Comparative effectiveness of generic nifedipine versus Adalat long-acting nifedipine for hypertension treatment: A multi-institutional cohort study.

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

Bioequivalence of a Generic Nateglinide Formulation in Healthy Chinese Volunteers under Fasting and Fed Conditions: A Randomized, Open-Label, Double-Cycle, Double-Crossover Study.

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.

Relative potency of different generic brands of meropenem, colistin and fosfomycin: Implications for antimicrobial therapy and antimicrobial formulary.

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.

Randomized clinical trial comparing efficacy and safety of brand versus generic alendronate (Bonmax®) for osteoporosis treatment.

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

Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies: preclinical and clinical development aspects.

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.

Establishing "abuse-deterrence equivalence" for generic abuse-deterrent opioid formulations: A proposed development framework.

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.

Bioavailability and stability of intravenous iron sucrose originator versus generic iron sucrose AZAD.

CONTEXT: Severe iron deficiency requires intravenous iron supplementation to replenish iron stores. Intravenous iron sucrose has been used for decades for the treatment of anemia. New generic iron sucrose products are now marketed for the use in several countries and there is an ongoing discussion about the safety and efficacy of iron sucrose similars. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we compared the iron sucrose originator Venofer® and the generic iron sucrose AZAD (ISA) regarding bioavailability, toxicity and stability in human THP-1 cells and HepG2 cells. METHODS: The bioavailability of Venofer® and ISA was investigated in both cell types by a ferrozin-based assay. The release of incorporated iron was assayed by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Ferritin content was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). HepG2 cells were used to investigate the intracellular labile iron pool (LIP), which was measured by the fluorescent calcein assay. The amount of redox-active iron within the iron formulations was assayed using fluorescent dichlorofluorescein. RESULTS: We found no significant differences in all parameters between Venofer® and ISA in regard of bioavailability, toxicity and stability in vitro. DISCUSSION: ISA shows identical physico-chemical features and identical bioavailability in vitro. This study is a profound basis for future clinical tests with generic iron sucrose compounds.

Clinical efficacy, safety and anti-inflammatory activity of two sevelamer tablet forms in patients on low-flux hemodialysis.

Sevelamer hydrochloride is an ionic exchange resin with high affinity for phosphate. This phosphate-binding agent has few serious adverse reactions with the advantage of reducing total and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. However, it is controversial as to whether sevelamer hydrochloride can modulate the inflammatory response via endotoxin reduction. Therefore, a single-center, open-label, prospective and randomized study was performed to compare the clinical efficacy, safety and anti-inflammatory activity of two sevelamer hydrochloride tablet forms a branded tablet form, Renagel (Genzyme manufacturer) and its generic equivalent (EMS manufacturer). Twenty-eight chronic kidney disease volunteer patients at stage 5 (CDK 5D), on chronic low-flux hemodialysis carried out in 4-hour sessions, three times a week, were studied. The serum phosphorus, ionic calcium, total cholesterol and fractions, bicarbonate, blood pH, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, IL-1 beta and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) levels were collected prior to dialysis at mid-week. The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects were determined at the end of the phosphate-binder washout period as well as at the end of the fourth and eighth weeks of use of both tablet forms. The same magnitude of reduction in serum phosphorus was observed with both sevelamer tablet forms. Only the Renagel group showed lower total cholesterol and lower LDL cholesterol levels at the fourth and eighth week versus baseline. No significant differences in serum cytokine levels were identified in either drug group. However, the incidence of intestinal obstipation was higher among patients who used the generic equivalent form. In conclusion, Renagel and its EMS generic equivalent tablet forms have a similar clinical efficacy in reducing phosphorus in CKD 5D patients on low-flux hemodialysis and a similar safety profile.

Evaluation of clinical and safety outcomes associated with conversion from brand-name to generic tacrolimus in transplant recipients enrolled in an integrated health care system.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical and safety outcomes among transplant recipients whose tacrolimus was converted from the brand-name formulation to a generic formulation. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. DATA SOURCE: Clinical databases and electronic records from a large, integrated health care system in California. PATIENTS: A total of 234 clinically stable, adult transplant recipients (renal, liver, and heart) whose tacrolimus was converted from the brand-name formulation to a generic formulation between October 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010, according to a physician-approved protocol. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each patient, pre- and postconversion tacrolimus trough concentrations and serum creatinine concentrations were analyzed. Data were also collected on the percentage of patients who required dosage titration, drug cost savings, and rates of reversion to brand-name tacrolimus, biopsy-proved acute allograft rejections, and mortality. No significant differences were noted in mean ± SD pre- and postconversion tacrolimus trough levels (6.74 ± 1.61 vs 6.96 ± 2.31 ng/ml, p=0.137) or serum creatinine concentrations (1.33 ± 0.48 vs 1.36 ± 0.82 mg/dl, p=0.302). The mean ± SD percent change in tacrolimus trough concentration was 5.63 ± 32.95%. Thirty-six patients (15.4%) required dosage titration. Six patients (2.6%) reverted back to brand-name tacrolimus. No deaths or acute rejections occurred. Use of the generic product saved each patient an average of $45/month in drug acquisition cost and $26/prescription copayment. CONCLUSION: Clinical experience as well as research data show that use of generic tacrolimus results in trough concentrations that are comparable to the brand-name drug. Given the lack of adverse events reported and the cost savings recognized, conversion from brand-name tacrolimus to generic tacrolimus should be encouraged. Since dosage titration may be required, close therapeutic drug monitoring is recommended.

Employee attitudes toward participation in a work site-based health and wellness clinic.

PURPOSE: To conduct a needs assessment to determine employee attitudes and barriers toward participation in a multidisciplinary work site-based health and wellness clinic. METHODS: A 21-question survey was developed and sent electronically to all available (n = 874) employees of a self-insured employer. RESULTS: Of the 303 survey respondents (34.7% response rate), 67.3% (n = 204) individuals indicated a desire to meet with a pharmacist regarding medication information. Medication therapy management (MTM) services most often selected by survey respondents included basic education about each medication and its intended purpose (33%, n = 100); education on self-care (30%, n = 91); and information on generic or less expensive alternative medications and strategies for cost savings (25.1%, n = 76). Eighty-eight (29%) respondents indicated a desire for preventive care counseling to receive guidance on recommended disease screenings, immunizations, and other recommended services. Additional interest was observed in nutrition coaching (n = 131, 43.2%) and exercise programming (n = 272, 89.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respondents indicated a desire to participate in a work site-based health and wellness clinic, regardless of baseline health status or medication use. These data provide insight into the needs and preferences of participants in work site wellness programs and shows the value of a needs assessment.

Clinical case reports raise doubts about the therapeutic equivalence of an iron sucrose similar preparation compared with iron sucrose originator.

Intravenous iron sucrose has been used to treat iron deficiency and iron deficiency anaemia associated with different chronic diseases for several decades. Despite the complex structure of iron sucrose, copies called iron sucrose similars (ISSs) have been approved according to the generic approach and therefore, therapeutic equivalence is taken for granted. In February 2011, three patients who previously tolerated well the prescribed iron sucrose originator experienced urticaria, oedema and headache within 1 hour after infusion of an ISS that had been substituted for the originator at the pharmacy level. One patient collapsed due to severe hypovolaemic dysregulation and required hospitalisation. Due to emerging evidence that ISSs differ from the iron sucrose originator in safety and efficacy profiles, it seems prudent for physicians as well as patients who require intravenous (i.v.) iron to have available data on therapeutic equivalence of new ISS preparations versus the originator. This may be especially important in patients who are chronically ill and need iron supplementation on a regular, long-term basis.

Monitoring of effectiveness and safety of generic formulation of meropenem for treatment of infections at Siriraj Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: In Siriraj Hospital, generic meropenem (Monem) has been available and was substituted for original meropenem, but the effectiveness and safety of using generic meropenem in a clinical setting are the main concern. MATERIAL AND METHOD: From July 2007 to June 2009, hospitalized patients aged 18 or older who received meropenem for 48 hours were identified from the pharmacy database of Siriraj hospital. A retrospective study was conducted. Three hundred patients in each of original and generic meropenem groups were required to demonstrate non-inferiority of generic to original meropenem. RESULTS: The mean age of all patients was 63 years. Most of the patients had co-morbidities. Approximately 90% of the infections were health-care associated. Drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria including ESBL producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii account for nearly 50% of all organisms. No significant difference was found regarding characteristics, type or site of infection and pathogen between generic and original groups but for more patients in the original group having cardiovascular disease and more patients in the generic group receiving immunosuppressive agents. Eighty-two to 85% received meropenem with one of appropriate indications. No statistically significant difference occurred either in an overall favorable outcome (63% vs.70.4%, p = 0.07) or in overall mortality (38% vs. 32%, p = 0.17), as well as adverse effects between the original and the generic groups. CONCLUSION: Generic meropenem (Monem) was not inferior to original meropenem for therapy of infections in the hospitalized patients at Siriraj Hospital.

Do people regard cheaper medicines effective? Population survey on public opinion of generic substitution in Finland.

PURPOSE: Generic substitution (GS) is an important way to decrease medical costs. We aimed to study the opinions and attitudes of Finnish people about GS five years after it was introduced, the reasons for substituting and what people think about generic medicines. METHODS: We sent a postal survey to a random stratified population sample of 3000 Finnish people aged at least 18 years in 2008. The random sample was drawn from five mainland counties. The sampling was conducted by the Finnish Population Register Centre. The response rate was 62% (n=1844) after exclusion of unobtainable addressees (n=34). RESULTS: Most of the respondents (70.9%) considered GS a good law reform. However, there were many respondents who were unsure about their opinion (26.9%). The respondents also held the opinion that cheaper medicines are effective (80.9%) and that GS does not cause any risk to drug safety (84.9%). Most of the respondents (88.4%) who had substituted their medicines had not noticed any difference between the previously used and substituted medicines. Two main reasons for substituting were a desire to save money and recommendation by pharmacists. Of the respondents, 16.3% had experience with both substituting and refusing it. The percentage of the respondents who only had experience with refusing GS was 8.6%. Female gender, older age and use of prescription drugs were associated with refusing. CONCLUSIONS: Finnish people consider GS a good reform. They also have confidence in the effect of cheaper medicines. Savings are the main reason for accepting GS.

[Generic drugs: quality, efficacy, safety and interchangeability]. / Generika: Qualität, Wirksamkeit, Sicherheit und Austauschbarkeit.

Since the introduction of generic drugs to the pharmaceutical market a sometimes emotional debate exists whether they are well-investigated and of high quality. There is some uncertainty about whether evidence of bioequivalence is enough to guarantee efficacy and safety of generic drugs. Some physicians ask the question if competent authorities are able to ascertain that the pharmaceutical quality of generics is acceptable. Doctors and patients sometimes are ill at ease about the interchangeability of innovator and generic products. This article describes how the European Union legislation ensures that a generic drug is only approved if its risk-benefit relationship is favourable and that it is essentially similar to the innovator product. In this context pharmacokinetic parameters are accepted as surrogates for clinical results because bioequivalence means therapeutic equivalence as well. For most drugs, current bioequivalence testing generally enables clinicians to routinely substitute generic for innovator products. Published findings, however, suggest that particular drugs may not be ideally suited for generic substitution when a patient is already on that drug. These are the so called critical dose medicinal products (drugs with a narrow therapeutic range). When starting a new therapy with any generic drug, however, its similarity to the innovator drug in terms of efficacy, safety and quality is guaranteed.

Hospitalization rates of generic metoprolol compared with the original beta-blocker in an epidemiological database study.

PURPOSE: A less favourable galenic profile of generic formulations of the beta-blocker metoprolol raised the concern of a higher risk for serious cardiovascular (CV) events. We assessed hospital admission rates for CV diseases and prescription prevalences of various drugs using claims data of statutory health insurances (SHIs) to compare the incidence of serious CV events among users of original and generic metoprolol. Index events included hospitalization due to myocardial infarction, hypertensive crisis and stroke. METHODS: Data files of three SHIs were linked with dispensing data of drug prescriptions from each pharmacy's electronic data processing centre on an individual basis. Incidences of hospital admissions among patients receiving original metoprolol and among patients treated with the generic equivalent were compared by logistic regression, stratified for Bremen and the rest of Northern Germany. Risk estimates and confidence intervals were adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 49,673 patients receiving metoprolol were identified within a cohort of 3,649,285 insurance members. While the crude analysis revealed a higher risk for index events in patients receiving the generic drug (Bremen: RR 1.45; Northern Germany: RR 1.14), no elevated risk remained after confounder adjustment (Bremen: OR 1.06; Northern Germany: OR 1.04). Among co-morbid conditions considered as confounders, a previous CV event and an elevated thromboembolic risk exerted the strongest effect on index events. CONCLUSIONS: SHI data are a valuable source for pharmacoepidemiology and health services research in Germany. Incidence rates of serious CV events did not reveal any noticeable differences between the original and the generic group after confounder adjustment.

Brand versus generic alendronate: gastrointestinal effects measured by resource utilization.

BACKGROUND: Adverse reactions related to the upper gastrointestinal tract (UGIT) that are associated with generic alendronate formulations may differ from those associated with the brand drug. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that adverse UGIT effects of alendronate formulations may differ between generic and brand products. METHODS: We conducted a database health resource utilization analysis of UGIT outcomes in patients who started treatment with generic or brand alendronate formulations during 2001-2005. We included 6962 patients who were treated continuously for 3 months with 1 of 4 alendronate formulations: brand 10 mg/day (Merck, Sharpe & Dohme, n = 1418), generic A 10 mg/day (Teva, Israel, n = 650), generic B 10 mg/day (Unipharm, Israel, n = 628), and brand 70 mg/wk (n = 4266). In these patients, who had neither filled a prescription for alendronate nor had any gastrointestinal problems in the year preceding the study, we compared incidence rates of new use of gastric medications (H2-blockers, proton-pump inhibitors, or antacids), gastroenterology visits, endoscopies, and hospital admissions. RESULTS: Incident rate ratios (IRR) for treatment discontinuation were higher with both daily generic products (IRR 1.3; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.63). Adherence (medication possession ratio [MPR] >80%) was better with brand 10 mg/day (IRR 1.19; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.27). All comparisons were adjusted for use of concurrent corticosteroids, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, and potassium supplements. Hospitalization rates (2.7-3.2%) were similar in all groups. New use of gastric medications (3.4-4.9%) was lower with brand 10 mg/day (IRR 0.71; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95). Rates of UGIT endoscopy (n = 49) in patients receiving 10 mg were 0.6% (brand), 1.1% (generic A), and 1.6% (generic B), with generic B higher (IRR 2.88; 95% CI 1.14 to 7.29) in the entire cohort, but not among new users (n = 273) of gastric drugs (IRR 2.46; 95% CI 0.55 to 11.05). Endoscopic findings were normal in 22 patients, hiatal hernia with no mucosal lesion was present in 10 patients, and there was mild-to-moderate esophagitis or gastritis in 17 patients; there were no significant differences among the formulations. CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to indicate major differences in UGIT adverse effects related to use of daily generic, as compared with brand, alendronates.

Evaluation of the clinical and economic impact of a brand name-to-generic warfarin sodium conversion program.

BACKGROUND: Substitution of generic warfarin initially was discouraged because of concerns regarding therapeutic failure or toxicity. Although subsequent research with AB-rated (i.e., bioequivalent) warfarin did not confirm initial concerns, the issue is not settled for all clinicians. OBJECTIVES: We sought to provide additional information regarding the clinical and economic impact of warfarin conversion by analyzing a real-life sample of patients receiving long-term anticoagulation therapy who were switched from brand name to generic warfarin. METHODS: Patients who had been taking warfarin for at least 180 days and had received uninterrupted oral anticoagulation 90 days before and 90 days after switching to generic warfarin were included. The switch date was based on the first time generic warfarin was dispensed from our pharmacies. The primary end point was the calculated amount of time each patient's international normalized ratio (INR) values were within the patient-specific target INR range in the 90 days before and after the switch. Data regarding adverse events and medical resource utilization were also collected. Pharmacoeconomic analyses were performed. RESULTS: The analysis included 2299 patients. The overall difference in calculated time INR values were below (22.6% before vs 26.1% after switch, p<0.0001) and within (65.9% before vs 63.3% after switch, p=0.0002) the therapeutic INR range was statistically but not clinically significant. Only 28.0% of patients experienced a change in therapeutic INR control of 10% or less, 33.1% experienced INR control that improved by greater than 10%, and 38.9% experienced INR control that worsened by more than 10%. The difference in total treatment costs associated with brand name and generic warfarin was 3128 dollars/100 patient-years in favor of the generic product. Sensitivity analyses revealed that cost savings associated with warfarin conversion in this health care system were highly dependent on the difference between warfarin costs and cost of treating anticoagulation-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Most of these patients were successfully switched from brand name to generic warfarin. However, supplemental INR monitoring is warranted when one warfarin product is substituted for another to allow timely detection of those patients who experience significant changes in anticoagulation response.