Interchangeability of Gabapentin Generic Formulations in the Netherlands: A Comparative Bioavailability Study

Interchangeability of generic drugs for subpopulations: Bioequivalence simulation from a nonparametric PK model of gabapentin generic drugs

Patients are often switched between generic formulations of the same drug, but in some cases generic interchangeability is questioned. For generic drugs to be approved, bioequivalence with the innovator drug should be demonstrated, but evidence of bioequivalence is not required in the intended patient population or relative to other approved generics.

AIM

We aim to identify pathophysiological pharmacokinetic subpopulations for whom there is a difference in comparative bioavailability compared to a healthy population.

METHODS

We used simulated exposures from a nonparametric model of multiple generics and the originator gabapentin. Exposure was simulated for virtual populations with pharmacokinetic characteristics beyond those of healthy subjects with regard to rate of absorption, volume of distribution and reduced renal function. Virtual parallel design bioequivalence studies were performed using a random sample of 24 simulated subjects, with standard acceptance criteria.

RESULTS

Results indicated increased pharmacokinetic variability for patient populations with a lower rate of absorption or a reduced renal function, but no change in the average comparable bioavailability ratio. This increased variability results in a reduced likelihood of demonstrating bioequivalence. Observations were similar for comparisons between all different formulations, as well as between subjects who received the identical formulation in a repeated fashion. No relevant effect was observed for simulations with increased volume of distribution.

CONCLUSION

Our simulations indicate that the reduced likelihood of demonstrating bioequivalence for subjects with altered pharmacokinetics is not influenced by a formulation switch, nor does the average comparable bioavailability ratio change, therefore these results support generic interchangeability and current approval requirements for generics.

Impact of Variation in Pill/Package Appearance of Drugs on Patients' Behavior: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to identify and critically evaluate the available evidence on the impact of switches in pill appearance/packaging on patient's behavior.

METHODS

Studies from inception to March 2021 were searched across MEDLINE through PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus. Included studies carried out an original evaluation in English or Spanish language that evaluated the impact of switches in pill appearance/packaging on patient's behavior. Two authors independently extracted study data and evaluated studies for methodological quality according to the STROBE guidelines.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included, and the mean (SD) number of STROBE criteria satisfied was 17.2 (3.9). Three of 5 studies found a significant association between change in pill appearance and persistence to treatment; the 3 studies that evaluated the impact of a change on adherence to treatment found a significant association; 1 of the 2 studies that evaluated the relationship between a change a clinical outcome found a significant association with the prevalence of uncontrolled blood pressure; and 1 study showed lower rates of switchbacks to the branded product compared with patients who switched to generic drug products, with different appearance.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review showed an impact of the change in pill/package appearance on patients' behavior in 7 of the 10 studies included. Generic switching may lead to unintended consequences on patients' behavior, mainly regarding adherence to treatment.

Pharmacokinetics and Generic Drug Switching: A Regulator's View

There appears to be a mismatch between the assumed therapeutic equivalence of generic drugs, their interchangeability, and reported clinical discomfort following generic drug use and drug switches. In this article, we describe why we are of the opinion that the current regulatory approach to the evaluation of generic drugs based on average bioequivalence is sufficient to expect therapeutic equivalence in the clinical setting. This has often been debated, specifically as adverse drug reactions related to generic drug switches are regularly reported. We agree that clinical discomfort during a bioequivalent drug switch may indeed be caused by different exposures to the active substance. However, this difference in exposure is not a result of the characteristics or quality of generic drugs; it is caused by the pharmacokinetic within-subject variability of the active substance, i.e., the variability on the bioavailability of the active substance, when comparing two occasions of administration of the same drug product, to the same patient. Therefore, reported clinical discomfort following generic drug use and drug switches does not warrant a change in the regulatory approach to the evaluation of the bioequivalence of generic drugs. Switching from a brand-name drug to currently approved generic drugs, or between different generic drugs, will in principle result in comparable exposure, within boundaries determined by the within-subject variability of the pharmacokinetics of the active substance involved.

Bioequivalence and switchability of generic antiseizure medications (ASMs): A re-appraisal based on analysis of generic ASM products approved in Europe

The safety of switching between generic products of antiseizure medications (ASMs) continues to be a hot topic in epilepsy management. The main reason for concern relates to the uncertainty on whether, and when, two generics found to be bioequivalent to the same brand (reference) product are bioequivalent to each other, and the risk of a switch between generics resulting in clinically significant changes in plasma ASM concentrations. This article addresses these concerns by discussing the distinction between bioequivalence and statistical testing for significant difference, the importance of intra-subject variability in interpreting bioequivalence studies, the stricter regulatory bioequivalence requirements applicable to narrow-therapeutic-index (NTI) drugs, and the extent by which currently available generic products of ASMs comply with such criteria. Data for 117 oral generic products of second-generation ASMs approved in Europe by the centralized, mutual recognition or decentralized procedure were analyzed based on a review of publicly accessible regulatory assessment reports. The analysis showed that for 99% of generic products assessed (after exclusion of gabapentin products), the 90% confidence intervals (90% CIs) of geometric mean ratios (test/reference) for AUC (area under the drug concentration vs time curve) were narrow and wholly contained within the acceptance interval (90%-111%) applied to NTI drugs. Intra-subject variability for AUC was <10% for 53 (88%) of the 60 products for which this measure was reported. Many gabapentin generics showed broader, 90% CIs for bioequivalence estimates, and greater intra-subject variability, compared with generics of other ASMs. When interpreted within the context of other available data, these results suggest that any risk of non-bioequivalence between these individual generic products is small, and that switches across these products are not likely to result in clinically relevant changes in plasma drug exposure. The potential for variability in exposure when switching across generics is likely to be greatest for gabapentin.

Interchangeability of Generic Drugs: A Nonparametric Pharmacokinetic Model of Gabapentin Generic Drugs

Substitution by generic drugs is allowed when bioequivalence to the originator drug has been established. However, it is known that similarity in exposure may not be achieved at every occasion for all individual patients when switching between formulations. The ultimate aim of our research is to investigate if pharmacokinetic subpopulations exist when subjects are exposed to bioequivalent formulations. For that purpose, we developed a pharmacokinetic model for gabapentin, based on data from a previously conducted bioavailability study comparing gabapentin exposure following administration of the gabapentin originator and three generic gabapentin formulations in healthy subjects. Both internal and external validation confirmed that the optimal model for description of the gabapentin pharmacokinetics in this comparative bioavailability study was a two‐compartment model with absorption constant, an absorption lag time, and clearance adjusted for renal function, in which each model parameter was separately estimated per administered formulation.

Interchangeability between first-line generic antiretroviral products prequalified by WHO using adjusted indirect comparisons

BACKGROUND

The scaling-up of access to antiretroviral therapy, particularly in low- to middle-income countries, was facilitated by the introduction and widespread use of generic antiretroviral medicines and fixed-dose combinations. Generic medicines are approved by regulatory authorities based on the demonstration of bioequivalence with the innovator or reference product, as well as meeting quality standards. In clinical practice, however, it is not unusual for generics to be interchanged between each other. This study investigated the differences in bioavailability between WHO-prequalified first-line antiretroviral generics by means of adjusted indirect comparisons to ensure interchangeability between these generics.

METHODS

Data on 34 products containing emtricitabine, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, lamivudine and efavirenz in single formulations or fixed-dose combinations were included in the analysis. The 90% CI for the adjusted indirect comparisons was calculated using the homoscedastic method that uses the conventional t-test, and assumes homogeneity of variances between the studies and small sample sizes. The combined standard deviation of both bioequivalence studies was calculated from the variability of each individual study.

RESULTS

The adjusted indirect comparisons between generics showed that the differences, expressed as 90% CIs, are less than 30%. Confidence in the interchangeability of two generic products was reduced if the mean difference between the test and reference in the original studies is more than 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

From a bioequivalence perspective, the generic antiretroviral medicines prequalified by WHO are interchangeable with the reference, as well as between each other without safety or efficacy concerns.

Prescribing Generic Medication in Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Patients: An Issue of Representations, Trust, and Experience in a Swiss Cohort

Objective

Parallel to an ever stronger advocacy for the use of generics, various sources of information report concerns regarding substitution. The literature indicates that information regarding substitution is not univocal. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore patients’ representations regarding generics in patients suffering from non-specific disabling chronic musculoskeletal pain, as these patients are confronted with the issue of the prescription and/or substitution of original formulations with generics.

Methods

Qualitative methods were selected because the aim was to access the range of patients' representations and to consider their conceptions. Standardized face-to-face semi-structured interviews were used, and transcripts were submitted to content analysis.

Results

Patients’ representations suggest that they might be confident in taking a generic medication: when he/she has an understanding of generics as resulting from a development process that has become part of the public domain; the generic medication is prescribed by the physician; each prescription is discussed, i.e., the patient is prescribed the generic version of a given medication and not a generic medication.

Discussion

Economic arguments are not sufficient to justify substitution, and may even raise issues calling upon cognitive dissonance. Even in non-life-threatening diseases, negative cues require attention and need be de-emphasized - in particular lower price as an indication of lower quality, and generic status as contradictory with advocating individualization of medication.

Investigation into the interchangeability of generic formulations using immunosuppressants and a broad selection of medicines

Purpose

To date, the interchangeability of generic drugs has only been investigated for a limited number of medicines. The objective of this study was to investigate generic-generic drug interchangeability in a large subset of generic formulations in order to cover a broad spectrum of drugs.

Methods

Orally administered drugs for investigation in this study were selected using strict, predefined criteria, with the purpose to avoid bias. This selection procedure yielded atorvastatin, bicalutamide, naratriptan, olanzapine, perindopril, and venlafaxine. Further, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil were investigated as test immunosuppressants. Adjusted indirect comparisons were conducted between generic drugs containing the same active substance, and the 90 % confidence interval (CI) for AUC and C_max was calculated.

Results

In total, 120 bioequivalence studies were identified in the Dutch medicine regulatory agency’s database, allowing 292 indirect comparisons between generic drugs. The indirect comparison results indicated that in the vast majority of cases, i.e., 80.5 %, the 90 % CIs for both AUC_t and C_max fell within the bioequivalence criteria (in 90.1 and 87.0 % for AUC_t and C_max, respectively). In 1 % of the 292 indirect comparison for AUC_t and 3 % for C_max, a wider range of 75–133 % (or 80–125 %) was exceeded.

Conclusions

Overall, our study suggests that exposure-related risks associated with the exchange of different generic drugs in clinical practice are not increased to a relevant extent compared to the situation in which a generic is exchanged with the innovator.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00228-015-1878-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Single dose pharmacokinetic equivalence study of two gabapentin preparations in healthy subjects

BACKGROUND

The current study was conducted to find out whether two oral preparations of 300 mg gabapentin (the test and reference capsules) were bioequivalent.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This was a randomized, single-blind, crossover study under fasting condition, with a 7-day washout period, which included 37 healthy adult male and female subjects. After an overnight fast, subjects were given, orally, one capsule of the test drug or of the reference drug. Blood samples were drawn immediately before taking the drug, then at 20 and 40 minutes, and 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 24 hours after dosing, to evaluate pharmacokinetic parameters of the single dose administration, ie, the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to 24 hours (AUCt), AUC from time zero to infinity (AUC(inf)), the peak plasma concentration of the drug (Cmax), time needed to achieve Cmax (tmax), and the elimination half-life (t1/2). The plasma concentrations of gabapentin were determined using validated high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection.

RESULTS

The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) of the test drug/reference drug for gabapentin were 103.15% (90.38%-117.72%) for AUCt, 103.53% (90.78%-118.07%) for AUC(inf), and 108.06% (96.32%-121.24%) for Cmax. The differences in tmax and t1/2 values between the test and reference drug products for gabapentin were not statistically significant. Light-headedness, nausea, and headache were encountered during the study, but they were all mild and well tolerated. The 90% confidence intervals of the test/reference AUC ratio and Cmax ratio of gabapentin were within the acceptance range for bioequivalence.

CONCLUSION

The two preparations of gabapentin 300 mg capsule were bioequivalent, thus both can be used interchangeably in the clinical setting.

Is it ethical to prescribe generic immunosuppressive drugs to renal transplant patients?

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

This review was conducted to determine the ethical acceptability of prescribing generic immunosuppressive drugs to renal transplant patients.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The literature search was conducted using Pubmed and Google Scholar.

FINDINGS

The use of generic immunosuppressive drugs (ISDs) in transplantation is a controversial topic. There is a consensus among transplant societies that clinical data is lacking and that caution should be exercised. The reluctance to use generic ISDs in organ transplantation is partly related to the fact that most are "critical dose drugs", and that either low dosing or overdosing could have serious adverse consequences for both patients and society (i.e., the loss of scarce organs). In this paper, we examine the various ethical issues involved such as distributive justice, physician duties, risks versus benefits, conflict of interest, informed consent, and logistical and economic issues.

LIMITATIONS

Our analysis was limited by the paucity of clinical data on generic ISDs and the absence of health economics studies to quantify the benefits of prescribing generic ISDs.

IMPLICATIONS

Our study led us to conclude that it would be ethical to prescribe generic ISDs provided certain conditions were met. These include regulatory safeguards to minimize the risks of substitution; education of patients; and further clinical and health economics studies to better inform clinicians, patients and society of the risks and costs related to drug substitution.

Confidence in generic drug substitution

Patients should have confidence that the generic drugs they are prescribed in the United States can be effectively substituted for the brand product or another generic product. Through new bioequivalence study designs for narrow therapeutic index (NTI) drugs and postapproval studies of generic substitution, the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) ongoing generic drug regulatory science activities are designed to ensure successful generic substitution for all drug products.