Search

Introducción: La industria farmacéutica que busca la aprobación para comercializar un medicamento genérico debe presentar datos que demuestren que la formulación genérica proporciona la misma calidad, eficacia y seguri¬dad que el medicamento innovador. Por lo tanto, la mayoría de los medicamentos genéricos administrados por vía oral están aprobados en función de los resultados de uno o más estudios fisicoquímicos y biofarmacéuticos para demostrar bioequivalencia y posterior intercambiabilidad. Objetivo: Identificar en los artículos de investigación las posibles diferencias entre las pruebas fisicoquímicas y biofarmacéuticas de bioequivalencia de medicamentos genéricos con la de sus homólogos ya comercializados. Método: Se realizó la revisión de estudios de investigación originales, publicados desde enero del año 2003 hasta diciembre del 2019. Se consultaron 4 bases de datos Pubmed, ScienceDirect, Lilacs, Scielo. En inglés y español. Los descriptores utilizados fueron medicamento genérico, bioequivalencia, equivalencia terapéutica e intercambiali¬dad, así mismo solo se seleccionaron aquellos artículos donde su forma farmacéutica de estudio fuese comprimi¬dos. Resultados: Se seleccionaron en total 40 artículos para su evaluación, de los cuales 19 llegaron a la conclusión de bioequivalencia, otros 19 determinaron no bioequivalencia, para 1 no existía una conclusión definitiva, mientras que en 1 estudio que evaluaba a 3 medicamentos, la conclusión fue no bioequivalencia para 2 de ellos y para el tercero sí la había. Conclusión: La revisión revela que los estudios son insuficientes para indicar bioequivalencia entre los fármacos multifuentes (genéricos) y los innovadores, por lo que se necesita ampliar los estudios de bioequivalencia, Introduction: The pharmaceutical industry seeking approval to market a generic drug must submit data demon¬strating that the generic formulation provides the same quality, efficacy, and safety of the innovative drug. There¬fore, most orally administered generic drugs are approved based on the results of one or more physicochemical and biopharmaceutical studies to demonstrate bioequivalence and subsequent interchangeability. Objective: Identify in research articles the possible differences between the physicochemical and biopharmaceuti¬cal tests of bioequivalence of generic drugs with that of their corresponding innovative equivalents. Method: The original research studies, published from January 2003 to December 2019, were reviewed. 4 databases were consulted Pubmed, ScienceDirect, Lilacs, Scielo. In English and Spanish. The descriptors used were generic medicine, bioequivalence, therapeutic equivalence and interchangeability, likewise only those articles where their study pharmaceutical form was tablets were selected. Results: A total of 40 articles were selected for evaluation, of which 19 reached the conclusion of bioequivalence, another 19 determined non-bioequivalence, for 1 there was no definitive conclusion, while in a study that evaluated 3 drugs, the conclusion was no bioequivalence for 2 of them and bioequivalence for one. Conclusions: The review reveals that the studies are insufficient to indicate bioequivalence between multi-source (generic) and innovative drugs, so that bioequivalence studies need to be expanded.

Purpose To create a consensus version of a speech-language pathology (SLP) script to assess the expressiveness of voice professionals. Methods The process was divided into three stages: stage 1 included a survey of the literature and classification of the variables found in the instruments used; in steps 2 and 3, through teamwork, expert judges (focus groups I and II) created and adapted, along with the researcher, a consensus version of the expressiveness assessment script. Results The initial list presented to the judges contained 48 variables found in the literature: 11 related to emotional and interpretation aspects, 20 associated with oral expressiveness, three related to issues of verbal expressiveness, and 14 related to nonverbal expressiveness. In stage 2, the initial version of the script of the focus group I resulted in a document with 28 parameters, distributed in three thematic assessment groups: general aspects of communication, with three parameters; aspects related to oral expressiveness, with 16 parameters; aspects associated with body expressiveness, with nine parameters. In stage 3, after adequacy by focus group II, the consensus version also resulted in 28 parameters, distributed in two thematic groups. Conclusion The consensus version of the SLP expressiveness assessment script for voice professionals was finalized with 28 parameters, distributed in two thematic axes: initial impact of communication, with six parameters; expressiveness, with 22 parameters.

Since the enforcement of Generics Act (1999), three types of pharmaceutically equivalent products are marketed in Brazil: innovative reference (REF), “similar” (S) and generic (G) drugs. The S (brand name) and G (generic name) borrow from REF (brand name) clinical data on safety and efficacy and dosage regimen. G (but not S) is bioequivalent to and interchangeable with REF. Starting in 2003, Brazilian Sanitary Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) has required data on relative bioavailability tests (with REF) to approve (or renew registration of) S drugs. In 2014, Anvisa extended interchangeability notion to similar drugs with a “comparable” bioavailability, i.e., an “equivalent” similar drug (EQ). Drugs for chronic diseases and “critical dose medicines” are listed among the EQ drugs approved. Interchangeability of nonbioequivalent medicines raises deep concerns regarding therapeutic failures and adverse events. Concerns are even more worrisome if patients switch from one drug to another during an ongoing treatment for illnesses such as epilepsy, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes and/or substitutable drugs have a narrow therapeutic index. Resumo A partir da vigência da lei dos genéricos (1999), três tipos de produtos farmaceuticamente equivalentes são comercializados no Brasil: o medicamento inovador de refência (REF), o produto “similar” (S), e o genérico (G). O similar (nome de fantasia) e o genérico (nome genérico) tomam de empréstimo do REF (nome de fantasia) os dados clínicos de segurança e eficácia e a posologia. G (mas não S) é bioequivalente ao, e intercambiável com REF. Desde 2003, a Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (Anvisa) exige dados de testes de biodisponibilidade relativa para registrar (ou renovar o registro de) medicamentos S. Em 2014, a Anvisa estendeu o conceito de intercambialidade aos medicamentos similares com biodisponibilidade “comparável”, i.e., um medicamento similar “equivalente” (EQ). Medicamentos para doenças crônicas e “fármacos de dose crítica” estão listados entre os produtos EQ aprovados. A intercambialidade de medicamentos não-bioequivalentes suscita grande preocupação quanto a falhas terapêuticas e eventos adversos. Os receios são ainda maiores se os pacientes trocam um medicamento por outro durante o tratamento de doenças como epilepsia, insuficiência cardíaca, hipertensão, diabetes e/ou os produtos farmacêuticos substituídos tem um índice terapêutico estreito.

Generic drug substitution may constitute a core instrument of countries’ National Pharmaceutical Policies, a way to reduce the price of drugs while expanding access to health care. Despite the potential importance of policy in this area and observed differences in national practices, scholars embarking on comparative analysis lack a roadmap of which dimensions of generic drug policy to assess and compare. We consider countries’ rules and regulations across four dimensions: (1) the demonstration of therapeutic equivalence, (2) pharmaceutical packaging and labelling, (3) drug prescription, and (4) drug substitution. We maintain that to be able to understand and compare national approaches toward generic drug promotion, it is crucial to carefully distinguish among these four dimensions. Furthermore, we suggest that analysis must also consider how the diverse interests of actors in public and private sectors shape the design and implementation of generic drugs policies. To illustrate both the dimensions of policy and the conflicts around generics policies, we focus on the case of Brazil.

Objective: To assess the bioavailability of a formulation of metformin hydrochloride 850 mg coated tablets as test, compared to a reference product with the same dosage form, in healthy volunteers of both genders. Method: This clinical trial was designed as randomised, comparative, single-dose, open-label, two-period, two-sequence, crossover study under fasting conditions. 28 healthy volunteers (fourteen men and fourteen women) took part in the study. The 850 mg coated tablets formulations were administered in a single dose orally. Blood samples were obtained prior to dosing and at 30 min, 1, 1:20; 1:40, 2, 2:20, 2:40; 3, 3:20, 3:40 4, 4:30, 5, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24 and 36 hours after drug administration with an one week washout period. Plasmatic concentrations of metformin were measured by specific and validated analytical methods based on high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS). The pharmacokinetics parameter AUC0-36h, AUC0-∞ and Cmax were tested for bioequivalence after log transformation of data and ratios of Tmax were evaluated non parametrically. Findings: Data from this study showed that the test and the reference formulation presented similar results, within the acceptance range (80-125%) for AUC0-∞ (area under curve) and Cmax (maximum serum concentration of the drug) parameters, satisfying the bioequivalence criteria of the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency and FDA. Conclusion: These results indicate that the two formulations of metformin hydrochloride 850 mg coated tablets are bioequivalent, thus, it will be possible to ensure interchangeability between them, which can generate market competition and better access to this treatment.

ResumenObjetivoEvaluar el impacto de un programa de intercambio terapéutico a omeprazol de los inhibidores de la bomba de protones (IBP).MétodoEnsayo comunitario que compara el impacto de un programa de intercambio terapéutico en los equipos de atención primaria de una comarca respecto a la no aplicación en una comarca control. Se incluyó a los pacientes con prescripción de un IBP entre mayo de 2008 y junio de 2009. La intervención consistió en sesiones educativas y facilitar a cada médico (n=68) los pacientes con un IBP que pudiera cambiarse a omeprazol. Se obtuvo información de la historia clínica (IBP prescrito, equipo de atención primaria) y de la aplicación de farmacia (coste de la dosis diaria definida de los IBP). A partir del riesgo relativo (RR) se comparó el porcentaje de intercambio terapéutico en cada comarca antes y después de la intervención. También se calculó el porcentaje de omeprazol al final de cada periodo de estudio y los cambios en los costes en IBP.ResultadosHubo más intercambios terapéuticos en el grupo de intervención (RR: 4,2; intervalo de confianza del 95% [IC95%]:3,1-5,8) respecto al control (RR: 1,8; IC95%:1,2-2,6). En el grupo de intervención, el porcentaje de pacientes con omeprazol pasó del 86,2% al 89,3%, y en el control del 84,3% al 84,7%. El coste del grupo IBP disminuyó un 7,6% en el grupo de intervención y aumentó un 2,0% en el control.ConclusionesEl programa de intercambio terapéutico se ha mostrado efectivo. Se trata de una intervención sencilla, capaz de modificar las prescripciones y reducir sus costes.AbstractObjectiveTo assess the impact of substituting proton pump inhibitors (PPI) for omeprazole.MethodWe performed a community trial of the impact of a therapeutic exchange program in the primary care teams of a region compared with non-implementation in a control region. The study included patients prescribed a PPI between May 2008 and June 2009. The intervention consisted of providing educational sessions to physicians (n=68), as well as a list of patients receiving a PPI who were suitable for therapeutic exchange. Information was gathered from medical records (PPI prescribed, primary care team) and the pharmacy database (cost of defined daily doses of the PPI). The percentage of therapeutic exchange in each region before and after the intervention was compared through relative risk (RR). The percentage of omeprazole at the end of each study period and changes in PPI costs were also calculated.ResultsTherapeutic exchange was higher in the intervention group (RR: 4.2; 95%CI: 3.1-5.8) than in the control group (RR: 1.8; 95%CI: 1.2-2.6). The percentage of patients prescribed omeprazole increased from 86.2% to 89.3% in the intervention region and from 84.3% to 84.7% in the control region. The total cost of the PPI group decreased by 7.6% in the intervention region and increased by 2.0% in the control group.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the effectiveness of the therapeutic exchange program. This is a simple intervention that is able to modify prescription and reduce its costs.

Submitted by Vitor Silverio Rodrigues (vitorsrodrigues@reitoria.unesp.br) on 2014-05-27T11:24:47Z No. of bitstreams: 0Bitstream added on 2014-05-27T14:41:26Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 2-s2.0-78650569808.pdf: 206106 bytes, checksum: cad63623a88832e076b7ac4a1c569921 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2014-05-27T11:24:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2010-09-01 In Brazil, the registration of new drugs is carried out only when the regulatory agency (Anvisa, acronym in Portuguese) is fully satisfied with the evidence of their quality, efficacy and safety, presented by a pharmaceutical industry that strive for this registration. With the patent expiration, pharmaceutical companies are attracted to produce biological medicines called biosimilar or biogenerics or simply generics, whose approval may result in reduced treatment costs. But it is necessary that the biosimilar be, at least, equally efective and safe and without contaminants in relation to the original. Recent consensus guidelines aim to establish criteria for efcacy and safety of these medicines. Preclinical studies in vitro and in vivo, the origin of raw materials and clinical studies phase I, II and III are recommended for biosimilar medicine registration in the international market. Low molecular weight heparins are found in this situation. In this review we specifcally addressed this type of medicine, which could serve as a benchmark for other biosimilar medicines. Departamento de Cirurgia e Ortopedia Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) Departamento de Cirurgia e Ortopedia Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)

INTRODUÇÃO: O programa de genéricos no Brasil propiciou maior acesso da população a medicamentos. Para garantir a intercambiabilidade entre medicamentos referência e genérico ou similar, é necessário que eles sejam bioequivalentes. Com o crescimento do número de medicamentos genéricos, é comum que pacientes o substituam por outro genérico ou similar. Contudo, essa troca pode não garantir a manutenção da bioequivalência. Para avaliar a segurança na intercambiabilidade entre diferentes genéricos e similares com Hidroclorotiazida e Maleato de Enalapril, foi realizada metanálise de vários estudos de bioequivalência que utilizaram esses medicamentos. MÉTODOS: Foram utilizados dados provenientes de estudos de bioequivalência de genéricos e similares registrados pela Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (Anvisa). A compatibilidade dos dados de cada um dos estudos foi analisada, e a determinação de um intervalo de confiança para as diferenças entre as médias dos parâmetros farmacocinéticos, área sob a curva (ASC) e concentração plasmática máxima (Cmáx ), foi feita para cada estudo por meio da metanálise. RESULTADOS: A intercambiabilidade entre as combinações dos três produtos com Hidroclorotiazida foi confirmada com base nos intervalos de confiança obtidos. Para os medicamentos com Maleato de Enalapril, a intercambiabilidade não foi confirmada em 50% das comparações estudadas dos produtos. CONCLUSÃO: A intercambiabilidade foi comprovada entre os três produtos com Hidroclorotiazida. No entanto, para o Maleato de Enalapril, metade dos produtos estudados não é intercambiável, uma vez que não contempla os intervalos preconizados pelos testes de bioequivalência; portanto, a resposta farmacocinética e, por conseguinte, a efetividade do medicamento podem ser alteradas. INTRODUCTION: The generic drugs program provided a better population's access to medicines. To ensure interchangeability between a brand-name and generic or similar drugs is necessary that they are bioequivalent. With the growing number of generic drugs, it is common for patients to replace a generic to another or one similar. However, this exchange can not guarantee the maintenance of bioequivalence. To evaluate the safety interchangeability between different generic and similar drugs with Hydrochlorothiazide and Enalapril Maleate, a meta-analysis was carried out with several bioequivalence studies with these drugs. METHODS: Data from bioequivalence of generic and similar drugs approved by the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) (drug regulatory agency in Brazil) were used. The compatibility of data from each study was analyzed and the determination of a confidence interval for the differences between the means of pharmacokinetic parameters, area under the curve (ASC0-t) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), was made for each study by meta-analysis. RESULTS: The interchangeability between the combinations of the three products with Hydrochlorothiazide was confirmed based on the obtained confidence intervals. For the drugs studied with Enalapril Maleate interchangeability has not been confirmed for 50% of the product comparisons. CONCLUSION: The exchange was established between the three products with hydrochlorothiazide. However, for the Enalapril Maleate half of the products studied are not interchangeable, considering they do not match the established intervals for bioequivalence tests, so the pharmacokinetics behavior and thus the effectiveness of the product may be changed.

INTRODUCTION: High blood pressure is a systemic disease which has major clinical and psycho-social repercussions, involves a high morbidity-mortality rate and generates high costs for the health system. Its treatment involves the use of antihypertensive drugs, which are commercialized as trademark, generic or similar drugs. PURPOSE: To verify the antihypertensive effect produced by a similar dose of different trademarks of enalapril maleate in spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR). METHODS: Fifteen mg/kg of enalapril maleate were administered by gavage in 50 SHR rats and their blood pressure was verified through tail plethysmography every three days in a period of 16 days. RESULTS: The group treated with reference drug has shown a significant reduction on blood pressure levels when compared to the control group. Thus, treatments with enalapril maleate of generic, similar-A and similar-B brands have also shown significant reduction on animals' blood pressure. CONCLUSION: The use of generic drug and similars (A and B) drugs in the same doses and for the same period of time has not shown significant difference regarding the reference drug, which suggests that the brands tested are bioequivalent. INTRODUÇÃO: A hipertensão arterial é uma doença sistêmica que traz grandes repercussões clínicas e psico-sociais, cursa com uma elevada morbi-mortalidade e gera elevados gastos para o sistema de saúde. Seu tratamento envolve a utilização de fármacos anti-hipertensivos, os quais são comercializados como remédios de marca, genéricos ou similares. PURPOSE: Verificar o efeito anti-hipertensivo produzido por dose igualitária de diferentes marcas de maleato de enalapril, em ratos naturalmente hipertensos. MÉTODOS: Foram administrados, por meio de gavagem, 15 mg/kg de maleato de enalapril em 50 ratos naturalmente hipertensos e verificada a pressão arterial, através de pletismografia de cauda, a cada três dias, em um período de 16 dias. RESULTADOS: O grupo testado com o fármaco de referência mostrou uma redução significativa dos níveis pressóricos quando comparado ao grupo controle. Da mesma forma, o tratamento com Maleato de Enalapril da marca genérica e das marcas similar-A e similar-B também produziu redução significativa da pressão arterial dos animais. CONCLUSÃO: A utilização do medicamento genérico e os similares A e B nas doses utilizadas e no tempo de experimentação adotado, não indicou diferença significativa em relação ao fármaco de referência, sugerindo que as marcas testadas são bioequivalentes.

Objective: To investigate patients’ reported outcome following medication with two brands of 400 mg ibuprofen used to alleviate musculoskeletal pains. Methods: Adult peasant manual laborers (85) who met criteria were randomly assigned to receive either of the brands (A or B). Data on pain alleviation were gathered using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Present Pain Intensity (PPI), and Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGII) scales. Interval data obtained from the two brands were compared using the Students’ t-test at 95% confidence interval. Results: There were 42 participants, mean age=29.2 (SD=1.37) assigned to brand A and 43 (mean age=28.8 SD=1.14) in brand B of ibuprofen 400 mg. Brand B was consistently rated higher than brand A. Scores for medication efficacy were 10.4 (SD=1.65) (brand A) and 11.4 (SD=1.68) (brand B); t=2.768, P=0.007. Alleviation of pain symptoms: 10.8 (SD=1.64) and 11.6 (SD=1.72); t = 2.194, P=0.031. Similarly, rated scores on the impact of pain on quality of life were 10.5 (SD=2.00) and 12.1 (SD=1.85); t=3.830, P

Objetivos: Determinar la equivalencia terapéutica in vitro de tres formulaciones de diazepam 10 mg tabletas, para establecer su intercambiabilidad con el medicamento de referencia original. Material y métodos: Estudio descriptivo, comparativo, realizado en junio del 2010, utilizando tres medicamentos genéricos dispensados en la ciudad de Ica y el medicamento original de referencia: Diazepam (Valium®) de laboratorios Roche. Se determinaron los perfiles de disolución efectuados en medios similares a pH fisiológicos del organismo según lo señalado por la OMS (Reporte Técnico 937). Para establecer la equivalencia terapéutica se empleó el factor de similitud (f2), considerando que dos formulaciones son equivalentes terapéuticos in vitro si los valores están comprendidos entre 50 y 100. Resultados: Los medicamentos evaluados presentaron a pH 1,2 una disolución muy rápida, sin embargo las tres formulaciones de prueba y el de referencia presentaron a pH 4,5 y pH 6,8 una disolución lenta con valores f2 a pH 4,5: Genérico A (f2 = 76,0); Genérico B (f2 = 68,9); Genérico C (f2 = 30,5); y a pH 6,8: Genérico A (f2 = 60,6); Genérico B (f2 = 78,2); Genérico C (f2 =20,4). Conclusiones: Según los valores f2 encontrados para las tres formulaciones de diazepam el medicamento genérico C (genérico nacional) no es equivalente al medicamento de referencia dado que no se pudo demostrar su intercambiabilidad, la que si se logró establecer para los medicamentos genéricos A y B. Objectives: To determine the in-vitro therapeutic equivalence of three formulations of diazepam in tablets of 10mg to establish their interchangeability with the original brand name product. Methods: Descriptive and comparative study performed in September 2010 using three generic presentations dispended in the city of Ica compared to the original brand name product Diazepam (Valium®) from Roche Pharmaceutical Laboratories. We determined the dissolution profiles performed in similar media at physiologic pH based on WHO recommendations (Technical report 937). To establish therapeutic equivalence, we used the similarity factor (f2) and considered therapeutic equivalence if values were between 50 and 100. Results: All presentations had a very rapid dissolution at pH=1.2. However, the three generic presentations and the brand name product had slower dissolutions with f2 values at pH=4.5 of 76.0 for Generic A; 68.9 for Generic B; and 30.5 for Generic C, and f2 values at pH=6.8 of 60.6 for Generic A; 78.2 for Generic B and 20.4 for Generic C, respectively. Conclusions: Based on the f2 values found for the three generic presentations of diazepam, only the generic C presentation was not equivalent compared to the brand name product.