Single-dose, randomized, crossover bioequivalence study of amlodipine maleate versus amlodipine besylate in healthy volunteers

Modulation of biopharmaceutical properties of acidic drugs using cationic counterions: A critical analysis of FDA-approved pharmaceutical salts

Salification has a successful track record in modulating the biopharmaceutical properties of drugs. This is evident from the significant share (40%) of pharmaceutical salts in FDA-approved drugs in the past 80-years. Based on the ionic nature of drugs, the corresponding cationic or anionic counterions are employed for salification. This review aims to provide the contribution of cationic counterions in FDA-approved drugs from 1939 to 2020. The analysis of 80-years data has shown that the 7.1% of the FDA-approved drugs comprise cationic counterions (98 pharmaceutical salts). Heparin sodium is the pioneering drug in the history of pharmaceutical salts that was approved in 1939 as an anticoagulant medication. Inorganic (sodium, calcium, potassium, magnesium, silver), as well as organic (tromethamine, meglumine, erbumine) cationic counterions, were used in FDA-approved drugs with a major share by sodium (76 drugs). The technical superiority of cationic salts over other salt forms and the parent drug is also exemplified using case studies.

Carboxylic Acid Counterions in FDA-Approved Pharmaceutical Salts

Salification is one of the powerful and widely employed approaches to improve the biopharmaceutical properties of drugs. The FDA's eighty-year trajectory of new drug approvals depicts around one-third of the drugs clinically used as their pharmaceutical salts. Among various cationic and anionic counterions used in FDA-approved pharmaceutical salts, the carboxylic acids have significantly contributed. A total of 94 pharmaceutical salts discovered during 1943-2020 comprises carboxylic acids as counterions with a major contribution of acetate, maleate, tartrate, fumarate, and succinate. Hydrocodone tartrate is the first FDA-approved carboxylate salt approved in 1943. Overall, the analysis shows that fifteen carboxylic acid counterions are present in FDA-approved pharmaceutical salts with a major share of acetate (18 drugs). This review provides an account of FDA-approved carboxylate salts from 1939 to 2020. The decade-wise analysis indicates that 1991-2000 contributed a maximum number of carboxylate salts (24) and least (3) in 1939-1950. The technical advantage of carboxylate salts over free-base or other counterions is also discussed. Graphical Abstract.

Pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence of fixed-dose combination of candesartan cilexetil/amlodipine besylate (16/10 mg) versus coadministration of individual formulations in healthy subjects

This study compared the pharmacokinetics of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of candesartan (16 mg) and amlodipine (10 mg) versus coadministration of individual formulations to clarify the bioequivalence of the FDC. In this randomized, open-label, single-dose, 2-treatment, 2-way crossover study, healthy Korean volunteers received a single dose of candesartan (16 mg) with amlodipine (10 mg) as either an FDC or single agents concomitantly administered, with a 2-week washout period. Serial blood samples were collected up to 72 hours after dosing for each treatment period, and plasma concentrations of candesartan and amlodipine were measured using a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. A total of 39 subjects completed the study. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last measurement (AUC_0-t) and the peak plasma concentration (C_max) for candesartan were 1.0182 (0.9562–1.0841) and 0.9492 (0.8726–1.0324), respectively. The GMR and 90% CI for the AUC_0-t and C_max for amlodipine were 1.0552 (1.0255–1.0857) and 1.0668 (1.0259–1.1094), respectively. In conclusion, the new FDC formulation of candesartan (16 mg) and amlodipine (10 mg) was bioequivalent to the concomitant administration of single agents. A single dose of candesartan/amlodipine as the FDC or as single agents was well tolerated.

Generic versus brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular diseases

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse events, either serious or mild/moderate, of all generic versus brand-name cardiovascular medicines. We searched randomized trials in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov (last update December 1, 2014). Attempts were made to contact the investigators of all potentially eligible trials. Two investigators independently extracted and analyzed soft (including systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and others) and hard efficacy outcomes (including major cardiovascular adverse events and death), minor/moderate and serious adverse events. We included 74 randomized trials; 53 reported ≥1 efficacy outcome (overall sample 3051), 32 measured mild/moderate adverse events (n = 2407), and 51 evaluated serious adverse events (n = 2892). We included trials assessing ACE inhibitors (n = 12), anticoagulants (n = 5), antiplatelet agents (n = 17), beta-blockers (n = 11), calcium channel blockers (n = 7); diuretics (n = 13); statins (n = 6); and others (n = 3). For both soft and hard efficacy outcomes, 100 % of the trials showed non-significant differences between generic and brand-name drugs. The aggregate effect size was 0.01 (95 % CI -0.05; 0.08) for soft outcomes; -0.06 (-0.71; 0.59) for hard outcomes. All but two trials showed non-significant differences in mild/moderate adverse events, and aggregate effect size was 0.07 (-0.06; 0.20). Comparable results were observed for each drug class and in each stratified meta-analysis. Overall, 8 serious possibly drug-related adverse events were reported: 5/2074 subjects on generics; 3/2076 subjects on brand-name drugs (OR 1.69; 95 % CI 0.40-7.20). This meta-analysis strengthens the evidence for clinical equivalence between brand-name and generic cardiovascular drugs. Physicians could be reassured about prescribing generic cardiovascular drugs, and health care organization about endorsing their wider use.

Linking a Pharmaceutical Chemistry Workshop to Pharmacy Practice

This paper describes the design and implementation of a workshop to enhance pharmacy students’ appreciation of the importance of chemistry for pharmacy practice. The workshop was designed to form part of the practical work of two modules taught in the second year of the MPharm degree. In this mandatory workshop, second year pharmacy students were required to spot in the dispensary drugs based on their chemical properties like chirality, their origin and chemical structure. The lecturers involved in the workshop showed examples of the application of chemistry in the day to day work of the dispensary (e.g. calculating the dose for a patient in millimoles or how small modifications from a natural product can change its ability to cross the blood-brain-barrier). Feedback from participating students was collected via two survey instruments to examine the impact of the intervention. The survey results showed a clear shift towards a more positive perception by students of the chemistry taught in the MPharm curriculum.

Bioequivalence evaluation of two amlodipine salts, besylate and orotate, each in a fixed-dose combination with olmesartan in healthy subjects

A fixed-dose combination of amlodipine and olmesartan is used to treat high blood pressure in patients whose hypertension is not sufficiently controlled with either drug alone. The objective of this study was to evaluate the bioequivalence of two fixed-dose combinations, ie, amlodipine orotate/olmesartan medoxomil 10/40 mg and amlodipine besylate/olmesartan medoxomil 10/40 mg, in healthy subjects. A randomized, open-label, single-dose, two-sequence, two-period, crossover study was conducted in 30 healthy adult volunteers. Blood samples were collected for up to 72 hours post-dose in each period. Safety data included the results of physical examinations, clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, an electrocardiogram, and adverse events. For both amlodipine and olmesartan, the 90% confidence intervals for the geometric mean ratios of AUC_last and time to peak plasma concentration fell within the bioequivalence acceptance criteria. The two fixed-dose combinations showed similar safety profiles. Amlodipine orotate/olmesartan medoxomil 10/40 mg was bioequivalent to amlodipine besylate/olmesartan medoxomil 10/40 mg.

Potential concerns about generic substitution: bioequivalence versus therapeutic equivalence of different amlodipine salt forms

BACKGROUND AND SCOPE

Whether generic drug products are truly therapeutically identical and interchangeable with their innovator counterparts is still a matter of debate. This review discusses the controversies related to the criteria for bioequivalence and therapeutic equivalence. These concerns are illustrated by using the calcium antagonist amlodipine besylate (innovator drug) versus amlodipine maleate (generic), indicated for the treatment of hypertension and angina pectoris, as an example.

METHODS

English-language publications were searched in Medline and EMBASE to retrieve all references on amlodipine maleate and literature related to the regulatory guidelines for bioequivalence and therapeutic equivalence to August 2008. Websites from the European and US regulatory authorities were also consulted.

FINDINGS

According to regulatory definitions, generic drug products need to be identical to their reference with respect to the active substance, the route of administration as well as quality standards. In contrast to innovator drugs, which have to demonstrate their clinical efficacy and safety, generics are considered therapeutically equivalent based on simple bioequivalence testing. In addition, bioequivalence is established with a disputable study method (single dose in a small group of healthy subjects) and statistics (broad acceptance intervals). Consequently, a potential negative impact of alternative salt forms or excipients on the clinical profile of a drug may remain undetected. To exemplify this, although amlodipine maleate is known to contain (degradation) impurities with (potential) biological activity, it is found per definition bioequivalent to its innovator drug, amlodipine besylate. However, only two clinical studies compared the antihypertensive and safety profiles of both drugs up to 3 months, without CV event endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

The validity of the current criteria for interchangeability of generic and innovator drugs remains controversial and may compromise the response and/or safety of patients. In the case of amlodipine, thorough long-term clinical investigations of commercial amlodipine maleate salt preparations including hard endpoints may be needed to justify their use.

Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Use of generic drugs, which are bioequivalent to brand-name drugs, can help contain prescription drug spending. However, there is concern among patients and physicians that brand-name drugs may be clinically superior to generic drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize clinical evidence comparing generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease and to assess the perspectives of editorialists on this issue.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic searches of peer-reviewed publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from January 1984 to August 2008.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies compared generic and brand-name cardiovascular drugs using clinical efficacy and safety end points. We separately identified editorials addressing generic substitution.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted variables related to the study design, setting, participants, clinical end points, and funding. Methodological quality of the trials was assessed by Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa scores, and a meta-analysis was performed to determine an aggregate effect size. For editorials, we categorized authors' positions on generic substitution as negative, positive, or neutral.

RESULTS

We identified 47 articles covering 9 subclasses of cardiovascular medications, of which 38 (81%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Clinical equivalence was noted in 7 of 7 RCTs (100%) of beta-blockers, 10 of 11 RCTs (91%) of diuretics, 5 of 7 RCTs (71%) of calcium channel blockers, 3 of 3 RCTs (100%) of antiplatelet agents, 2 of 2 RCTs (100%) of statins, 1 of 1 RCT (100%) of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and 1 of 1 RCT (100%) of alpha-blockers. Among narrow therapeutic index drugs, clinical equivalence was reported in 1 of 1 RCT (100%) of class 1 antiarrhythmic agents and 5 of 5 RCTs (100%) of warfarin. Aggregate effect size (n = 837) was -0.03 (95% confidence interval, -0.15 to 0.08), indicating no evidence of superiority of brand-name to generic drugs. Among 43 editorials, 23 (53%) expressed a negative view of generic drug substitution.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas evidence does not support the notion that brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease are superior to generic drugs, a substantial number of editorials counsel against the interchangeability of generic drugs.