Canada, >65 years, survived ≥7 days after discharge, were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was a composite of death and recurrent ACS at 1 year. The noninferiority margin was prespecified at a relative hazard difference of 10%. Inverse propensity of treatment weighting of the propensity score was used to account for differences in baseline characteristics between the treatment groups. The effect of clopidogrel on the hazard of clinical outcomes was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model within the propensity-weighted cohort using Plavix as a reference. Our study included 24 530 patients with ACS, 12 643 were prescribed Plavix and 11  887 were prescribed generic clopidogrel at hospital discharge. The mean age was 77 years, 57% were men, and 21% had an ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. At 1 year, 17.6% of patients prescribed Plavix and 17.9% of patients prescribed clopidogrel experienced the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.08; P =0.005 for noninferiority). No significant differences between rates of death, all-cause readmission, ACS, stroke or transient ischemic attack, or bleeding were observed., Conclusions: Generic clopidogrel was noninferior to Plavix with respect to the composite end point of death and recurrent hospitalization for ACS at 1 year among adults >65 years after an ACS hospitalization. Our findings support generic clopidogrel in ACS, which could lead to substantial healthcare cost savings., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of generic tacrolimus (Tacrobell [TCB]) and a reference tacrolimus (Prograf [PGF]) in liver transplant recipients., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 167 patients who used TCB or PGF between January 2009 and March 2016 for >1 year (TCB group, n=86; PGF group, n=81). To assess the efficacy and safety of TCB, we evaluated the relationship between drug dose and trough level, survival, rejection, infection, kidney function, and side effects., Results: There was no difference in the preoperative demographics between the two groups. Moreover, there was no difference in the drug dose and trough level between the groups at 1 week after surgery. Coefficient of variation (CV) values were obtained at the drug trough level for each patient and no differences in CV values were identified within 1 year ( p =0.587) and up to 5 years ( p =0.824) in both groups. Rehospitalization ( p =0.1) and total rejection ( p =0.915) did not differ between the two groups, but the rejection severity, recorded as the rejection activity index value, was worse in the PGF group ( p =0.039). No difference was found in the infection rate ( p =0.818), and with regard to nephrotoxicity, there was no difference in the rate of patients with chronic kidney disease stage 3 and above during the follow-up period. No differences were found between the two groups in terms of drug side effects and adverse events., Conclusion: The generic tacrolimus, TCB, is a comparable alternative to the original tacrolimus, PGF, as a main immunosuppressive drug for liver transplantation., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Background: Treatment of chronic hepatitis C using combination of sofosbuvir (SOF) and daclatasvir (DCV) was used in several clinical trials and multicentre studies, which were somewhat limited to genotypes 1-3. The national program in Egypt is using SOF-DCV combination for large scale treatment., Aim: To assess the efficacy and safety of combined SOF-DCV in treating patients with HCV-G4 in a real-world setting., Methods: Data and outcome of chronic HCV patients who were treated for 12 weeks with generic medications: DCV 60 mg plus SOF 400 mg ± ribavirin (RBV) within the national hepatitis C treatment program in Egypt are presented. Treatment-naïve patients without cirrhosis were treated without RBV, and those who had cirrhosis or were treatment-experienced (interferon experienced or SOF experienced) received RBV. Efficacy and safety were assessed, and baseline factors associated with sustained virological response at post-treatment week 12 (SVR12) were explored., Results: During the first 2 months of the programme, 18 378 patients with HCV-G4 started treatment with SOF-DCV with or without RBV. Overall, 95.1% achieved SVR12 (95.4% among patients treated without RBV and 94.7% for patients treated with RBV, P = .32). Treatment was prematurely discontinued in only 1.5% of patients. The most common events leading to discontinuation were patient withdrawal (n = 76) and pregnancy (n = 5). Five deaths occurred within this group., Conclusions: Real-world experience of generic SOF-DCV in patients with chronic HCV-G4 proved to be safe and associated with a high SVR12 rate, in patients with different stages of fibrosis., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Hypertension is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in Ethiopia. Treatment usually involves lifelong medication use. Enalapril is a common drug for the treatment of hypertension in Ethiopia. However, the drug is expensive and, therefore, there is limited capacity for people to afford the treatment. Locally produced Enalapril is a cost-effective solution to treat the disease. However, as local medicines regulation does not include bioequivalence tests on locally produced drugs, physicians and patients need assurance about the effectiveness and safety of local generics. Evidence on therapeutic equivalence is needed on these untested local drugs., Methods: This is a hospital-based, randomized, partially blinded, three-cycle crossover trial in single patients, comparing a locally produced version of enalapril with enalapril imported from Europe. Patients involved in this trial are not blinded, as there is no local facility to produce relatively small numbers of placebos or encapsulated drugs. To ensure blinding of study investigators and data analysts, study medications are prepared by an independent pharmacy unit using opaque medication packaging. The importance of maintaining blinding is also part of patient pre-trial education. Each N-of-1 trial will consist of three successive 14-day treatment pairs, each pair comprising 7 days of 5-20 mg local and 7 days of 5-20 mg imported enalapril taken once daily in the morning. The primary outcome will be the average difference in systolic blood pressure as measured by home blood pressure measurements., Discussion: The number of locally produced products, such as enalapril, being approved without proof of bioequivalence is dramatically increasing. By bridging the information gap on bioequivalence, the trial will give rigorous evidence on therapeutic equivalence of locally produced enalapril in the treatment of hypertension. If there is no difference, the hypothesized result, then patients can take the local medicine with confidence. This trial will also will determine whether aggregated N-of-1 studies are feasible to evaluate untested generic drugs in resource-limited countries where bioequivalence testing centers are unavailable., Trial Registration Number: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ID: ACTRN12616001088437p . Registered on 12 August 2016.

Background: Once the patent of a brand-name drug expires, generic drugs are commercialized, and substitution from brand-name to generics may occur. Generic drug equivalence is evaluated through comparative bioavailability studies. Few studies have assessed outcomes after generic drug commercialization at a population level. We evaluated the impact of 3 generic angiotensin II receptor blockers commercialization on adverse events: hospitalizations or emergency room consultations., Methods and Results: This is an interrupted time series analysis using the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System. Rates of adverse events for losartan, valsartan, and candesartan users (N=136 177) aged ≥66 years were calculated monthly, 24 months before and 12 months after generics commercialization. Periods before and after generics commercialization were compared by negative binomial segmented regression models. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted. For all users, there was a monthly mean rate of 100 adverse events for 1000 angiotensin II receptor blocker users before and after generic commercialization. Among generic users of losartan, valsartan, and candesartan, there was an increase in rates of adverse events of 8.0% (difference of proportions versus brand-name, 7.5% [95% confidence interval, -0.9% to 15.9%]; P =0.0643), 11.7% (difference of proportions, 17.1% [95% confidence interval, 9.9%-24.3%]; P <0.0001), and 14.0% (difference of proportions, 16.6% [95% confidence interval, 7.9%-25.3%]; P <0.0001), respectively, the month of generic commercialization. The monthly trend of adverse events was affected for generic versus brand-name losartan users only (difference of proportions, 2.0% [0.7%-3.4%]; P =0.0033) ≤1 year after generics commercialization. Similar results were found in sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: Among generic users, immediate or delayed differences in adverse events rates were observed right after generic commercialization for 3 antihypertensive drugs. Rates of adverse events remained higher for generic users. Increases were more pronounced for generic candesartan, which is the studied product with the largest difference in comparative bioavailability. Risk and survival analysis studies controlling for several potential confounding factors are required to better characterize generic substitution., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: No published studies have assessed the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin generics., Objectives: Primary objective to assess the safety and efficacy of a generic rosuvastatin in reducing plasma low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in Lebanese dyslipidemic patients. Changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides and adverse effects were secondary objectives., Design: Prospective, observational, non-comparative., Setting: Multiple outpatient clinics in Lebanon., Patients and Methods: Dyslipidemic patients requiring statin therapy were followed for 2 months after prescription of a generic rosuvastatin at the physician's discretion. Efficacy and safety measurements were collected from medical records., Main Outcome Measures: Efficacy was assessed based on the evaluation of mean and percent change in LDL-C between baseline and week 8 as well as the proportion of patients reaching target LDL-C levels. Safety was assessed based on the evaluation of the incidence of adverse events (AEs) during the study period., Results: Two months after initiation of generic rosuvastatin, LDL-C levels in the 313 eligible patients who completed the study significantly decreased from 4.3 (0.8) mmol/L (168.2 [31.3] mg/dL) at baseline to 2.7 (0.7) mmol/L (105.9 [25.5] mg/dL) (P < .001). The mean percent change in LDL-C level was highest in subjects receiving generic rosuvastatin at a dose of 40 mg/day (-47.4%), followed by 20 mg/day (-36.8%), and 10 mg/ day (-31.4%); 82.5% of patients reached the target LDL-C level as set by their physician at baseline. Thirteen patients (4%) reported six AEs during treatment: abdominal pain, headache, stomach ache, insomnia, musculoskeletal pain/myalgia and nausea. No clinically significant changes in serum creatinine, serum creatine kinase, or liver function tests were reported. One patient withdrew because of an adverse event., Conclusions: Generic rosuvastatin was efficacious and safe in reducing LDL-C levels and helping the majority of patients achieve LDL-C targets after a short treatment period., Limitations: The observational nature, and a control group, and the relatively short duration of follow-up limit the generalizability of results. The authors received fees for study activities at patient visits from an independent clinical research organization subcontracted by the sponsor.

Background: Nonadherence to statin medications is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and poses a challenge to lipid management in patients who are at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Numerous studies have examined statin adherence based on administrative claims data; however, these data may underestimate statin use in patients who participate in generic drug discount programs or who have alternative coverage., Objective: To estimate the proportion of patients with missing statin claims in a claims database and determine how missing claims affect commonly used utilization metrics., Methods: This retrospective cohort study used pharmacy data from the PharMetrics Plus (P+) claims dataset linked to the IMS longitudinal pharmacy point-of-sale prescription database (LRx) from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2014. Eligible patients were represented in the P+ and LRx datasets, had ≥1 claim for a statin (index claim) in either database, and had ≥ 24 months of continuous enrollment in P+. Patients were linked between P+ and LRx using a deterministic method. Duplicate claims between LRx and P+ were removed to produce a new dataset comprised of P+ claims augmented with LRx claims. Statin use was then compared between P+ and the augmented P+ dataset. Utilization metrics that were evaluated included percentage of patients with ≥ 1 missing statin claim over 12 months in P+; the number of patients misclassified as new users in P+; the number of patients misclassified as nonstatin users in P+; the change in 12-month medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC) in P+; the comparison between P+ and LRx of classifications of statin treatment patterns (statin intensity and patients with treatment modifications); and the payment status for missing statin claims., Results: Data from 965,785 patients with statin claims in P+ were analyzed (mean age 56.6 years; 57% male). In P+, 20.1% had ≥ 1 missing statin claim post-index; 13.7% were misclassified as nonstatin users; and 14.9% were misclassified as new statin users. MPR was higher in the augmented P+ dataset versus the P+ dataset alone for all patients (79.4% vs. 76.7%, P < 0.001) and new users (61.4% vs. 58.7%, P < 0.001). Similarly, mean PDC was higher in the P+ dataset augmented with LRx versus the P+ dataset alone for all patients (76.0% vs. 74.0%, P < 0.001) and new users (58.5% vs. 56.5%, P < 0.001). Most patients received moderate-intensity statins; few changes in dose, intensity, or discontinuation of statins were observed when the P+ dataset was augmented. The most common reasons for missing data were payment by an alternate third-party program (66.3%) and use of cash, coupon, or discount cards (18.7%)., Conclusions: Augmenting commercial claims data with point-of-sale data provides a more accurate assessment of statin use than claims data alone., Disclosures: This study was funded by Amgen, which contributed to data interpretation and manuscript preparation. Wade, Hill, and De are employees of QuintilesIMS, which received funding from Amgen for work on this study. Patel and Harrison are employees of Amgen and own Amgen stock/stock options. Study concept and design were contributed by Wade, Hill, Patel, and Harrison. De took the lead in data collection, along with the other authors, and all authors contributed to data analysis. The manuscript was written and revised by all the authors.

Introduction: Although the same efficacy and tolerability are anticipated due to both drugs containing the same active ingredients, comparative studies between brand and generic alendronate are limited. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to compare efficacy and safety between brand alendronate and a recently introduced generic alendronate drug., Methods: A total of 140 postmenopausal women or men aged older than 50 years who met the indications for osteoporosis treatment were randomized to receive either generic (Bonmax®) or brand alendronate (Fosamax®) 70 mg/week over a 12-month period during the May 2014 to June 2015 study period. Endpoints included bone mineral density (BMD) changes at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck; percentage of patients with predefined levels of change in total hip and lumbar spine BMD at 12 months; and, changes in biochemical bone markers at 3, 6, and 12 months. Tolerability was evaluated by patient self-reporting of adverse experiences., Results: At 12 months post-treatment, BMD significantly increased at all sites in both groups. There were no differences in BMD percentage changes or the number of patients with stable or increased BMD after 1 year between groups. No significant differences in the amount of biochemical bone marker reduction or incidence of adverse events were observed between groups., Conclusions: Generic and brand alendronate produced similar gains in BMD and reduction in bone turnover markers. Both medicadoitions were also equally well-tolerated. Based on these findings, generic alendronate (Bonmax®) is a viable alternative to the original brand of alendronate., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02371252.

Aim: Patient-reported outcomes associated with adverse events (AEs) reported with generics have not been evaluated. To map AEs associated with generics to the NIH Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System., Methods: We mapped 381 AEs from 148 case reports of generic tamsulosin, levothyroxine and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine to the physical, mental and social domain of the NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System after reviewing 1237 case reports in the US FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS; 2011-2013)., Results: 75%, 76% and 71% reports were classified under the physical domain for tamsulosin, levothyroxine and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine, while 9%, 9% and 18% reports were classified under the mental domain, respectively., Conclusion: FAERS reveals several domains of patient-relevant concerns associated with generic drugs.

Background: Warfarin is a commonly used anticoagulant. Whether a given dose of the different formulations of Brazilian warfarin will result in the same effect on the international normalized ratio (INR) is uncertain. The aim of the WARFA trial is to determine whether the branded and two generic warfarins available in Brazil differ in their effect on the INR., Methods: WARFA is a cross-over RCT comparing three warfarins. The formulations tested are the branded Marevan® (Uniao Quimica/Farmoquimica) and two generic warfarin (manufactured respectively by Uniao Quimica Farmaceutica Nacional and Laboratorio Teuto Brasileiro). All of them were manufactured in Brazil, are available in all settings of the Brazilian healthcare system and were purchased from retail drugstores. Eligible participants had atrial fibrillation or flutter, had been using warfarin for at least 2 months with a therapeutic range of 2.0-3.0 and had low variability in INR results during the 1st period of the trial. Our primary outcome, for which we have an equality hypothesis, is the difference between warfarins in the mean absolute difference between two INR results, obtained after three and 4 weeks with each drug. Our secondary outcomes, that will be tested for inequality (except for the mean INR, which will be tested for equality), include the difference in the warfarin dose, and time in therapeutic range. Clinical events and adherence were also recorded and will be reported., Discussion: To our knowledge, WARFA will be the first comparison of the more readily applicable INR results between branded and generic warfarins in Brazil. WARFA is important because warfarins are commonly switched between in the course of a chronic treatment in Brazil. Final results of WARFA are expected in May 2017., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02017197 . Registered 11 December 2013.

Purpose: The therapeutic equivalence of generic and brand antiepileptic drugs, based on studies performed on healthy volunteers, has been questioned. We compare, in a routine clinical setting, brand versus generic levetiracetam (LEV) bioequivalence in patients with epilepsy and also the clinical efficacy and tolerability of the substitution., Methods: A prospective, open-label, non-randomized, steady-state, multiple-dose, bioequivalence study was conducted in 12 patients with epilepsy (5 females), with a mean age of 38.4±16.2 years. Patients treated with the brand LEV (Keppra; UCB Pharma) were closely followed for a four-week period and subsequently switched to a generic LEV (Pharmaten) and followed for another four-week period. Blood samples were collected at the end of each 4-week period, during a dose interval for each formulation, for LEV concentration measurements by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. Steady-state area under the curve (AUC) and peak plasma concentration (Cmax) data were subjected to conventional average bioequivalence analysis. Secondary clinical outcomes, including seizure frequency and adverse events, were recorded., Results: Patients had epilepsy for a mean period of 14.1±10.6years and the mean daily LEV dose was 2583.3±763.7mg. The mean AUC±SD and Cmax±SD was 288.4±86.3(mg/L)h and 37.8±10.4mg/L respectively for brand LEV and 319.2±104.7(mg/L)h and 41.6±12.3mg/L respectively for the generic LEV. Statistic analysis showed no statistical significant difference in bioequivalence. Also, no change in seizures frequency and/or adverse events was recorded., Conclusions: In our clinical setting, generic LEV was determined to be bioequivalent to brand LEV. Furthermore, seizures frequency or/and adverse events were not affected upon switching from brand to generic LEV., (Copyright © 2017 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This study aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of a generic tacrolimus (Tacrobell [TCB]) compared to the original tacrolimus (Prograf [PGF]) in kidney transplant recipients. In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed the data from 444 patients who took TCB as a first-line immunosuppressive drug and 245 patients who took PGF. The 5-year graft survival rate was 92% for patients in the PGF group and 97% for patients in the TCB group, respectively. Cox proportional hazards for a one-sided, noninferiority model showed noninferiority (upper confidence interval [CI] limit of the hazard ratio [HR]<1.2) for TCB compared to PGF (HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0-1.14). The 5-year patient survival rate was 96% for patients in the PGF group and 97% for patients in the TCB group. Cox proportional hazards for a one-sided, noninferiority model showed noninferiority (upper confidence interval limit of the HR<2.0) for TCB compared to PGF (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0-1.95). The 5-year acute rejection-free graft survival rate was not significantly different between the groups (TCB 67%, PGF 68.8%; P =0.6286). The incidence of adverse events including adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, malignancies, new-onset diabetes after transplantation, and infection events did not differ significantly between the two groups. We conclude that TCB is a comparable alternative to the original tacrolimus as a first-line immunosuppressive drug. Producers of generics should support further study of their products after approval to assure physicians of their efficacy and safety., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Memantine is the first clinically available glutamate antagonist, with an antagonist action at the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors in the brain, for correction of cognitive and behavioral functions in neurodegenerative disorders. Glutamate mediated excitotoxic neuronal damage has been implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other parkinsonism-related dementias and, therefore, memantine represents a novel mode of action to counteract the glutamate-mediated excitotoxicity. In moderate to severe AD, 20 mg of memantine shows a positive effect on cognition, mood, behavior and the ability to perform activities of daily living. Long-term studies show good tolerability of memantine with an acceptable side-effect profile. In recent years, there have been a proliferation of a number of companies producing generic memantine with different trade names. In Russia, the first memantine generic drug noojerone was approved in 2010 and its use has since been supported by a growing evidence base of efficacy in real-life clinical practice. Postmarketing studies show that noojerone provides long-term and effective therapy in patients with moderate and severe Alzheimer's dementia. This observation is supported by the clinically significant therapeutic effect of noojerone on cognitive and daily functioning, behavioral and psychotic symptoms of dementia and a reduction of the burden on caregivers. This generic version of memantine is affordable and, therefore, reduces financial burden on patients and improves compliance with treatment.