Search

Purpose: Levetiracetam is an antiepileptic drug known for its high tolerability, and severe adverse drug reactions are rare. We report the case of a severe cutaneous adverse drug reaction in a patient who was switched from brand-name to generic levetiracetam., Summary: A 29-year-old woman undergoing contrast-enhanced computed tomography developed lesions over her trunk starting 6 hours after imaging. Although initially diagnosed as an allergy to the radiocontrast agent, the condition progressively worsened into toxic epidermal necrolysis-drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms overlap syndrome, despite adequate hydration and treatment. Investigation of the patient's medications revealed that she had been switched from brand-name to generic levetiracetam a week before the onset of symptoms. Levetiracetam was immediately discontinued, with the patient recovering after 2 weeks of intensive care. Adverse drug reaction analysis identified excipients in generic levetiracetam as the likely cause of the severe reaction., Conclusion: This is the first reported case of severe cutaneous drug allergy after a brand-to-generic switch for levetiracetam. Brand-to-generic switches of medications can potentially cause severe allergic reactions due to differences in excipients., (© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2023. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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.

Objective: To pursue explanations for compromised efficacy and induction of side-effects in some generic brands of lamotrigine distributed in Australia., Method: Bioassays of the non-generic and five generic lamotrigine tablets were undertaken (also after exposure to heat and cold), as well as assays of two generic drugs generating concerning side-effects in two patients, while enquiries were made of manufacturing companies., Results: Mass spectrometry of the six tested products showed comparable properties and no compromising when those tablets were heated and cooled, while analyses of the products taken by the two patients reporting significant side-effects showed an increase in the peak area lamotrigine concentration., Conclusions: We failed to identify any intrinsically compromised product in our comparison analyses of the six preparations. We consider alternate explanations for an issue leading to widespread international reporting of distinct side-effects and deaths following brand switching, with analyses of the two problematic preparations supporting a 'faulty' batch explanation.

Objective: Generic drugs provide an opportunity for savings in drug expenditure since they are available at a lower cost and do not affect patients' health. A better understanding of pharmacists' knowledge, attitudes, and perception can promote the quality use of generic drugs. The objective of this study was to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and perception of pharmacists from tertiary hospitals in China regarding generic drugs., Methods: A cross-sectional survey using a postal questionnaire was conducted, which was sent to 200 hospital pharmacists randomly selected from tertiary hospitals in Hubei Province. A total of 125 questionnaires out of 200 were received. Of the respondents, 80 were female and 45 were male., Results: The majority of respondents (87.2%) could clearly distinguish between original and generic drugs. Pharmacists agreed that generic drugs were less effective (52.8%) and produced more side effects (52%). Fortynine respondents thought that generic drug products were not adequately tested. Approximately 78% and 60% of the pharmacists indicated that generic substitution was not feasible for drugs with narrow therapeutic windows and drugs for critical diseases, respectively. Most of them supported the recommendation of generic drugs based on professional judgment., Conclusion: Our study showed that a considerable portion of Chinese hospital pharmacists hold negative perceptions of generic drugs. Interventions to improve pharmacists' knowledge of generic drugs are needed., (© 2021. Huazhong University of Science and Technology.)

Generally, bioequivalence (BE) studies of drug products for pediatric patients are conducted in adults due to ethical reasons. Given the lack of direct BE assessment in pediatric populations, the aim of this work is to develop a database of BE and relative bioavailability (relative BA) studies conducted in pediatric populations and to enable the identification of risk factors associated with certain drug substances or products that may lead to failed BE or different pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters in relative BA studies in pediatrics. A literature search from 1965 to 2020 was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify BE studies conducted in pediatric populations and relative BA studies conducted in pediatric populations. Overall, 79 studies covering 37 active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) were included in the database: 4 bioequivalence studies with data that passed BE evaluations; 2 studies showed bioinequivalence results; 34 relative BA studies showing comparable PK parameters, and 39 relative BA studies showing differences in PK parameters between test and reference products. Based on the above studies, common putative risk factors associated with differences in relative bioavailability (DRBA) in pediatric populations include age-related absorption effects, high inter-individual variability, and poor study design. A database containing 79 clinical studies on BE or relative BA in pediatrics has been developed. Putative risk factors associated with DRBA in pediatric populations are summarized.

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to assess if any antiepileptic drug (AED) was associated with patients being generic brittle (GB) and if any specific AED caused - and was not merely associated with - more frequent switch problems., Methods: Chi square and binary logistical regression analysis were performed, using a previously described study in patients with epilepsy who were routinely followed at the University of Maryland epilepsy outpatient clinic in Baltimore, Maryland. Determination of generic brittleness mirrored clinical practice and included patient opinion about generic formulations, usually based on a history of worsened seizures or side effects with prior AED formulation switching. The dataset included a total of 148 patients, who took 30 different AED formulations. Patients collectively took 530 AED formulation products., Results: Taking lamotrigine immediate release (IR) tablets was associated with a greater probability of being GB and tended to cause more frequent switch problems. Interestingly, six AEDs - Vimpat tablet, carbamazepine IR tablet, phenobarbital (any formulation), gabapentin capsule, Lyrica capsules, and phenytoin (any formulation) - were associated with a reduced probability of being GB, although perhaps not through greater efficacy and tolerability, or better formulation quality. Since tablet and capsule appearance may influence patient perceptions and clinical outcomes, it was observed that the six AEDs less associated with being GB also tended to have fewer generics, and hence possibly lessen treatment uncertainties from the patient perspective. A patient taking more AEDs had significantly increased odds of having a switch problem. An additional observation was that, when a generic was available for their most problematic AED, GB patients took a generic AED only 50% of the time, while not GB patients took a generic AED all the time., Conclusions: Taking lamotrigine IR tablets was associated with a greater probability of being GB and tended to cause more frequent switch problems than other AEDs in this cohort of patients. Six AEDs were associated with a reduced probability of being GB. The lower number of different generics for these six drugs may result in greater patient certainty in medication identity, due to greater consistency in medication color, shape, and size, and hence less generic skepticism or generic brittleness. Also, patients taking more AEDs showed increased odds of a switch problem., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None of the authors have any conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Clopidogrel is commonly used even after expiring patents. The brand clopidogrel (BC) was dealt by single company, while numerous manufacturers produce generic clopidogrel (GC). There are no convincing data to compare the safety of different formulations. Therefore, the data yielded from international, uniform, government-mandated registries may be useful., Methods and Results: We assessed primary causative adverse events (PCAE) after BC and GC in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). The outcomes were divided into death, cardiac, thrombotic/embolic, haemorrhagic, and rash/dermal complications. These primary endpoints were then examined by proportional reporting ratios (PRR) and chi-square (χ2). Among total FAERS (n = 9 466 679) reports, overall BC (n = 88 863) cases were more common than after GC (n = 36 559). When triaged by PCAE role, BC (n = 18 328) was also more abundant than GC (n = 3987). The reported death rates were more than doubled after BC [18.4% vs. 7.0%; PRR = 0.38; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.32-0.43; χ2=369.7; P<0.0001] for total FAERS, and consistent for late 2010-2017 (17.6% vs. 7.0% PRR = 0.40; 95% CI 0.37-0.45; χ2=286.2; P<0.004) PCAE cases. In contrast, GC trended to co-report more cardiac (14.6% vs. 13.3%; PRR = 1.12; 95% CI 1.0-1.25; χ2=3.5; P<0.06). The haemorrhagic (40.9% vs. 32.3%; PRR = 1.45; 95% CI 1.33-1.57; χ2=75.8; P<0.0001), and rash/dermal (5.4% vs. 4.6%; PRR = 1.20; 95% CI 1.0-1.44; χ2=3.75; P<0.05) events were also more common for GC. Thrombotic/embolic events were reported equally (at 7.0%) after each formulation., Conclusion: The PCAE profiles differ with BC and GC in FAERS. While deaths reports were higher, the rates of cardiac, haemorrhagic, and skin complications were less common for BC. Despite expected reporting bias, this may indicate that the manufacturers of GC are reluctant to report deaths to the FDA. However, the overall adverse event profile suggests potentially better safety of BC over GC formulations., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2018. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background Little is known about patients' Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines (PSM), "the belief that one is especially sensitive to the actions and side effects of medicines". Objective (i) To explore the extent of and factors associated with high Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines in a Norwegian population of chronic medicine users; (ii) to assess the psychometric characteristics of the tool to measure PSM. Setting Community pharmacies in the Oslo area, Norway. Method A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted between October 2015 and January 2016. Patients filling prescriptions for chronic disorders were recruited. Main outcome measure Perceived sensitivity to medicines. Results The study population included 214 patients (response rate 36.7%). In total 20.1% of the patients reported low, 61.7% moderate and 18.2% high perceived sensitivity to medicines. Factors positively associated with high perceived sensitivity were female gender (Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 5.33, 95% CI 1.52 to 18.72, p < 0.001) and having a non-native language (aOR 4.76, 95% CI 1.48 to 15.30, p < 0.001); lower educational level (aOR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.07, p < 0.001) and using generic medicines (aOR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.57, p < 0.001) were negatively associated with high perceived sensitivity to medicines. There was no association between the perceived sensitivity and the number of prescription medicines taken. The Norwegian version of the Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines tool demonstrated good psychometric characteristics. Conclusion Almost one out of five patients in this study reported high sensitivity to medicines. Female gender, having a non-native language, lower educational level and using generic medicines were important factors related to the perceived sensitivity. Health care providers should be aware of the impact negative expectations about medicines can have on health behaviors and treatment outcomes, and seek to elicit and address patients' beliefs about their personal sensitivity to medicines.

What Is Known and Objective: Some public scepticism exists about generics in terms of whether brand and generic drugs produce identical outcomes. This study explores whether adverse event (AE) reporting patterns are similar between brand and generic drugs, using authorized generics (AGs) as a control for possible generic drug perception biases., Methods: Events reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System from the years 2004-2015 were analysed. Drugs were classified as brand, AG or generic based on drug and manufacturer names. Reports were included if amlodipine, losartan, metoprolol extended release (ER) or simvastatin were listed as primary or secondary suspect drugs. Disproportionality analyses using the reporting odds ratio (ROR) assessed the relative rate of reporting labelled AEs compared to reporting these AEs with all other drugs. The Breslow-Day test compared RORs across brand, AG and generic. Interrupted time series analysis evaluated the impact of generic entry on reporting trends., Results and Discussion: Generics accounted for significant percentages of total U.S. reports, but AGs accounted for smaller percentages of reports, including for amlodipine (14.26%), losartan (1.48%), metoprolol ER (0.35%) and simvastatin (0.70%). Whereas the RORs were significantly different for multiple brand vs generic comparisons, the AG vs generic comparisons yielded fewer statistically significant findings. Namely, only the ROR for AG differed from generic for amlodipine with peripheral oedema (P < .01)., What Is New and Conclusion: Inconsistent reporting patterns were observed more between brand and generic compared with AG and generic. Use of AGs as a control for perception biases against generics is useful, but this approach can be limited by small AG report numbers. Requiring the manufacturer name to be printed on the prescription bottle or packaging could improve the accuracy of assignment for products being reported., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Several different types of drugs acting on the central nervous system (CNS) have previously been associated with an increased risk of suicide and suicidal ideation (broadly referred to as suicide). However, a differential association between brand and generic CNS drugs and suicide has not been reported., Objectives: This study compares suicide adverse event rates for brand versus generic CNS drugs using multiple sources of data., Methods: Selected examples of CNS drugs (sertraline, gabapentin, zolpidem, and methylphenidate) were evaluated via the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) for a hypothesis-generating study, and then via administrative claims and electronic health record (EHR) data for a more rigorous retrospective cohort study. Disproportionality analyses with reporting odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used in the FAERS analyses to quantify the association between each drug and reported suicide. For the cohort studies, Cox proportional hazards models were used, controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics as well as the background risk of suicide in the insured population., Results: The FAERS analyses found significantly lower suicide reporting rates for brands compared with generics for all four studied products (Breslow-Day P < 0.05). In the claims- and EHR-based cohort study, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was statistically significant only for sertraline (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.88)., Conclusion: Suicide reporting rates were disproportionately larger for generic than for brand CNS drugs in FAERS and adjusted retrospective cohort analyses remained significant only for sertraline. However, even for sertraline, temporal confounding related to the close proximity of black box warnings and generic availability is possible. Additional analyses in larger data sources with additional drugs are needed.

Authorized generics are identical in formulation to brand drugs, manufactured by the brand company but marketed as a generic. Generics, marketed by generic manufacturers, are required to demonstrate pharmaceutical and bioequivalence to the brand drug, but repetition of clinical trials is not required. This retrospective cohort study compared outcomes for generics and authorized generics, which serves as a generic vs. brand proxy that minimizes bias against generics. For the seven drugs studied between 1999 and 2014, 5,234 unique patients were on brand drugs prior to generic entry and 4,900 (93.6%) switched to a generic. During the 12 months following the brand-to-generic switch, patients using generics vs. authorized generics were similar in terms of outpatient visits, urgent care visits, hospitalizations, and medication discontinuation. The likelihood of emergency department (ED) visits was slightly higher for authorized generics compared with generics. These data suggest that generics were clinically no worse than their proxy brand comparators., (© 2017 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: The US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), a post-marketing safety database, can be used to differentiate brand versus generic safety signals., Objective: To explore the methods for identifying and analyzing brand versus generic adverse event (AE) reports., Methods: Public release FAERS data from January 2004 to March 2015 were analyzed using alendronate and carbamazepine as examples. Reports were classified as brand, generic, and authorized generic (AG). Disproportionality analyses compared reporting odds ratios (RORs) of selected known labeled serious adverse events stratifying by brand, generic, and AG. The homogeneity of these RORs was compared using the Breslow-Day test. The AG versus generic was the primary focus since the AG is identical to brand but marketed as a generic, therefore minimizing generic perception bias. Sensitivity analyses explored how methodological approach influenced results., Results: Based on 17,521 US event reports involving alendronate and 3733 US event reports involving carbamazepine (immediate and extended release), no consistently significant differences were observed across RORs for the AGs versus generics. Similar results were obtained when comparing reporting patterns over all time and just after generic entry. The most restrictive approach for classifying AE reports yielded smaller report counts but similar results., Conclusion: Differentiation of FAERS reports as brand versus generic requires careful attention to risk of product misclassification, but the relative stability of findings across varying assumptions supports the utility of these approaches for potential signal detection.

Introduction: Although generic drugs constitute approximately 88% of drugs prescribed in the US, there are no reliable methods to identify generic drugs in the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS)., Objective: The aim of this study was to develop an algorithm for identifying generic drugs in the FAERS., Data Source: We used 1237 adverse event reports for tamsulosin, levothyroxine, and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine from the publicly available FAERS from 2011-2013, and 277 source case narratives obtained from the FDA., Methods: Two reviewers independently and in duplicate used a three-item algorithm including the following criteria: manufacturer name, New Drug Application (NDA) number/abbreviated NDA (ANDA), and specific use of the term 'generic' or 'brand' to classify the focal drug of each case report as definitely generic (two of three criteria), probably generic (one of three criteria), brand, and cannot be assessed. Inter-rater reliability was estimated using kappa coefficients, and internal consistency was estimated using Cronbach's alpha. We compared the classification of the drugs as generic versus non-generic in publicly available FAERS compared with the original case reports (reference)., Results: The focal drug was classified as generic (definite or probable) in 15.8% (39/234), 9% (67/742), and 16.7% (42/261) of tamsulosin, levothyroxine and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine cases, respectively (overall kappa 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.85-0.93), while 37% of reports could not be classified due to incomplete information. Among the drugs classified as generics using the publicly available FAERS, we categorized 95.3% as generic drugs using the original case reports. Among those drugs that did not meet the algorithm-based definition of generic in the publicly available data, 20.9% were reclassified as generics using the original case reports., Conclusions: The algorithm demonstrated high inter-rater reliability with moderate internal consistency for identifying generic drugs in the FAERS, in our sample. Future efforts should focus on improving the reliability and validity of identifying generics through improving the completeness of reporting in the FAERS.

Objective: Generic medicines provide a safe and economical medical treatment and are used routinely throughout the world. However, a significant proportion of individuals view generic medicines as less safe, less effective and of lower quality compared with their equivalent branded medicines. This study aimed to investigate the effect of an educational intervention on improving perceptions and perceived efficacy of generic medicines., Method: Seventy participants who experienced frequent tension headaches were randomized to receive an educational video about generic medicines or a control video. Participants then alternatively took branded and generic ibuprofen to treat their next two consecutive headaches. Changes in perceptions of generic medicines, pain relief and side effects were measured., Results: The intervention was effective in modifying and improving perceptions of generic medicines in the areas of understanding (p < .05), preference for a generic medicine to treat a serious illness (p < .05), and overall preference for generic medicines (p < .01). However, contrary to predictions, participants in the intervention group reported significantly less pain relief (p = .03) and more symptoms (p = .04) after taking generic ibuprofen compared with branded ibuprofen., Conclusion: This study identified that an educational intervention is effective in modifying and improving perceptions of generic medicines but produced paradoxical effects on drug efficacy and side effects. These findings suggest that complex mechanisms are involved in the relationship between perceptions and drug efficacy and contradict the assumption that improving attitudes toward generic medicines will have a flow-on effect to improving health outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).)

Background: In 2006 Nolvadex was discontinued and replaced by a variety of alternative generic tamoxifen brands for the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Anecdotally, patients are switching brands and taking alternative medications to reduce treatment related symptoms. Nevertheless, more severe side effects may equate to better relapse prevention. This study evaluates generic tamoxifen adherence and its correlation with side effects and brand switch., Methods: Consecutive disease free ER positive patients (stage I-III) were invited to respond to a questionnaire. 165 of 327 questionnaires were returned (50% response). Pearson's Chi Square test was used for data analysis., Results: 63 patients (38%) reported a switch between generic tamoxifen. 59% of all patients experienced side effects associated with tamoxifen treatment of which 53% were severe. Patients experiencing differential symptoms dependent on tamoxifen brand reported more severe side effects (p = 0.02). Non-prescribed supplements were taken by 42% of all patients with no significant improvement in climacteric symptoms (p = 0.05). The concomitant use of SSRIs appeared to have no effect on symptoms. A significant number of patients considered discontinuing tamoxifen because of the side effects (p = 0.001), yet this did not translate into discontinuation or non-adherence (p = 0.8 and 0.08 respectively)., Conclusion: Severe tamoxifen side effects are commonly experienced by breast cancer patients and can be significantly altered by change in tamoxifen brand. Most patients will continue to take tamoxifen, despite side effects to avoid cancer relapse. Supplementation and antidepressants did not improve tamoxifen related side effects in our cohort., (Crown Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Branding medication with a known pharmaceutical company name or product name bestows on the drug an added assurance of authenticity and effectiveness compared to a generic preparation. This study examined the impact of brand name and generic labeling on medication effectiveness and side effects., Method: 87 undergraduate students with frequent headaches took part in the study. Using a within-subjects counterbalanced design, each participant took tablets labeled either as brand name "Nurofen" or "Generic Ibuprofen" to treat each of 4 headaches. In reality, half of the tablets were placebos, and half were active ibuprofen (400 mg). Participants recorded their headache pain on a verbal descriptor and visual analogue scale prior to taking the tablets, and again 1 hour afterward. Medication side effects were also reported., Results: Pain reduction following the use of brand name labeled tablets was similar in active ibuprofen or a placebo. However, if the tablets had a generic label, placebo tablets were significantly less effective compared to active ibuprofen. Fewer side effects were attributed to placebo tablets with brand name labeling compared to the same placebo tablets with a generic label., Conclusions: Branding of a tablet appears to have conferred a treatment benefit in the absence of an active ingredient, while generic labeled tablets were substantially less effective if they contained no active ingredient. Branding is also associated with reduced attribution of side effects to placebo tablets. Future interventions to improve perceptions of generics may have utility in improving treatment outcomes from generic drugs., ((c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).)

Generic formulations represent a way to reduce the costs of brand compounds when their patent is expired. While, the bio-equivalence in generic drugs is guaranteed, some excipients as well as dyes could be different and this could reduce the drug safety. Herein, we report the development of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) in two patients after the switch from brand to generic formulations. We have tested cytochrome P450 enzymes expression as well as drug serum levels. None of these markers were altered. Checking deeply into both patient's medical history, they harbored poly-sensitivity or allergy to pollen and graminacea and used different active ingredients for different health problems coming from the same generic company Almus(®). This company used different dyes and excipients compared to the branded drugs made by distinguished companies. In conclusion, we strongly suggest to both pharmacists and physicians to be careful in giving the advice to change the drug, thinking to reduce health sanitary costs without considering the personal clinical history of each one. Paradoxically this behavior is causing other health issues, bringing to an increase of the overall costs for patients as well as for National Health System.

Spontaneous adverse event reports constitute an important source of information on previously unknown adverse reactions to marketed medicines. However, the dynamics of such reporting following generic introduction are poorly understood. Using adverse event reports on five antiepileptic drugs from the US Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System, we describe temporal trends in adverse event reporting before and after generic introduction, and survey the quality of product-identifying information contained therein. The majority of reports were sent by innovator drug manufacturers while few were sent by generic manufacturers, even when generics accounted for >90% of dispensed prescriptions. We manually reviewed narratives from 2,500 reports and found that the suspect product type (brand or generic) could not be determined in 84% of reports, while generic products (16%) were identified more often than brand-name products (<1%). These results suggest that pharmacovigilance stakeholders should act to promote more detailed reporting practices., (© 2015 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

In August 2012, general practitioners of Haute- Garonne received a letter from Health insurance system, informing that prescriptions could be endorsed by "not substituable" after reporting an adverse drug reactions (ADR). Compared to an equivalent period before this letter, we observed an increase of ADRs reports for generics, mainly concerning gastrointestinal ADR and lack of efficacy., (© 2014 Société Française de Pharmacologie et de Thérapeutique.)

Objective: Generic medications are associated with reduced perceived effectiveness, increased perceived adverse effects, and increased rates of nonadherence compared with brand-name medications. This study examined the effect of an apparent medication formulation change on subjective and objective measures of medication effectiveness and medication side effects., Methods: Sixty-two university students participated in a study purportedly testing the effectiveness of fast-acting β-blocker medications in reducing preexamination anxiety. All tablets were placebos. In session 1, all participants received a yellow tablet ("Betaprol"). In session 2, participants were randomly allocated to receive Betaprol (no change condition) or a white tablet labeled either as "Novaprol" (branded change condition) or "Generic" (generic change condition). Blood pressure and state anxiety were measured before and after tablet ingestion. Side effects attributed to medication were assessed., Results: The no change group showed significantly greater decreases in systolic blood pressure (mean [M] [standard deviation] = -7.72 mm Hg, standard error [SE] = 1.45) than the branded change (M = -2.75 mm Hg, SE = 1.44, p = .02) and generic change (M = -3.26 mm Hg, SE = 1.45, p = .03) groups. The no-change group showed significantly greater decreases in state anxiety (M = -1.53, SE = 0.33) than the branded change (M = -0.50, SE = 0.33, p = .03) and generic change (M = -0.52, SE = 0.33, p = .04) groups. Significantly more side effects were attributed to the medication in the generic change (M = 1.83, SE = 0.23) (but not the branded change) condition when compared with the no change condition (M = 0.87, SE = 0.31, p = .03)., Conclusions: Medication formulation change, particularly to generic medication, seems to be associated with reduced subjective and objective measures of medication effectiveness and increased side effects.

Over the past two decades, courts have consistently ruled that the manufacturer of a brand-name prescription drug cannot be liable for injuries suffered by those taking generic imitations of its product. This meant that a patient injured by a generic drug could have no remedy at all because in many instances the generic drug manufacturer would escape liability on the ground that it did not produce any information on which the patient's doctor relied. It was a perplexing dilemma. The generic drug manufacturer made the product that the plaintiff received, the brand-name manufacturer produced all of the information the patient's doctor saw, and neither manufacturer could be held liable even if each acted negligently. The California Court of Appeal recently issued a stunning decision in which it concluded that a brand-name drug manufacturer could be liable to a plaintiff who took a generic version of its product. The reaction to the decision has been overwhelmingly negative. Commentators have condemned the decision as one of the worst rulings made by any court in recent years. Judges around the country have dismissed it as a misguided aberration from the otherwise strong judicial consensus on the issue. Although the decision has been the subject of scathing criticism, this Article argues that the California court's ruling actually represents the first time that a court has properly examined this issue. In addition, the Article points out some weaknesses in the California court's reasoning and proposes a novel general framework for analyzing the liability of brand-name and generic drug manufacturers.