Search

The introduction of generic antiretroviral medications in developing countries has resulted in significant CD4 cell restoration, HIV viral decline, and a noteworthy reduction in the time to initiation of therapy. Projection models have also predicted significant cost saving associated with the extensive diffusion of generic antiretrovirals in developed countries. However, some uncertainties on generics have recently been raised. These concerns mainly relate to the adequacy of the study design for bioequivalence testing, the potential for uncontrolled switching from one generic to another, and the loss of adherence if patients switched from fixed-dose coformulations to single components in order to incorporate the new generic drugs. In the present review, we deal with current evidence and potential controversial issues regarding generic antiretrovirals and their underlying economic implications and provide some proposals on how to favor the widespread diffusion of generics in HIV medicine. This may be particularly relevant considering that the safe, systematic switch from patented to generic antiretrovirals could potentially guarantee access to therapies for HIV-infected patients worldwide and lead to money savings that would compensate the expenditure increase resulting from new, innovative HIV drugs.
.

Switching branded to generic medications has become a common cost-containment measure. Although this is an important objective for health care systems worldwide, the impact of this practice on patient outcomes needs to be carefully considered. We reviewed the literature summarizing the potential clinical and economic consequences of switching from branded to generic medications on patient outcomes. A literature search of peer-reviewed articles published 2003-2013 using key words of "generic switching" or "substitution" was conducted using PubMed, OvidSP, and ScienceDirect. Of 30 articles identified and reviewed, most were related to the diseases of the central nervous system, especially epilepsy. Based on our review, potential impacts of switching fell into 3 broad categories: patient attitudes and adherence, clinical and safety outcomes, and cost and resource utilization. Although in many cases generics may represent an appropriate alternative to branded products, this may not always be the case. Specifically, several studies suggested that switching may negatively impact medication adherence, whereas other studies found that generic switching was associated with poorer clinical outcomes and more adverse events. In some instances, switching accomplished cost savings but did so at increased total cost of care because of increased physician visits or hospitalizations. Although in many cases generics may represent an appropriate alternative, mandatory generic switching may lead to unintended consequences, especially in certain therapeutic areas. Although further study is warranted, based on our review, it may be medically justifiable for physicians and patients to retain the right to request the branded product in certain cases.

Studies have raised concern about the safety of generic compared with branded drugs. Febrile neutropenia (FN) resulting in hospital admission was compared between the branded docetaxel (Taxotere®, Sanofi) and 2 generic formulations (docetaxel Ebewe and docetaxel Hospira) in patients with breast cancer. This was a retrospective study that included patients with breast cancer who received docetaxel between January 2012 and December 2014. Patients who had an admission diagnosis of FN and had received docetaxel within 14 days prior to admission were evaluated. The docetaxel brand and dose, patient characteristics, hospital length of stay, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mortality were recorded. During the study period, 2904 cycles of docetaxel were given for 876 patients (1519 cycles of docetaxel Sanofi, 811 cycles of docetaxel Hospira, and 574 cycles of docetaxel Ebewe). Among the cycles given, 130 cycles were associated with FN that required hospital admission. The overall incidence of FN resulting in hospital admission was significantly higher in patients who had received docetaxel Hospira, compared with patients who had received docetaxel Sanofi (47[5.8%] cycles vs 53 [3.5%] cycles, P = .009), but there was no significant difference between docetaxel Ebewe and docetaxel Sanofi (30[5.2%] cycles vs 53 [3.5%] cycles, P = .069). All cases of FN resolved except for 1 patient who died in the ICU after receiving docetaxel Ebewe. There was a significant difference in the incidence of FN between docetaxel Sanofi and docetaxel Hospira, but all cases in both groups resolved completely., (© 2016, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Background: Drugs that exhibit close margins between therapeutic and toxic blood concentrations are considered to have a narrow therapeutic index (NTI). The Food and Drug Administration has proposed that NTI drugs should have more stringent bioequivalence standards for approval of generic formulations. However, many immunosuppressant drugs do not have a well-defined therapeutic index (TI)., Methods: We sought to determine whether safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic data obtained from the medical literature through a comprehensive literature search could be used to estimate the TI of cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and sirolimus. In this analysis, we considered TI ≤2 as a criterion to define a drug as having an NTI., Results: Published literature indicates that cyclosporine has a TI of 2-3, which falls just short of our criteria to be classified as having an NTI. We found sirolimus and tacrolimus to have a therapeutic range of 5-12 ng/mL and of 5-20 ng/mL, respectively, but were unable to calculate the TI., Conclusions: Although the current literature does not provide a clear indication that these drugs have an NTI, the routine use of therapeutic drug monitoring in clinical practice suggests that more stringent testing of their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties should be performed before the approval of generic formulations.

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

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

Objectives: Antimicrobials are frequently used in tertiary care hospitals. We conducted an observational study on children admitted to a teaching hospital in Eastern India, to generate a profile of antimicrobial use and suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) attributable to them., Materials and Methods: Hospitalized children of either sex, aged between 1 month and 12 years, were studied. Baseline demographic and clinical features, duration of hospital stay, antimicrobials received in hospital along with dosing and indications and details of suspected ADRs attributable to their use were recorded. Every patient was followed up till discharge, admission to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, or death., Results: Over the 1 year study period, 332 admissions were screened. The prevalence of antimicrobial use was 79.82%. The majority of the 265 children who received antimicrobials were males (61.10%) and hailed from rural and low socioeconomic background. Median age was 36 months. Six children died, 43 were transferred out, and the rest discharged. In most instances, either 2 (40%) or a single antibiotic (39.6%) was used. Ceftriaxone, co-amoxiclav, amikacin, vancomycin, and ampicillin were predominantly used. Antivirals, antimalarials, and antiprotozoals were used occasionally. Average number of antimicrobials per patient was 2.0 ± 1.27; the majority (84.1%) were by parenteral route and initial choice was usually empirical. Prescriptions were usually in generic name. The antimicrobial treatment ranged between 1 and 34 days, with a median of 7 days. Six ADRs were noted of which half were skin rash and the rest loose stools., Conclusions: The profile of antimicrobial use is broadly similar to earlier Indian studies. Apparent overuse of multiple antimicrobials per prescription and the parenteral route requires exploration. Antimicrobials are being used empirically in the absence of policy. ADRs to antimicrobials are occasional and usually mild. The baseline data can serve in situation analysis for antibiotic prescribing guidelines., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest.

Purpose: To compare incidences of hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) between original and generic taxanes including paclitaxel and docetaxel., Methods: We conducted a prospective study enrolling all patients receiving taxanes at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital. Taxanes were infused accordingly to the step-wise rate escalation protocol at this hospital. Active surveillance for HSRs was performed. During the study period, there was only 1 generic brand used for each taxane. We primarily compared the incidences of HSR between original and generic drugs for each taxane., Results: During the period from January 1 to December 31, 2013, a total of 258 consecutive patients receiving taxanes were enrolled; 128 received paclitaxel, i.e. 65 and 63 in the original (Taxol) and generic arms, respectively, and 130 received docetaxel, i.e. 66 and 64 in the original (Taxotere) and generic arms, respectively. Premedication, including antihistamines and dexamethasone, was administered to all patients 30 min before taxane infusion. There were 26 (10.0%) HSR events including 24 grade 2 and 2 grade 3 HSRs. In the paclitaxel group, there were 9 (13.8%) and 7 (11.1%) HSRs in the original and generic arms, respectively (p = 0.791). In the docetaxel group, there were 9 (13.6%) and 1 (1.6%) HSRs in the original and generic arms, respectively (p = 0.017). No life-threatening symptoms or permanent discontinuation of taxanes occurred., Conclusions: In this prospective study, the incidences of HSR were similar with generic and original paclitaxel but significantly different with generic and original docetaxel., (© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Although the availability of generic oncology drugs allows access to contemporary care and reduces costs, there is international variability in the safety of this class of drugs. In this Series paper, we review clinical, policy, safety, and regulatory considerations for generic oncology drugs focusing on the USA, Canada, the European Union (EU), Japan, China, and India. Safety information about generic formulations is reviewed from one agent in each class, for heavy metal drugs (cisplatin), targeted agents (imatinib), and cytotoxic agents (docetaxel). We also review regulatory reports from Japan and the USA, countries with the largest pharmaceutical expenditures. Empirical studies did not identify safety concerns in the USA, Canada, the EU, and Japan, where regulations and enforcement are strong. Although manufacturing problems for generic pharmaceuticals exist in India, where 40% of all generic pharmaceuticals used in the USA are manufactured, increased inspections and communication by the US Food and Drug Administration are occurring, facilitating oversight and enforcement. No safety outbreaks among generic oncology drugs were reported in developed countries. For developing countries, oversight is less intensive, and concerns around drug safety still exist. Regulatory agencies should collaboratively develop procedures to monitor the production, shipment, storage, and post-marketing safety of generic oncology drugs. Regulatory agencies for each country should also aim towards identical definitions of bioequivalence, the cornerstone of regulatory approval., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In an era when the number of expedited and conditional review pathways for newly available brand-name drugs and biosimilar medicines to treat serious and life-threatening diseases is increasing, defining pharmacovigilance has never been more crucial. 21st century pharmacovigilance is not merely about uncovering, reporting, and addressing adverse events associated with already approved and marketed agents, but can be described as the systematic monitoring of the process of pre-market review and post-market surveillance, which includes the use of medicines in everyday practice. Pharmacovigilance identifies previously unrecognised adverse events or changes in the patterns of these effects, the quality and adequacy of drug supply, and should ensure effective communication with the public, health-care professionals, and patients about the optimum safety and effective use of medicines. In this paper, the first in a Series of three about drug safety in oncology, we discuss evolving challenges in the purview, roles, and responsibilities of the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency with respect to pharmacovigilance efforts, with a special emphasis on oncology treatment., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: In the present clinical trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of the generic clopidogrel besylate (CB) with the innovator clopidogrel hydrogen sulfate (CHS) salt in patients eligible to receive clopidogrel., Methods: A prospective 2-arm, multicenter, open-label, phase 4 clinical trial. Consecutive patients (n = 1864) were screened and 1800 were enrolled in the trial and randomized to CHS or CB. Primary efficacy end point was the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from vascular causes, and primary safety end point was rate of bleeding events as defined by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria., Results: At 12-month follow-up, no differences were observed between CB (n = 759) and CHS (n = 798) in primary efficacy and safety end points (age, sex, history of percutaneous coronary intervention adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-1.21 and OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.51-1.29, respectively) between CHS and CB. Analyses of efficacy and safety in subgroups that were defined according to the qualifying diagnosis revealed that there was no difference between CHS and CB., Conclusion: The efficacy and safety of CB administered for 12 months for the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events are similar to that of CHS. (Salts of Clopidogrel: Investigation to ENsure Clinical Equivalence, SCIENCE trial; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02126982)., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

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

Background: Generic anticancer drugs represent an opportunity in terms of cost savings but there are some concerns about their tolerability. The safety profiles of generic versus branded oxaliplatin formulations have never been studied in detail., Patients and Methods: We tested in vitro concentrations, stability and efficacy of branded versus generic oxaliplatin formulations, then we retrospectively collected data about hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) of 427 colorectal cancer patients treated with oxaliplatin-based regimens., Results: No significant difference in oxaliplatin concentration or time-dependent antiproliferative activity between branded and generic oxaliplatin was detected. The incidence of HSR was 12.1% (33/273 patients) in those treated with branded and 9.8% (15/154 patients) in those treated with generic oxaliplatin (p=0.46). The occurrence of grade III-IV HSRs and severe HSRs leading to oxaliplatin discontinuation were comparable., Conclusion: No difference between generic and branded formulations of oxaliplatin were demonstrated in preclinical nor in clinical settings. Generic oxaliplatin can be considered a safe alternative to branded formulation., (Copyright© 2016 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: , Objective: The conventional suspension of megestrol acetate contains micronized megestrol acetate, which was recently discovered to have a disadvantage of decreasing bioavailability when taken in a fasting state. Since megestrol acetate is taken to increase appetite, this property becomes a discouraging factor. To improve upon this, an advanced formulation was developed using a nanocrystal drug-delivery system. This study was conducted to compare the safety and pharmacokinetic characteristics between the conventional formulation of megestrol acetate and a generic version of the advanced formulation containing nanocrystals. , Methods: This was a randomized, open-label, 2-period, 2-treatment, crossover, single-dose, 2-part study (part 1 fasting and part 2 fed), conducted in healthy males aged between 20 and 50 years with weight within ± 20% of ideal body weight having no congenital abnormalities or chronic diseases. Different subjects were used in part 1 and part 2, but subjects received a single dose of the reference and test drugs separated by a 14-day washout period. Blood sampling was performed up to 120 hours after dosing using a pre-specified sampling time scheme. Primary pharmacokinetic parameters were C_max and AUC_last of the test and reference formulations of megestrol acetate. Bioequivalence evaluation was based on the standard criterion of 80 - 125% for the 90% confidence interval of geometric mean ratios of test to reference drugs calculated for the pharmacokinetic parameters. To monitor adverse events, both subject interviews and physical examinations were done on a regular time basis. , Results: 80 subjects (n = 40 each part) were enrolled, and 79 completed the study. The 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios of C_max and AUC_last were 4.4625 - 5.6018 and 1.3602 - 1.6418, respectively, for part 1, and 0.9793 - 1.1327 and 0.7721 - 0.8431, respectively, for part 2. No significant difference was discovered in the incidence of adverse events (AEs) when test and reference treated groups were compared. , Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the test formulation of megestrol-acetate-containing nanocrystals is better absorbed and has higher bioavailability compared to the reference formulation in a fasting state. This should allow for a lower dose and better patient compliance., , ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02446353.

Background: Treatment of neuropathic pain has always been challenging, not only from the pharmaco-therapeutic/toxicological point of view, but also due to the unpredictable pharmacokinetic (PK) variations among different generic formulations of the same drug, which require further dose optimization., Objectives: This progressive work aims to evaluate the bioequivalence (BE) of a generic product of 150 mg pregabalin capsule (antineuropathic drug) vs. the reference brand drug Lyrica^®. , Method: An LC-MS/MS bioanalytical method was developed and validated according to the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) guidelines in order to be used for the analysis of pregabalin in plasma. BE of capsules was tested by comparison against the reference brand capsules in accordance with the requirements of the declarations of Helsinki, the current Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Guidelines and the ICH. The resulting data were compared against corresponding pregabalin data published on other human races., Results: The relationship between concentration and peak area ratio was found to be linear within the range 0.096 - 6.068 µg/mL for pregabalin. The correlation coefficient (r) was equal to 0.9983. Statistical comparison of the main PK parameters showed no significant difference between test and reference. The mean C max values for test and reference were 4.290 and 4.164 µg/mL, and the mean AUC 0-last values were 24.275 h×µg/mL and 23.674 h×µg/mL, respectively. The 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios (test/reference) for pregabalin were 100.34 - 104.78%, 100.34 - 104.70%, and 95.65 - 110.96% for AUC 0-last , AUC 0-∞ , and C max , respectively, thus fall within the international specified BE limit (80 - 125%). Both products were well tolerated by all the volunteers and there were no significant differences on physical examination or in vital signs and laboratory tests between groups. All volunteers completed the study and were discharged in good health., Conclusion: The tested generic capsules appear to be bioequivalent to the reference brand and are expected to have a similar efficacy and safety profile.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate whether the 2 tirofiban formulations tested in the early and late phases of the PRISM (Platelet Receptor Inhibitor in Ischemic Syndrome Management) trial might differ with respect to risk for thrombocytopenia and clinical outcomes compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH)., Background: Citrate-buffered tirofiban is currently marketed as brand-name drug. However, tirofiban has recently been promoted in some countries as a generic drug with different formulations, such as phosphate-buffered product., Methods: In the PRISM trial 3,232 patients were randomly assigned to receive tirofiban or UFH. In the early phase, 879 patients were allocated to phosphate-buffered tirofiban and 874 patients to UFH group. After a protocol amendment due to a study drug instability report, citrate-buffered tirofiban replaced the phosphate-buffered formulation. Therefore, in the late phase, 737 and 742 patients were treated with citrate-buffered tirofiban and UFH, respectively., Results: The relative risk for thrombocytopenia (nadir <90,000/mm(3) or <100,000/mm(3)) was increased in patients treated with phosphate-buffered tirofiban in the early phase (odds ratio [OR]: 3.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15 to 10.73; p = 0.027; and OR: 2.83; 95% CI: 1.11 to 7.22; p = 0.029, respectively) but not in patients treated with citrate-buffered tirofiban in the late phase (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.20 to 5.05; p = 0.987; and OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.26 to 3.45; p = 0.991, respectively). Using a combined definition of thrombocytopenia (nadir <150,000/mm(3) or a decrease ≥50%), the randomization period significantly modified the effect of the treatment (tirofiban vs. UFH) on platelet decrease (p for interaction = 0.024). Thrombocytopenia was associated with a 5- to 10-fold increased risk for TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) bleeding and a 2-fold increased risk for net adverse cardiovascular events., Conclusions: Phosphate-buffered tirofiban, currently marketed as a generic drug, is associated with a higher rate of thrombocytopenia with a potentially increased risk for adverse clinical outcomes compared with citrate-buffered tirofiban., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Biological drugs and their originated biosimilars are large, highly complex molecules derived from living cells or organisms. Traditional medicines, by contrast, are usually simple molecules of low molecular weight, synthesised by chemical means. The distinct complexities and methods of manufacture create an important difference between biosimilars and conventional generic drugs: while chemical generics can be fully characterised as identical to the originator product, biosimilars cannot. In addition, biological therapies are inherently variable, creating unavoidable differences between even subsequent batches of the same product. An expiring patent does not necessarily mean that the manufacturing process of the originator product becomes available to the biosimilar developers (for instance, the relevant cell line clone and growth medium). Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that biosimilar products are identical to their reference product on a molecular level. This difference has important implications for the regulation and licensing of biosimilars. While conventional generic drugs require only a limited comparison and demonstration of identical chemical structure to the reference product, biosimilars require far more rigorous testing. In general, there must be a thorough comparison of structural and functional characteristics between biosimilar and originator drug. Stepwise nonclinical in vitro and in vivo approaches are recommended to evaluate the similarity of both drugs and any identified micro-heterogeneities must then be assessed for their impact on safety and clinical performance. Subsequently, clinical pharmacokinetic (PK) studies need to be performed in order to demonstrate a similar PK profile, prior to conducting clinical efficacy trials.

Background: Over 84 % of all prescriptions in the US are filled as generic drugs, though in prior surveys, patients reported concerns about their quality., Objective: We aimed to survey patients' perceptions and use of generic drugs., Design: Our survey (administered August 2014) assessed patients' skepticism about generic drug safety and effectiveness and how often they requested brand-name drugs. Chi-square tests and two-sample t-tests assessed associations between patient demographics and the outcomes., Participants: Our sample frame was the CVS Advisor Panel, a national database of 124,621 CVS customers. We randomly selected 1450 patients with self-reported chronic conditions who filled at least one prescription in the prior 3 months., Main Measures: We assessed how often patients reported asking their physicians to prescribe a brand-name over a generic drug in the last year, and "generic skepticism," defined as not believing generic drugs were as safe, effective, had the same side effects, and contained the same active ingredients as brand-name drugs., Key Results: Of the 1,442 patients with valid addresses, 933 responded (65 % response rate) and 753 took the full survey. A vast majority (83 %) agreed that physicians should prescribe generic drugs when available, and 54 % said they had not asked their physicians to prescribe a brand-name drug over a generic in the past year. Most respondents considered generic drugs to be as effective (87 %) and safe (88 %) as their brand-name counterparts, and to have the same side effects (80 %) and active ingredients (84 %). Non-Caucasians were more likely than Caucasians to request a brand-name drug over a generic (56 % vs. 43 %, p < 0.01), and were also more skeptical of generic drugs' clinical equivalence (43 % vs. 29 %, p < 0.01)., Conclusions: We found a substantial shift towards more patients having positive views of generic drugs, but lingering negative perceptions will have to be overcome to ensure continued cost-savings and improved patient outcomes from generic drugs.

Abuse-deterrent formulations are one strategy for mitigating the epidemic of prescription opioid abuse. Regulatory guidance documents describe the requirements for developing abuse-deterrent formulations of novel drugs and formulations; however, they do not address "abuse-deterrence equivalence" for generic formulations. As generics may be produced with different excipients and formulations compared to reference drugs, differences in their properties may impact their abuse-deterrent features. Currently, it is unclear what specific studies are needed to support generic abuse-deterrence claims. This commentary outlines several recommendations on the in vitro and in vivo testing required, including the conditions for conducting a human abuse potential study.

Background: Although generic medications are approved based on bioequivalence with brand-name medications, there remains substantial concern regarding their clinical effectiveness and safety. Lipitor(®), available as generic atorvastatin, is one of the most commonly prescribed statins. Therefore, we compared the effectiveness of generic atorvastatin products and Lipitor(®)., Methods and Results: We conducted a population-based cohort study, using propensity score matching to minimize potential confounding of patients ≥65 years, discharged alive after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) hospitalization between 2008 and 2012 in Ontario, Canada, who were prescribed Lipitor(®) or generic atorvastatin within 7 days of discharge. The primary outcome was 1-year death/recurrent ACS hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization for heart failure, stroke, new-onset diabetes, rhabdomyolysis, and renal failure. In the 7863 propensity-matched pairs (15 726 patients), mean age was 76.9 years, 56.3% were male, 87.6% had myocardial infarction, and all patients had complete follow-up. At 1 year, 17.7% of those prescribed generic atorvastatin and 17.7% of those prescribed Lipitor(®) experienced death or recurrent ACS (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; P=0.94). No significant differences in rates of secondary outcomes between groups were observed. Prespecified subgroup analyses by age, sex, diabetes, atorvastatin dose, or admission diagnosis found no outcome difference between groups., Conclusions: Among older adults discharged alive after ACS hospitalization, we found no significant difference in cardiovascular outcomes or serious, infrequent side effects in patients prescribed generic atorvastatin compared with those prescribed Lipitor(®) at 1 year. Our findings support the use of generic atorvastatin in ACS, which could lead to substantial cost saving for patients and health care plans without diminishing population clinical effectiveness., (© 2016 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)

Background: Patients and clinicians share concerns that generic drug substitution might lead to loss of efficacy or emergence of adverse events. In this trial, we assessed US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bioequivalence standards by studying the effects of switching between two disparate generic immediate-release lamotrigine products in patients with epilepsy., Methods: The Equivalence among Generic Antiepileptic Drugs (EQUIGEN) chronic-dose study was a randomised, double-blind, crossover study that enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with epilepsy from six epilepsy centres at academic institutions across the USA who were receiving immediate-release lamotrigine dosed at 100 mg, 200 mg, 300 mg, or 400 mg twice daily. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to one of two treatment sequences (sequence 1 or sequence 2), comprising four study periods of 14 days each. During each 14-day treatment period, patients received balanced doses of an oral generic lamotrigine product every 12 h (200-800 mg total, identical to lamotrigine dose prior to study enrolment); after each 14-day period, patients were crossed over to receive the other generic product. Computer-based randomisation was done using random permuted blocks of size two or four for each site to prevent sequence predictability. Both patients and study personnel were masked to the generic products selected, their predicted exposure (ie, "high" vs "low"), and their group allocation. The primary outcome of this trial was bioequivalence between the generic products, which was assessed at the end of the study through a comparison of maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) for each product in the analysis population (all patients who completed all four treatment periods). Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CIs of the ratios of these two parameters for the two products were within equivalence limits (80-125%) in the analysis population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov\, number NCT01713777., Findings: Between April 25, 2013, and Aug 12, 2014, 35 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment sequence 1 (n=15) or treatment sequence 2 (n=20). 33 patients completed all four treatment periods and were included in the primary outcome analysis. The 90% CIs of the ratios of both Cmax and AUC were within equivalence limits (AUC 90% CI 98-103, Cmax 90% CI 99-105), showing that lamotrigine exposures were equivalent between the generic products. No significant changes in seizure frequency or adverse events were recorded. No deaths, study-related serious adverse events, or changes in clinical laboratory values or vital signs occurred during this study., Interpretation: Disparate generic lamotrigine products in patients with epilepsy showed bioequivalence with no detectable difference in clinical effects, confirming that US Food and Drug Administration bioequivalence standards are appropriate., Funding: American Epilepsy Society, Epilepsy Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Generic switching of warfarin was recently repealed in Denmark, as adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports suggested risk of excessive anticoagulation following switches from branded to generic warfarin. We investigated this putative association in a formalized pharmacoepidemiological analysis., Methods: We conducted a nationwide cohort study based on Danish healthcare registries, including data from the introduction of generic warfarin until the repeal (January 2011-April 2015). We followed Danish warfarin users over time and compared the rate of incident hospitalizations due to excessive anticoagulation (i.e. increased INR or any bleeding requiring hospitalization) in periods following a recent switch to generic warfarin to the rate in periods without a recent switch., Results: We included 105,751 warfarin users, filling a total of 1,539,640 prescriptions for warfarin (2.5% for generic warfarin). This constituted 89.0% of all warfarin prescriptions in Denmark during the study period. We observed 19,362 switches to generic warfarin during the study period. The adjusted hazard ratio for excessive anticoagulation following a recent switch from branded to generic warfarin was 1.1 (95%CI, 0.8-1.4). The result was robust within subgroups and several sensitivity analyses., Conclusion: Switching from branded to generic warfarin is not associated with an increased risk of hospitalization with excessive anticoagulation. However, a minor excess risk of transient INR increase cannot be excluded. Pharmacoepidemiological studies provide an effective method for swift evaluation of hypotheses generated by ADR-reports., (Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

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

Background: Generic uptake will increasingly be promoted by governments in the face of increasing healthcare costs and global economic uncertainties., Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate attitudes towards generic substitution among community pharmacists, with a focus on the perception of the efficacy, knowledge of the generics characteristics, as well as the willingness to recommend generic substitution., Setting: Community pharmacies in Poland., Method: The survey was conducted in 2013 by telephone interviews with 802 holders of an MSc degree in pharmacy working as community pharmacists. Stratified sampling was implemented to make the study representative in geographic terms., Main Outcome Measure: Pharmacists' attitudes towards generics drugs., Results: The study showed that only 40 % of pharmacists always inform patients about their right to choose a generic substitute. It was also shown that the less time a pharmacist has been practising, the less likely they are to invite consumers to choose between generic and innovator products. The likelihood of informing was not affected by pharmacist's sex or age, or by pharmacy location or status (chain vs. independent pharmacy) (p > 0.05). Pharmacists varied in their approach to their statutory obligation to inform about a generic; a more or less equal share of respondents were either in favour or against it. Approximately 60 % pharmacists were shown to be familiar with the definition of a generic medicine. Pharmacists with shorter time of practice proved to know more about generics. However, more than 30 % respondents failed to choose the correct statement on generic versus reference medicine dosage. The majority of respondents (67 %) believed there are no differences in efficacy between generics and innovator drugs, whereas 31 % claimed that original brands could be more effective. A significant correlation was demonstrated between the views of pharmacists on the therapeutic efficacy and their willingness to substitute for generics whenever permitted by a physician., Conclusion: It is important to address all concerns pharmacists may have over generics, for example by implementing comprehensive awareness-raising campaigns. Also, pharmacotherapy monitoring systems (i.e. provided in a framework of pharmaceutical care) could be considered to identify any safety or quality concerns that may arise., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest that are relevant to the content of this manuscript.

Purpose: To investigate the corneal toxicity of Xalatan and three latanoprost generics using transepithelial electrical resistance (TER) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM)., Methods: Corneal TER changes after a 60-s exposure to Xalatan (latanoprost 0.005% preserved with 0.02% BAC), and latanoprost generics (Latanoprost PF BAC free, Latanoprost Nitten SB containing sodium benzoate and Latanoprost Towa containing 0.01% BAC with sodium chloride polysorbate 80 as additive) were measured in living rabbits. Corneal damage was also examined by SEM. Hank's balanced salt solution (HBSS) was used as a control., Results: There was a significant decrease in the corneal TER after exposure of the cornea to Xalatan (p < 0.01) and all latanoprost generics (p < 0.01: Latanoprost PF, p < 0.05: Latanoprost Nitten SB, Latanoprost Towa) as compared to HBSS. All latanoprost generics showed less TER decrease in the corneal TER as compared to Xalatan (p < 0.01). SEM revealed that superficial cells of Xalatan-treated corneas were damaged and exhibited degenerated microvilli. Conversely, the superficial cells of corneas exposed to HBSS or all latanoprost generics appeared normal and had normal microvilli under SEM examinations., Conclusion: The corneal toxicity of Xalatan is greater than that of latanoprost generics. Xalatan contains 0.02% BAC, which may be responsible for the corneal toxicity.

Background and Objective: Concerns that antiepileptic brand-to-generic interchange results in disruption of seizure control are widespread. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of the brand-to-generic levetiracetam switch in patients with focal or generalized epilepsy., Methods: A prospective study in patients with primary, cryptogenic or symptomatic epilepsy, who were taking branded levetiracetam and were switched to generic levetiracetam. Patients were consecutively recruited from January 2013 to January 2015. We evaluated efficacy, tolerability and compliance before switching (T0) and after 6 months of therapy (T1). Evaluations were scheduled as follows: baseline, 7 and 15 days, 1, 3 and 6 months. At each visit clinical diary seizures, physical and neurological examination, laboratory parameters and electroencephalogram were evaluated., Results: Fifty-nine patients, equally mixed by sex, were included in the study. Mean age was 26.1 years. Forty-seven per cent of the patients enrolled received levetiracetam as monotherapy. One patient was lost during the follow-up: so at T1 we had 58 patients (28 monotherapy and 30 polytherapy). At T0 and at T1, there was no statistically significant difference in terms of seizure frequency and intensity, occurrence of adverse events, laboratory parameters and electroencephalographic features. Two patients stopped treatment with the generic (both at 3 months after the switch) and restarted therapy with brand levetiracetam because of seizure increase. At the end of the study, the switchback rate was 3.4%., Conclusions: No increase of seizures and adverse effects were observed when branded levetiracetam was interchanged to a generic equivalent. More studies should be conducted with a larger series of patients to confirm these results.

This is case report and review of the literature focused on generic substitutions of cyclosporine and its consequences. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the generic substitutions are clear different than the parent compound Sandimmune and can lead to different outcomes, as was the case in this report. A detailed accounting of the patients history led to the discovery of the problem and sorting back to a the branded drug supported the hypothesis., (© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

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

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of memantal, a generic formulation of memantine, in patients with moderate and severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD)., Material and Methods: Thirty patients with moderate and severe AD, aged from 55 to 84 years, were examined. Memantal was used in the dose of 20 mg per day after the titration period. Duration of treatment was 3 months., Results: To the end of the study, there was a moderate positive effect as assessed by the CGI. During the treatment, cognitive functions and different forms of daily activity have improved. Significant positive changes in behavioral symptoms of dementia were noted. No adverse effects were observed during the treatment., Conclusion: The results of the analysis revealed the clinical efficacy and safety of memantal in treatment of AD.

Statines are first choice medications for hypercholesterolemia and combined hyperlipidemia of varying severity in wide population of patients. Atorvastatine is one of the most effective statines. In Russia, Atorvastatine is represented by nearly twenty drugs most of which are generics. The article covers data on efficiency, safety and good tolerance of Liptonorm--a generic Atorvastatine.

Background: Concerns exist over the extrapolation of bioavailability studies of generic immunosuppressive drugs in healthy volunteers, regarding their efficacy and safety in kidney transplant recipients. We conducted a meta-analysis of trials examining the bioavailability of generic (test) immunosuppressive drugs relative to their brand (reference) counterparts in healthy volunteers, based on the US Food and Drug Administration requirements for approval of generics, and their efficacy and safety in kidney transplant recipients., Methods: Eligible studies were identified in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference abstracts., Results: Twenty crossover trials of healthy volunteers (n = 641) and 6 parallel-arm randomized controlled trials of kidney transplant recipients (n = 594) were identified. The 90% CI of the pooled test-to-reference drug ratio for maximum or peak plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration time-curve from time 0 to time of last determinable concentration (AUC(0-t)) fell within the required range (0.80-1.25) for cyclosporine (Cmax 0.91; 90% CI 0.86-0.95; and AUC(0-t) 0.97; 90% CI 0.94-1.00), tacrolimus (Cmax 1.17; 90% CI 1.09-1.24; and AUC(0-t) 1.00; 90% CI 0.97-1.03) and mycophenolate mofetil (Cmax 0.98; 90% CI 0.96-1.01; and AUC(0-t) 1.00; 90% CI 0.99-1.01). In subgroup analyses, some generic cyclosporine formulations did not meet criteria for bioequivalence. No significant differences were observed in the time to maximum plasma concentration and terminal plasma half-life between generic and brand drugs. In parallel-arm trials, generic cyclosporine was non-inferior to brand counterpart in terms of acute allograft rejection, infections, and death., Conclusions: Not all generic immunosuppressive drugs have similar relative bioavailability to their brand name counterparts. Evidence on their efficacy and safety is inconclusive. Tighter regulatory requirement for approval of generic drugs with narrow therapeutic index is needed., (© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

In view of the MENA increasing participation in multinational trials and the increasing number of national/regional trials, this article explores potential areas of pharmacovigilance, requiring reform and provides recommendations for building a robust safety reporting system. Regulatory silence on expedited reporting requirements creates confusion for local sites that are part of multinational trials. Not allowing waiver for serious adverse events that are protocol specified or are study endpoints, along with lack of emphasis on causality as reporting criteria, adds substantial burden of uninformative cases for regulatory review. Despite global focus on Development Safety Update Report, local regulators are not yet insistent on real-time update of a drug's cumulative safety profile. Issues like reporting requirements for generic trials, pregnancy reporting and lenient timeline for death/life-threatening events need attention. Finally, the need to formulate an all-encompassing local pharmacovigilance guideline, in sync with global practice cannot be overemphasized.

Liposomes are known to activate the complement (C) system, which can lead in vivo to a hypersensitivity syndrome called C activation-related pseudoallergy (CARPA). CARPA has been getting increasing attention as a safety risk of i.v. therapy with liposomes, whose testing is now recommended in bioequivalence evaluations of generic liposomal drug candidates. This review highlights the adverse consequences of C activation, the unique symptoms of CARPA triggered by essentially all i.v. administered liposomal drugs, and the various features of vesicles influencing this adverse immune effect. For the case of Doxil, we also address the mechanism of C activation and the opsonization vs. long circulation (stealth) paradox. In reviewing the methods of assessing C activation and CARPA, we delineate the most sensitive porcine model and an algorithm for stepwise evaluation of the CARPA risk of i.v. liposomes, which are proposed for standardization for preclinical toxicology evaluation of liposomal and other nanoparticulate drug candidates., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The main objective of this study was to explore the perception and understanding of economic, legal, and social barriers that may restrain generic uptake among recognized international experts in health care, and to identify and verify recommendations on how to streamline generic substitution (GS) at no expense of therapeutic safety. A questionnaire survey was devised, and experts with world-renowned expertise in the field of generic medicinal products were selected. Almost 3/4 of respondents claimed that all drugs that satisfy bioequivalence criteria represent similar efficacy and adverse effects, and 1/4 of respondents believed that some differences could be reported. The majority of experts supported (i) the right of patients to refuse GS, (ii) the right of physicians to veto GS, and (iii) the introduction of a statutory obligation to provide patients with access to the cheapest generics available on the market. The main obstacles to more general uptake of generics were as follows: (i) perception of generics as lower quality products, (ii) absence of a transparent policy governing GS, and (iii) disincentives to pharmacists and physicians. Among the most popular recommendations were as follows: (i) introduction of various measures to aid physicians in generic prescribing, (ii) setting clear guidelines specifying when GS is not advisable, (iii) supporting competition on the generic market. The views of experts and the resulting recommendations were strongly affected by their opinion on the bioequivalence of generics. From this analysis, we have selected several principal recommendations which could help shape successful healthcare policies regarding GS., (© 2015 Société Française de Pharmacologie et de Thérapeutique.)

The present study is a non-inferiority study based on a descriptive and comparative case series for comparison of generic vs. original intravenous antimicrobials in septic oncology patients at an oncology private ICU. 1906 cancer patients admitted to Arturo Lopez Perez Foundation, Chile, were included in this study. After recruitment, a first retrospective group of 206 septic cancer patients recorded from 1st January, 2008 until July 14th, 2010, treated with original antibiotics (cefoperazone-sulbactam, imipenem-cilastatin, piperacillin-tazobactam) were included for analyses and a second prospective group of 143 septic cancer patients recorded from July 15th, 2010 until January 02, 2013, treated with the same but generic antibiotics were also included for comparisons. The trial protocol was developed in accordance with Helsinki and Good Clinical Practices recommendations. The results of this study showed no significant differences between the 2 groups in days of treatment, rate of success and lab test determinations (white cell count, PCR and procalcitonin), with lower, but not significant, total bed days and CPU bed days for generic antibiotics. Therefore, we conclude that the safety and efficacy of the generic antibiotics cefactam®, imipen® and Piperazam® are not inferior to original antibiotics for the treatment of severe sepsis in hospitalised patients at the Arturo Lopez Perez Foundation., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: Expensive pharmaceuticals are a major reason for cost intensive health care systems. Long-term immunosuppressive therapy plays a relevant role after organ transplantation. Patents of original drugs have expired and cheaper products are available. Little data are available regarding efficacy and safety of generic immunosuppressive agents., Methods: In this prospective study, 25 patients, who were clinically stable for a minimum of 2 years after liver transplantation, were converted from the original formulations of tacrolimus (TAC) and mycophenolate mofetil to the generics Tacpan (TAP) and Mowel (MOW). Patients were followed-up for 6 months. Results were compared retrospectively to 25 age- and sex-matched controls treated with the original brands., Results: In the matched-pair analysis of TAC trough level/dose ratio, no significant difference was found between TAP/MOW and TAC/mycophenolate mofetil groups. No acute rejection occurred in either group. In total, 17 patients reported mild side effects in the TAP/MOW group. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal symptoms. Intra-individual analysis of costs revealed a considerable cost reduction in the TAP/MOW group (in median 25.03%; P<0.001)., Conclusion: In summary, the use of the generics TAP/MOW is effective and seems to be safe and cost-efficient in stable liver-transplantation patients.

Background: We aimed in this interim report to compare two registered generic sofosbuvir products for the degree and speed of virologic response to a dual antiviral treatment protocol within the first 2 weeks of treatment., Methods: Data collected during the period of this interim report from the first 25 patients randomized to either one of two generic sofosbuvir products (Grateziano or Gratisovir) at a daily dose of one 400 mg tablet plus a weight-based ribavirin dose were analyzed for both the degree and speed of virus load reduction at the end of 1 and 2 weeks from starting treatment., Results: The baseline Log10 transformed virus load (Log polymerase chain reaction) showed a fairly similar marked and significant reduction in both groups by more than 4 and 5 Logs at the end of week 1 and 2 of starting treatment, respectively. The differences between the two treatment groups at both analysis points were not statistically significant (P>0.05) by repeated measures factorial analysis of variance test. The differences in proportions of patients with ultra-rapid virologic response at the end of week 1 and very-rapid virologic response at the end of week 2 in both groups were also not statistically significant (P>0.05)., Conclusion: We can conclude from this interim report that the two generic products Gratisovir and Grateziano are almost equally fast and efficacious in reducing the hepatitis C virus load in our study setting.

Background: Acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) has demonstrated neuroprotective effects in several experiments and is widely prescribed to reduce cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease patients or manage neuropathic symptoms in diabetic patients., Objectives: This study was designed to assess the pharmacokinetic (PK) bioequivalence between a new generic (test) formulation of ALC hydrochloride 590 mg and a branded (reference) formulation of ALC hydrochloride 590 mg in healthy Korean male volunteers., Methods: This was a randomizedsequence, single-dose, two-way crossover study. All subjects randomly received one formulation of the test or reference tablet and the other formulation with a 7-day washout period. Blood samples (7 mL) were collected immediately before dosing, and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 6, 8, and 12 hours postdose. The plasma concentrations of ALC were analyzed using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Tolerability was assessed throughout the study., Results: The PK profiles of both formulations showed similar rends. The mean (±SD) baseline (predose) concentration of ALC was 1.23±0.31 μg/mL and 1.09±0.30 μg/mL for the test and the reference formulations, respectively. The mean Cmax for the test and reference formulations were 1.74±0.43 μg/mL and 1.68±0.48 μg/mL, respectively. The mean AUClast of ALC was 12.96±1.89 μg×h/mL and 12.49±2.44 μg×h/mL for the test and reference formulations, respectively. The geometric mean ratios of test/reference (90% CI) were 1.050 (0.960-1.149) for Cmax and 1.048 (1.000-1.099) for AUClast. Both formulations were well tolerated in all treatment groups., Conclusion: The test and the reference formulations of ALC were bioequivalent with regard to the PK parameters.

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare treatment persistence and rates of seizure-related events in patients who initiate antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy with a generic versus a brand-name product., Methods: We used linked electronic medical and pharmacy claims data to identify Medicare beneficiaries who initiated one of five AEDs (clonazepam, gabapentin, oxcarbazepine, phenytoin, zonisamide). We matched initiators of generic versus brand-name versions of these drugs using a propensity score that accounted for demographic, clinical, and health service utilization variables. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to compare rates of seizure-related emergency room (ER) visit or hospitalization (primary outcome) and ER visit for bone fracture or head injury (secondary outcome) between the matched generic and brand-name initiators. We also compared treatment persistence, measured as time to first 14-day treatment gap, between generic and brand-name initiators., Results: We identified 19,760 AED initiators who met study eligibility criteria; 18,306 (93%) initiated a generic AED. In the matched cohort, we observed 47 seizure-related hospitalizations and ER visits among brand-name initiators and 31 events among generic initiators, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.96). Similar results were observed for the secondary clinical endpoint and across sensitivity analyses. Mean time to first treatment gap was 124.2 days (standard deviation [sd], 125.8) for brand-name initiators and 137.9 (sd, 148.6) for generic initiators., Significance: Patients who initiated generic AEDs had fewer adverse seizure-related clinical outcomes and longer continuous treatment periods before experiencing a gap than those who initiated brand-name versions., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Generic immunosuppressive drugs are available in Europe, Canada, and the United States. Between countries, there are large differences in the market penetration of generic drugs in general, and for immunosuppressive drugs in particular. The registration criteria for generic immunosuppressive drugs are often criticized. However, it is unlikely that the criteria for registration of narrow therapeutic index drugs are going to change, and bioequivalence studies, performed in healthy volunteers, will remain the backbone of the registration process. It would be good if the registration authorities would demand that all generic variants of an innovator drug have the same pill appearance to reduce errors and promote drug adherence.To allow for safe substitution, a number of criteria need to be fulfilled. Generic substitution should not be taken out of the hands of the treating physicians. Generic substitution can only be done safely if initiated by the prescriber, and in well-informed and prepared patients. Payers should refrain from forcing pharmacists to dispense generic drugs in patients on maintenance treatment with innovator drug. Instead, together with transplant societies, they should design guidelines on how to implement generic immunosuppressive drugs into clinical practice. Substitutions must be followed by control visits to check if the patient is taking the medication correctly and if drug exposure remains stable. Inadvertent, uncontrolled substitutions from 1 generic to another, initiated outside the scope of the prescriber, must be avoided as they are unsafe. Repetitive subsequent generic substitutions result in minimal additional cost savings and have an inherent risk of medication errors.

The first biosimilar version of a biologic agent used to treat psoriasis (infliximab) entered the Spanish market on February 16 of this year, and more biosimilars can be expected to follow in the coming months and years. Logically, this new situation will have economic repercussions and alter prescribing patterns among dermatologists. In this article, we review regulatory issues related to the approval of biosimilars, with a particular focus on the situation in the European Union. We will examine analytical characterization studies and special considerations for clinical trials with biosimilars, and also look at several somewhat contentious issues, such as the extrapolation of indications, interchangeability, and automatic substitution. Finally, we will review the biosimilars with indications for psoriasis currently in the clinical development pipeline and assess their potential to offer comparable efficacy and safety to the reference product while contributing to the sustainability of the public health care system., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier España, S.L.U. and AEDV. All rights reserved.)

Generic drugs are bioequivalent to the original brand; this is a prerequisite for marketing approval. It is theoretically possible that one generic drug may overestimate the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of the original and another generic may underestimate these PK parameters; in consequence, these 2 generics may not be bioequivalent between themselves. The result could be loss of efficacy or development of drug-related adverse effects if these generics are interchanged in stable patients. In a recent study involving 292 indirect comparisons of generic formulations of 9 different drugs, mathematical modeling showed that in most cases (87.0% for maximum concentration, 90.1% for area under the curve, and 80.5% for both) generic drugs are bioequivalent to each other. These reassuring findings notwithstanding, prudence dictates that, in stable patients, generic drugs should be interchanged only if there is a good reason for it. This is because bioequivalent brands of drugs may differ in their excipient content, and this can result in variations in safety profiles., (© Copyright 2015 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)