The generic imperative

The problem of choice: original drug or generic? Emphasis on rosuvastatin

An increase in the life expectancy of the population and the number of polymorbid patients with a combination of two or more diseases in different age categories, including among young people, has led to a significant increase in the cost of medical care in the field of public health. The transition from original drugs to generic ones has become a common measure to contain these costs. While this is an important goal for healthcare systems around the world, the impact of this practice on patient outcomes needs to be carefully considered. In some cases, generics may represent a suitable alternative to branded products, but this is not always the case. In particular, studies have shown that changing the drug can negatively affect not only patients' adherence to treatment, but also clinical outcomes, and a subsequent increase in the total cost of treatment, therefore, the use of generics in clinical practice still causes caution and concerns on the part of both the doctor and the patient. Due to the high prevalence of dyslipidemia and hypercholesterolemia both worldwide and in Russia, in this review the problem of choosing an original drug or generic is described by the example of such a hypolipidemic agent as rosuvastatin. According to numerous studies, rosuvastatin is one of the most potent and widely prescribed statins. Considering that most of the clinically significant effects of this drug are demonstrated in relation to its original form, the review emphasizes the importance of prescribing the original drug rosuvastatin in routine clinical practice.

Changing understanding, perceptions, pain relief of and preference for generic medicines with patient education: An experimental intervention study

BACKGROUND

Generic medicines have been associated with less perceived efficacy and more side effects compared to brand name drugs. Educational interventions to improve individuals' negative perceptions of generic medicines show contradictory effects.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated whether an interventional video that informs about the approval process of releasing medicines has better effects on outcomes related to perceptions and effectiveness of generic medicines in participants with headaches, in comparison with another interventional video that addresses bioequivalence between brand name and generic drugs or a control video.

METHODS

Participants with frequent tension headaches were randomized to one of three groups (one of two interventional videos or the control video). One of the interventional videos explained the process of approval of generic medicines (n = 34), the other one explained the bioequivalence between brand name and generic drugs (n = 35). The control video informed participants about the epidemiology and etiology of headaches (n = 34). After watching the video, participants treated their next two consecutive episodes of headache with a brand name and a generic analgesic in randomized order.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-report measures of understanding and perceptions of and preference for medicines, pain severity and side effects.

RESULTS

Linear mixed models showed that both interventional videos improved participants' understanding of generic medicines. The generic drug approval process video enhanced the perceived effectiveness, safety and quality of generic drugs. The bioequivalence video positively influenced the preference for generic drugs. The brand name and generic drug were equally effective in relieving pain in participants who watched either the generic drug approval process or the bioequivalence video.

CONCLUSIONS

Information about both, approving a switch from brand name medicines to generic counterparts and bioequivalence, can be important and should be addressed in future educational interventions.

Potential Clinical and Economic Impact of Switching Branded Medications to Generics

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.

Pharmacodynamics of nine generic products of amikacin compared with the innovator in the neutropenic mouse thigh infection model

Background

Previously, we validated the mouse thigh infection model to test the therapeutic equivalence of generic antibiotic products. Here, our aim was to compare the in vivo efficacy of amikacin products in clinical use in Colombia using this animal model.

Results

All except one generic product had the same in vitro potency, judging by the lack of differences on MIC and MBC compared with the innovator. However, eight of nine generic products failed in the neutropenic mouse thigh infection model to achieve the innovator’s maximum effect (E_max ≤ 5.65 for the generics vs. 6.58 log₁₀ CFU/g for the innovator) against Escherichia coli SIG-1, after subcutaneous treatment every 6 h with doses ranging from 1.5 to 3072 mg/kg per day.

Conclusion

As we demonstrated previously with other antibiotics such as vancomycin, gentamicin and oxacillin, the generic products of amikacin failed the in vivo efficacy testing. The therapeutic equivalence should be assessed in vivo before clinical approval of generic products.