Search

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.

Optimum use of generic products would require equivalence, not only in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy in clinical studies, but also patient acceptability to not jeopardize treatment success because of non-adherence which would de facto limit the potential cost saving anticipated by their use. Although acceptability is a requirement for the authorization of pediatric innovator products, a survey of European Union (EU) regulatory authorities showed that few have a formal process for assessing patient acceptability of generic products during the registration processes. The current International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) focus on unifying guidance for the development and scrutiny of generics but should include acceptability alongside the other factors being considered for harmonization., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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: Nateglinide or N-(trans-4-isopropylcyclohexyl-1-carbonyl)-D-phenylalanine is a drug with a rapid hypoglycemic effect that is mainly used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Very few studies have assessed bioequivalence based on feeding status. This study aimed to assess the pharmacokinetic bioequivalence and safety of nateglinide-containing tablets (0.12 g) in healthy Chinese volunteers under fasting and fed conditions., Methods: The studies were performed in 2017-2018 in the Phase I Clinical Trial Ward of the Affiliated Hospital of Liaoning University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China. Eligible Chinese volunteers received a single 0.12-g dose of the test or reference formulation, followed by a 7-day washout period and administration of the alternate formulation. Blood samples were collected at various time intervals, and plasma nateglinide concentrations were analyzed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Then, the adverse events, laboratory test results, vital signs, and physical exam findings were compared between the 2 groups., Results: The ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-inf of the tested to reference preparations under fasting conditions were 105.03% (90% confidence interval [CI]: 99.53-110.83%), 104.02% (90% CI: 101.37-106.74%), and 104.04% (90% CI: 101.38-106.77%), respectively. The same ratios under fed conditions were 96.55% (90% CI: 85.80-108.65%), 103.08% (90% CI: 100.07-106.18%), and 103.07% (90% CI: 100.21-106.01%), respectively. The 90% CI values for Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-inf fell within the accepted range of bioequivalence (80.00-125.0%). Common adverse events included hypoglycemia, heart rate increase, palpitation, sweating, dizziness, and diarrhea., Conclusions: The test formulation (0.12 g) met the CFDA's regulatory definition for bioequivalence to the reference formulation. Both formulations were well tolerated by healthy Chinese subjects., Trial Registration: This trial has been registered in the Chinese Clinical trial registry (ChiCTR2000030694), March 10, 2020., (© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

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.)

Since July 2017, different generic imatinib formulations have been introduced in Italy for the treatment of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). We analyzed 168 chronic phase CML patients treated with branded imatinib for a median of 12 years (range 1-16) at a single institution who switched to a single generic formulation in order to assess the safety and impact on molecular response. The Sokal risk was low/intermediate/high in 63%, 33%, and 4% of patients, respectively. The median duration of generic imatinib treatment was 19 months (range 4-22). Twenty-seven percent of patients were in MMR and 73% were in deep molecular responses (MR4-4.5) at the time of the switch. After 12 months of treatment with generic imatinib, 140 patients were evaluable for response: 23.6% and 76.4% were respectively in MMR and in deep molecular response. When the degree of response was compared with the best molecular response observed with branded imatinib, it was found that 84% of patients maintained the response previously achieved, 6% improved it, and 10% of patients had a molecular fluctuation from the previous deep molecular response to MMR. Only 1 patient lost the MMR and no patient switched to another TKI for inefficacy. In terms of safety, 20% of patients reported new or worsening side effects, but only 2 patients returned to branded imatinib for toxicity. Our data show that the switch to generic imatinib in patients who have been previously treated with branded imatinib appears to maintain efficacy, although a proportion of patients experience new or worsening side effects.

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.)

Background: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a disease characterized by a progressive rise in pulmonary vascular resistance. Ambrisentan is an oral, propanoic acid based-endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA), selective for the endothelin type-A receptor, which is approved for the treatment of PAH. The Colombia National Food and Drug Surveillance Institute regulatory criteria require demonstrating that the proposed generic product is bioequivalent to its reference-listed drug to obtain marketing approval., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to test the bioequivalence, pharmacokinetics, and tolerability of ambrisentan 10 mg tablets., Methods: In this open-label, randomized, oral single-dose, two-way crossover bioequivalence study, 26 Mexican adult healthy male subjects received either the generic product of ambrisentan 10 mg or the reference product Volibris ® (ambrisentan) 10 mg tablets during each study period under fasting conditions. There was a 7-day washout period between each dosing. Ambrisentan concentrations in plasma samples were quantified using a validated ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) method. Blood samples were collected up to 72 h post-dose in each study period. The primary end points were maximum plasma concentration (C max ) and area under the plasma concentration-time (AUC 0-t ) curve between 0 and 72 h for ambrisentan., Results: The ratios (90% CI) of geometric mean for ambrisentan were 104.3% (97.12-111.98%) and 100.2% (95.56-104.72%). These pharmacokinetic parameter values lie within the INVIMA-specified bioequivalence limits of 80%-125%. Nervous system disorders were the most common adverse events (AEs). All AEs were mild to moderate in nature and were resolved after follow-up or pharmacologic treatment. Both products were safe and well tolerated., Conclusions: The test product ambrisentan 10 mg tablets is bioequivalent to the reference product Volibris ® (ambrisentan) 10 mg tablets. Both treatments were well tolerated in the Mexican male population of this study., Trial Registration: COFEPRIS National Clinical Trials Registry number 183300410B0367/2018.

Aims: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of generic exenatide with branded exenatide Byetta ® in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on monotherapy or combination therapy of metformin and insulin secretagogues., Methods: A multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial was performed. A total of 240 patients with T2DM and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 7% (53 mmol/mol) to ≤ 9.0% (75 mmol/mol) on monotherapy or combination therapy of metformin and insulin secretagogues for at least 3 months were randomized into generic exenatide or branded exenatide groups with a 1:1 ratio for 16 weeks of treatment. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c levels from baseline at week 16, with a non-inferiority margin of - 0.35% (- 3.83 mmol/mol) (lower bound of one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) > - 0.35% (- 3.83 mmol/mol)). Secondary endpoints included the proportion of participants achieving HbA1c < 7% (53 mmol/mol), the changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h postprandial glucose (2hPG) following a standard meal, 7-point self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) profiles, body weight change from baseline at week 16 and the change in HbA1c levels from baseline at week 8. Safety issues were also evaluated., Results: After 16 weeks of treatment, HbA1c levels decreased significantly from baseline in the two groups, with a reduction of - 1.10% ± 1.31% (- 12.0 mmol/mol ± 14.3 mmol/mol) in the generic exenatide group and - 1.08% ± 1.11% (- 11.8 mmol/mol ± 12.1 mmol/mol) in the branded exenatide group (both P < 0.001). The least-squares mean difference of HbA1c reduction between the two groups was - 0.03% (- 0.33 mmol/mol), with a lower one-sided 95% CI limit of - 0.27% (- 2.95 mmol/mol), which was higher than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of - 0.35% (- 3.83 mmol/mol). Moreover, there were no significant differences in the proportion of participants achieving HbA1c < 7% (53 mmol/mol) and the changes in FPG, 2hPG, 7-point SMBG profiles and body weight at week 16 and the change in HbA1c levels from baseline at week 8 (all P > 0.05) between the two groups. The incidence of adverse events, including the incidence of hypoglycemia (18.3% and 17.5%, respectively), was similar for the generic and branded exenatide groups (P > 0.05)., Conclusions: In patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on monotherapy or combination therapy of metformin and insulin secretagogues, add-on treatment with generic exenatide demonstrated non-inferiority to branded exenatide in terms of improvements in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment. Furthermore, the two drugs were also similar for other efficacy endpoints and safety profile. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR-IPR-15006558, Date registered May 27, 2015.

Chemo-induced thrombocytopenia is a limiting toxicity among patients receiving temozolomide (TMZ) as first-line treatment for glioblastoma. We aimed to compare early platelet concentration kinetics, hematological safety profile, and impact on survival following the initiation of either the brand-name or a generic TMZ formulation. A retrospective trial was conducted in patients suffering from newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Patients were treated with TMZ at 75 mg/m 2 per day during six weeks, concomitantly with radiotherapy. Platelet concentration was collected each week. Primary endpoint was to perform a linear mixed-effect model of platelet concentration kinetic over weeks. A total of 147 patients were included as follows: 96 received the brand-name TMZ, and 51 received a generic TMZ formulation. Exposition to the generic was a significant variable that negatively influenced the platelet kinetics in the radiotherapy and concomitant TMZ phase, P = 0.02. Grade ≥3 chemo-induced thrombocytopenia was more frequent in the generic group: 19.6% [95% CI 8.7-30.5%] vs 3.1% [0-6.6%], P = 0.001. Exposition to the generic formulation of TMZ led to increase early treatment discontinuation due to TMZ-induced thrombocytopenia and was a worsening independent prognostic factor on overall survival: adjusted HR 1.83 [1.21-2.8], P = 0.031. These data suggest that exposition to a generic formulation of TMZ vs the brand-name product is associated with higher early platelet decrease leading to clinically relevant impacts on treatment schedule in glioblastoma. Further prospective trials are needed to confirm these results., (© 2020 Société Française de Pharmacologie et de Thérapeutique.)

The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the bioequivalence of 2 tablet formulations of prucalopride, generic and branded, and to investigate relevant pharmacokinetic and safety profiles. This study was designed as a randomized, open-label, fasting, single-dose, crossover, and dual-period trial. After overnight fasting, 12 subjects were given prucalopride tablets via oral administration, and blood specimens were obtained up to 96 hours after dosing. Prucalopride concentrations in plasma were measured using ultraprecision liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry followed by calculation of pharmacokinetic parameters. The safety of prucalopride was assessed throughout the study. The pharmacokinetics of prucalopride can be defined as a 2-compartment model with a long elimination phase. No significant differences were observed between the pharmacokinetic profiles of the generic and branded prucalopride tablets. Bioequivalence was evaluated using 90%CIs for the ratio test/reference of log area under the concentration-time curve over 96 hours, log area under the concentration-time curve to infinity, and log peak concentration from generic and branded tablets, which were 100.06-109.94%, 100.63-110.32%, and 95.84-113.08%, respectively. During administration of the medication, there were 18 adverse events in 6 subjects in the test formulation group and 19 cases of adverse events in 6 subjects in the reference formulation group (P > .05). No severe adverse effects were detected. These results suggest that generic and branded prucalopride tablets are bioequivalent and show similar safety profiles., (© 2019, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

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.)

Aims: Generic medicinal products (GMPs) are low-priced copies of off-patent medicines that reduce healthcare costs and broaden access to healthcare. Thus, healthcare authorities, professionals, and providers recommend their use. In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved hundreds of GMPs based on specific bioequivalent trials. The question is whether the brand name drugs and GMPs or the different GMPs similar in purity, efficacy, and safety., Methods and Results: We have reviewed the progressive increasing recalls and warning letters of cardiovascular GMPs issued recently by the FDA/EMA. Both Agencies found numerous irregularities in the purity, safety, effectiveness, and current good manufacturing practices in some GMPs widely used in cardiovascular therapy. This evidence and the recent identification of nitrosamine impurities classified as probable human carcinogens in several angiotensin receptor blockers confirm that the presence of low-quality/substandard GMPs represents a serious public health problem with significant impact on national clinical and economic burden., Conclusion: A global strategy that unifies the efforts of all the stakeholders, including drug manufacturers, healthcare providers, governments, health professionals, patients, and judicial systems are needed to protect the drug chain supply and ensure that only high-quality GMPs are available for use., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: To compare the efficacy and safety of generic and branded imatinib in adults with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in the chronic phase (CML-CP), we retrospectively reviewed data from patients CML-CP who received generic or branded imatinib., Patients and Methods: A propensity score matching (PSM) study was performed. A Cox regression model was used to identify factors associated with responses and outcomes., Results: Four hundred forty-two adults receiving generic imatinib (n = 236) or Glivec (Novartis, Basel, Switzerland; n = 206) were included. There were more patients with rural household registration (P < .001), lower education level (P < .001), divorced or widowed status (P = .009), higher white blood cell counts (P = .019), splenomegaly (P < .001), and longer intervals from diagnosis to imatinib initiation (P = .033) in the generic cohort. During the follow-up, there was no significant difference between the 2 cohorts in the 4-year probabilities of achieving a complete cytogenetic response (97.0% vs. 97.3%; P = .736), major molecular response (87.8% vs. 90.1%; P = .113), and molecular response 4.5 (32.5% vs. 38.8%; P = .186), as well as failure-free survival (77.3% vs. 81.4%; P = .313), progression-free survival (94.4% vs. 95.8%; P = .489), and overall survival (96.8% vs. 98.3%; P = .088). Multivariate analyses showed that the drug type was not associated with responses and outcomes. After the PSM procedure, 177 pairs of patients with comparable baseline characteristics were reanalyzed. Multivariate analyses confirmed that generic or branded imatinib used as first-line therapy was not associated with either responses or outcomes., Conclusion: Sociodemographic characteristics might influence the tyrosine kinase inhibitor that patients chose. Generic and branded imatinib as first-line therapy had comparable efficacy and safety in CML-CP patients., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The anticoagulant response to warfarin, a narrow therapeutic index drug, increases with age, which may make older patients susceptible to adverse outcomes resulting from small differences in bioavailability between generic and brand products. Using US Medicare claims linked to electronic medical records from two large hospitals in Boston, we designed a cohort study of ≥ 65-year-old patients. Patients were followed for a composite effectiveness outcome of ischemic stroke or venous thromboembolism, a composite safety outcome, including major hemorrhage, and a 1-year all-cause mortality outcome. After propensity score fine-stratification and weighting to account for > 90 confounders, hazard ratios comparing brand vs. generic warfarin initiators (95% confidence intervals) for the effectiveness, safety, and all-cause mortality outcomes, were 0.97 (0.65-1.46), 0.94 (0.65-1.35), and 0.84 (0.62-1.13), respectively. Results from subgroup analyses of patients with atrial fibrillation, CHADS-VASc score ≥ 3, and HAS-BLED score ≥ 3 were consistent with the primary analysis., (© 2019 The Authors Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2019 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: Previous systematic reviews (2008; 2016) concluded similarity in outcomes between brand-name and generic drugs in cardiology, but they included ≥ 50% comparative bioavailability studies, not designed or powered to detect a difference in efficacy or safety between drug types. We aimed to summarise best-evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of generic versus brand-name drugs used in cardiology., Methods: For this systematic review of the literature, scientific databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched from January 1984 to October 2018. Original research reports comparing the clinical impact of brand-name versus generic cardiovascular drugs on humans treated in a real-life setting, were selected. Meta-analyses and subgroup analyses were performed. Heterogeneity (I 2 ) and risk of bias were tested., Results: Among the 3148 screened abstracts, 72 met the inclusion criteria (n ≥ 1,000,000 patients, mean age 65 ± 10 years; 42% women). A total of 60% of studies showed no difference between drug types, while 26% concluded that the brand-name drug was more effective or safe, 13% were inconclusive and only 1% concluded that generics did better. The overall crude risk ratio of all-cause hospital visits for generic versus brand-name drug was 1.14 (95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.23; I 2 : 98%), while it was 1.05 (0.98-1.14; I 2 : 68%) for cardiovascular hospital visits. The crude risk ratio was not statistically significant for randomised controlled trials only (n = 4; 0.92 [0.63-1.34], I 2 : 35%)., Conclusion: The crude risk of hospital visits was higher for patients exposed to generic compared to brand-name cardiovascular drugs. However, the evidence is insufficient and too heterogeneous to draw any firm conclusion regarding the effectiveness and safety of generic drugs in cardiology.

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.)

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.)

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.)

Sofosbuvir is an NS5B nucleotide inhibitor for the treatment of hepatitis C viral infection. In this study the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of single and multiple doses of generic sofosbuvir were investigated in healthy Chinese subjects. Twelve subjects (6 male and 6 female) were enrolled in this study. The PK parameters of sofosbuvir and its metabolite (GS-331007) in both blood and urine samples were analyzed after dosing by the established liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry analytical method. The safety/tolerability assessment consisted of documenting adverse events, vital signs, electrocardiogram, and laboratory test results. Sofosbuvir was well tolerated. Major PK parameters of the generic formulation of sofosbuvir were similar to those found in previous reports. These data support further clinical evaluation of this generic formulation of sofosbuvir., (© 2019, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

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.)

Objectives : The economic crisis in Greece has triggered an extensive public debate about the use of generic drugs (generics). Despite their cost-saving potential, generic market penetration remains very low. This raises questions on awareness of, perception on and preference for generics by health-care professionals and patients. This is a descriptive study on the level of knowledge and attitudes towards generics of final year pharmacy school students in Greece. Methods : An electronic questionnaire was distributed to 173 senior pharmacy school students in three Universities in Greece. Responses were submitted electronically. Results : The majority of students knew that generics contain the same active ingredient as the originator products and are cheaper. Students were somehow concerned with safety and efficacy of generics. The majority of students agreed that pharmacists should probably recommend the use of generics, and indicated that prescribing and dispensing practices would largely depend on the profit margin. Despite more than half of the students expressing a positive attitude towards generics, they were inadequately educated on their features. Conclusion : It is critical to improve knowledge of and preference for generics amongst health-care professionals from early on if to build the trust required to increase generic market penetration and achieve measurable savings in pharmaceutical expenditure.

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.)

Real-world spontaneous adverse event reports and administrative health care data were utilized as one part of a multipronged approach to verify surveillance signals related to generic drug formulations. This study used metoprolol succinate extended release as a historic case example from which to develop an analytic framework. The US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System was utilized for disproportionality analyses and to identify outcomes of interest. Claims data were analyzed for generic uptake, proportion of prescriptions with "dispense as written" orders, time to discontinuation or switching, and relative rates of clinical events. Adverse Event Reporting System data showed that the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms for product quality were higher for generic metoprolol cases and that a number of clinical events were increased that could be side effects of high or low variability in drug levels. Compared to amlodipine-benazepril, which also had a first-approved generic at the same time, market share data showed that metoprolol succinate had lower utilization and more prescriptions written as dispense as written. Switching and discontinuation were generally higher for metoprolol users compared to amlodipine-benazepril users. Finally, clinical event rates were generally higher for generic versus brand metoprolol but lower for the same comparison for amlodipine-benazepril users. In the claims-based analyses, the 90-day period immediately after generic entry provided stronger signal capture than using the entire study period. This analytic framework can be implemented to actively monitor new generic formulations for potential bioequivalence failures. Signals from these analyses require confirmation (eg, via pharmacometric analyses) to be informative for regulatory action., (© 2019, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Background: Clopidogrel has been widely used to prevent atherothrombotic events. Since 2011, pharmacists have offered their patients the opportunity to switch to generic clopidogrel, an economic alternative. Whether bioequivalence of generic cardiovascular drugs translates into clinical equivalence at a population level remains unclear and needs to be further documented., Objective: We aimed to evaluate the impact of generic clopidogrel commercialization on adverse events (AEs): hospitalizations or emergency room (ER) consultations., Methods: This is an interrupted time series analysis using the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System. We included all patients ≥ 66 years old who were users of the brand-name clopidogrel or a generic version (n = 6) 24 months before and up to 12 months after generics commercialization. Rates of AEs were computed, and periods before and after generics commercialization were analyzed by segmented regression models along with exploratory analyses (generic vs. brand name). Sensitivity analyses were also performed using stratification of the time series by (1) sex, (2) the number of prevalent cardiovascular comorbidities, and (3) socioeconomic status., Results: Time series were constituted of 89,525 clopidogrel users (mean age 78 years, 45% women, 71% ischemic heart disease, 34% stroke). For all users, there was a mean rate of 157 AEs per 1000 user-months, stable trend before (-0.1% [95% confidence interval -0.3 to 0.1] and after (0.0% [- 0.5 to 0.6]) generics commercialization. In exploratory analyses, once generic clopidogrel versions were commercialized, rates of AEs were 19.2% (95% CI 11.7-26.7) higher for generic versus brand-name users. This difference persisted up to 1 year. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results., Conclusions: The population treated with clopidogrel had similar rates of hospitalizations or ER consultations before and after generics commercialization. However, differences in rates of hospitalizations or ER consultations between generic and brand-name clopidogrel users may represent a drug safety signal which remains to be validated. Using a different study design, permitting adjustment for potential confounders, could be useful in this regard.

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.)

Teicoplanin formulations are marketed as antibiotic mixtures with several compounds that share the same core structure. Recent studies conducted in vitro have reported differences in the composition ratio of different teicoplanin products. In this retrospective study, we examined the trough blood concentration of the originator brand and a generic teicoplanin product. Target patients were retrospectively assigned to the originator (Targocid) or generic group. The groups were matched 1:1 using propensity scores. The initial trough blood concentration analysis identified 44 matches. In both groups, the median dosing day for the first measurements was 4, respectively. The initial trough blood concentration of the originator group was significantly higher (mean ± SD, 16.3 ± 4.5 mg/L) than that of the generic group (12.8 ± 4.7 mg/L; 95% CI, -5.4 to -1.6). A significant difference was observed in the frequency of serum creatinine elevation in the study of the frequency of adverse events using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (originator group, 41.9% vs generic group, 20.9%). In cases where discontinuation was necessary due to side effects, there were three patients in the originator group and one patient in the generic group. This study found that trough blood concentration differed between formulations. Therefore, correction might be necessary while monitoring drug concentration in the blood. Trough blood concentrations are used as surrogate markers for efficacy and safety, so further studies on differences in efficacy and safety between formulations are required., (Copyright © 2019 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We investigated impacts of increased generic drug use on spontaneous adverse event reports (SAERs), because SAERs have been a major source of data for drug safety assessment at the postmarket stage. Reporting proportion of SAERs for the generic drugs was consistently and significantly lower than that for the original branded drugs. The reporting proportion targeting for 55 active product ingredients, which had the longest follow-up period after generic drug marketed, gradually decreased for the original branded drugs and increased for the generic drugs. However, these transitions did not parallel the changes in market share over the same period. These results suggest that the reporting proportion of SAERs for generic drugs may not keep pace with growth in market share. When generic drugs account for the majority of market share, utilization of multiple sources of information and data, in addition to SAERs, may be a key to assuring drug safety at the postmarket stage., (© 2018 The Authors Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2018 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

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: Two forms of ifosfamide are commercially available in France: HOLOXAN® (brand-name drug) and IFOSFAMIDE EG® (generic drug). Following the marketing launch of the generic drug, there has been a significant increase in cases of ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy reported in France. Our objective is to compare the incidence of ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy in adult patients treated with HOLOXAN® or IFOSFAMIDE EG®., Methods: This is a retrospective study of adult patients treated with ifosfamide in two medical centers from 2013 to 2017, with data analysed from medical records. Comparisons of patients were made, according to the formulation used and according to the occurrence of ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy. The groups of patients were compared using a chi-square or Fisher's exact test for qualitative parameters and a Wilcoxon test for quantitative parameters. To include confounding factors in the analysis of the impact of drug formulation on the occurrence of ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy, a generalized linear model was performed with the occurrence of ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy as the dependent parameter, and the formulation and the confounding factors as explanatory parameters., Results and Discussion: A total of 191 patients were included: 103 patients received HOLOXAN® (53.9%) and 88 patients received IFOSFAMIDE EG® (46.1%). In the HOLOXAN® group, the median infusion time was higher (12 hours vs 3h, P < 0.001) and aprepitant was administered more frequently (78.6% vs 69.7%, P < 0.001) than for the IFOSFAMIDE EG® group. Ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy occurred in 11 patients (5.8%, CI 95% [2.9%, 10.0%]). In the ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy group, median infusion time was higher (12 hours [12; 24] vs 3 hours [2; 12] P < 0.001) and a poor performance status was more frequent (54.5% vs 13.9%, P = 0.002) than in the group without ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy. The frequency of ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy in the HOLOXAN® group was 1.9% (2/103) against 10.2% (9/88) in the IFOSFAMIDE EG® group (P = 0.014). Multivariate analysis revealed that treatment with IFOSFAMIDE EG® resulted in significantly more ifosfamide-induced encephalopathies compared to HOLOXAN® (OR and CI 95%:7.4 [1.4; 39.5], P = 0.018). We identified two other risk factors for ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy: long-term infusion and a performance status of two or higher., What Is New and Conclusion: The formation of chloroethylamine in solution could be the cause of more frequent ifosfamide-induced encephalopathies with IFOSFAMIDE EG® compared to HOLOXAN®. Application of these data could help in the choice of ifosfamide formulation in adult patients to decrease the risk of ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy, and more specifically for patients with risk factors., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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.

Controversy persists about bupropion XL 300 mg generic equivalence to brand product. A prospective, randomized, double-blinded crossover in 70 adults with major depression in stable remission taking any bupropion XL 300 mg tested bioequivalence and therapeutic equivalence of available XL 300 mg products. After a 4-week lead-in on patients' existing bupropion, four 6-week phases evaluated brand and three generics. Patients were uninformed of switching. Drug overencapsulation ensured blinding. There were no differences between any generic and brand, or between generics, in peak plasma concentration (C max ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve over the 24-hour dosing interval (AUC 0-24 ) for racemic bupropion or major metabolites. All generics met formal bioequivalence criteria for bupropion and metabolites. There were no differences between generics and brand, or between generics, in depression symptoms or side effects, assessed by every 3-week in-person interview and daily smartphone-based self-report. There were no differences in patients' perceptions of bupropion products. Results show three bupropion XL 300 mg generic products are both bioequivalent and not therapeutically different from brand drug and each other., (© 2018 The Authors Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2018 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: We investigated tolerability and effectiveness of generic, less expensive direct antiviral drugs in the treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 4 (HCV GT-4) in an Egyptian cohort., Patients and Methods: Retrospectively, we analysed data from 648 patients with HCV GT4 attending Alexandria Main University Hospital from January 2016 to May 2017 [488 treatment naïve/160 treatment-experienced/288 with chronic hepatitis/360 with cirrhosis]. Patients received generic sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (n = 168, treatment naïve = 136, treatment-experienced = 32) or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 480, treatment naïve = 352, treatment-experienced = 128) ± ribavirin. We assessed sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment, non-response, relapse, treatment discontinuation and drug adverse reactions., Results: An overall sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment was achieved in 97.8%, non-response in 0.6%, relapse in 0.3% and discontinuation of treatment in 1.3% of patients. Sofosbuvir/ledipasvir ± ribavirin regimen attained an overall sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment in 96.4% of patients (100% of treatment-experienced vs 95.6% of treatment naïve, P = 0.28), vs 98.3% for sofosbuvir/daclatasvir ± ribavirin regimen (100% of treatment-experienced vs 97.7% of treatment naïve, P = 0.08). No severe drug adverse events or deaths were reported except anaemia due to ribavirin., Conclusion: Generic direct antiviral drugs used in treating Egyptian patients with HCV GT-4 demonstrated equal potency, safety and tolerability compared to original brands, with low cost which would help to provide treatment to a larger scale of patients., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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

In clinical endpoint bioequivalence (BE) studies, the primary analysis for assessing equivalence between a generic and an innovator product is based on the observed per-protocol (PP) population (usually completers and compliers). However, missing data and noncompliance are post-randomization intercurrent events and may introduce selection bias. Therefore, PP analysis is generally not causal. The FDA Missing Data Working Group recommended using "causal estimands of primary interest." In this paper, we propose a principal stratification causal framework and co-primary causal estimands to test equivalence, which was also recommended by the recently published ICH E9 (R1) addendum to address intercurrent events. We identify three conditions under which the current PP estimator is unbiased for one of the proposed co-primary causal estimands - the "Survivor Average Causal Effect" (SACE) estimand. Simulation shows that when these three conditions are not met, the PP estimator is biased and may inflate Type 1 error and/or change power. We also propose a tipping point sensitivity analysis to evaluate the robustness of the current PP estimator in testing equivalence when the sensitivity parameters deviate from the three identified conditions, but stay within a clinically meaningful range. Our work is the first causal equivalence assessment in equivalence studies with intercurrent events.

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.

Introduction: Nearly 90% of drugs dispensed in the US are generic products., Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and implement a tool for analyzing manufacturer-level drug utilization and switching patterns within the US Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel system., Methods: A descriptive tool was designed to analyze data in the Sentinel common data model and was tested with two case studies-metoprolol extended release (ER) and lamotrigine ER-using claims data from four Sentinel data partners. We plotted initiators of each brand and generic product over time. For metoprolol ER, we evaluated rates of switching from generics around the time of manufacturing issues. For lamotrigine ER, we examined rates of switching back to the brand among those who switched from brand to generic., Results: We identified 1,651,285 initiators of metoprolol ER products between July 2008 and September 2015. We observed a large decrease in monthly metoprolol ER initiators (from 25,465 in December 2008 to 13,128 in February 2009), corresponding to recalls by generic manufacturers. We observed simultaneous increases in utilization of the authorized generic and brand products. We identified 4266 initiators of lamotrigine ER with an epilepsy diagnosis between January 2012 and September 2015. Among those who switched from brand to generic, the cumulative incidence of switching back was close to 20% at 2 years. Switchback rates were higher for the first available generic products., Conclusions: This developed tool was able to elucidate novel utilization and switching patterns in two case studies. Such information can be used to support surveillance of generic drugs and biosimilars.

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.

Background and Aim: Treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with low-cost generic direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) available in India and other developing countries needs determination of HCV genotype ("genotype-dependent" regimens). Generic velpatasvir, a DAA that obviates the need for genotype determination ("pan-genotypic" regimen), recently became available but is costlier. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of genotype-dependent versus pan-genotypic DAA treatments in India., Methods: A previously validated microsimulation model, adapted to Indian population, was used to compare the costs and long-term outcomes of three scenarios: no treatment, treatment with genotype-dependent regimens, and treatment with pan-genotypic regimen. Input parameters were derived from literature. Using a payer's perspective and lifetime time horizon, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also conducted., Results: At the current price ($US223 for 4 weeks), pan-genotypic regimen was cost-saving compared with no treatment. Compared with genotype-dependent regimens, it increased QALYs by 0.92 and increased costs by $US107 but was deemed cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $US242 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis also supported the cost-effectiveness of pan-genotypic regimen. At the reduced price of $US188 for 4 weeks, the pan-genotypic regimen will become cost-neutral to genotype-dependent regimens (current price: $US100 for 4 weeks)., Conclusions: At current prices, velpatasvir-based pan-genotypic regimen is cost-effective for HCV treatment in India where generic drugs are available. A reduction in the prices of pan-genotypic regimen has the potential to make its use cost-saving while simplifying treatment in community-level programs aimed at HCV elimination., (© 2018 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Introduction: Recently, more and more generic drugs have been used for immunosuppressive drugs in the field of organ transplantation. Some reports have indicated that blood concentration of most generic drugs is difficult to maintain stability, and it may cause the difference in graft survival of transplanted organs between original drugs and generic drugs. In this article, we report the cases could not maintain blood concentration of generic drugs of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)., Results: In 4 cases out of 5 cases that we had to change original MMF to generic MMF, there were cases that blood concentration level was not stabilized. There were possibility that the lowered blood concentration level of MMF caused a rejection, in two cases. Mean MMF trough level was decreased from 3.6 ± 1.9 μg/mL to 0.6 ± 0.4 μg/mL. Due to the early detection, it did not become severe or failure of graft function, however, we cannot deny the possibilities that side effects were increased and rejection rose. In these cases, we discontinued to use the generic drugs thereafter due to unstable plasma concentration of MMF., Discussion: Some reports have indicated that failure to maintain plasma concentration of MMF leads to rejection. Therefore, maintenance of effective plasma concentration and prevention of rejection are essential to long-term graft survival in kidney transplant., Conclusion: Generic drug formulations may exhibit differences in effects and absorption compared to the brand-name drug. If the generic drug should be used, patients should be closely monitored., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Dasatinib is a second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and it could be used as a second-line treatment for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Yinishu, a generic dasatinib made in China, was approved by the China Food and Drug Administration in 2013 and it costs much less than the patented dasatinib SPRYCEL. The present study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of Yinishu as a second-line treatment for CML by comparing the baseline clinical characteristics, rates of adverse events and efficacy between Yinishu and SPRYCEL groups. The results showed that there were no significant differences in the rates of optimal response between Yinishu and SPRYCEL for patients who started second-line treatment because of treatment failure. For patients who started second-line treatment because of intolerance of first-line treatment, their levels of BCR-ABL1/ABL1 on the international scale (BCR-ABL IS ) was maintained very low throughout the course of Yinishu treatment. Drug-related adverse events occurred with the same frequency in these two groups. It was confirmed that Yinishu was effective and safe as a secondline treatment for CML patients. Yinishu may be more suitable for patients who are economically unable to pay for the patented dasatinib SPRYCEL.