Generic Olanzapine Substitution in Patients With Schizophrenia: Assessment of Serum Concentrations and Therapeutic Response After Switching

Does China's competitive generic substitution policy deliver equivalent clinical outcomes? A pilot study with two generic formulations of olanzepine

With the National Centralized Drug Procurement policy gradually applied nationally in China, concerns about the effectiveness and safety of bid-winning generic drugs are growing again, but relevant studies are lacking. This real-world, before-and-after study was conducted to explore the clinical effects of switching between two versions of generic olanzapine (one of them was bid-winning product). Pre-and post-switching serum olanzapine concentrations were compared. A total of 30 patients were included and results showed the log-transformed, dose-adjusted concentration of bid-winning generic olanzapine was significantly lower than that of another generic olanzapine, while no significant differences were shown on Clinical Global Impressions Severity of Illness or Improvement ratings before and after switching. This study suggest that a generic version of a psychotropic medication may not be of therapeutic equivalence or bioequivalence with another generic one. Changes in efficacy or tolerability are possible in every switch. Therapeutic drug monitoring could be a valuable tool during switches between generic drugs. Larger prospective clinical studies for other generic psychotropic medications in target populations are warranted.

Healthy User Bias in Comparative Safety Studies for Brand-Name vs. Generic Products: The Example of Warfarin

Warfarin was selected as a case study to examine confounding when comparing a product across different manufacturers because it is a narrow therapeutic index drug with prevalent beliefs for brand-name superiority. Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with atrial fibrillation and an incident outpatient warfarin prescription from July 2006 through July 2015 were included in the study population (N = 746,098). Substantial imbalances were observed between brand-name warfarin and generics for (i) clinical comorbidity, (ii) socioeconomic status, (iii) prescriber specialty, (iv) recent ambulatory and emergent care, (v) drug adherence, (vi) pharmacy setting (e.g., retail, mail-order), and (vii) risk scores for bleeding and thrombosis. Patients receiving brand-name warfarin were healthier than patients receiving generic manufactured warfarin. Utilization of generic warfarin products also differed by geographic region and pharmacy setting. Manufacturer-level comparative-safety studies for causal inference should carefully consider the presence of these imbalances and their potential for introducing healthy user bias.

Switching medication products during the treatment of psychiatric illness

BACKGROUND

The common practice of switching between branded (reference) medications and their corresponding generic products, between generic products, or even from a generic product to a branded medication during the treatment of central nervous system (CNS) disorders may compromise efficacy and/or tolerability.

METHODS

We assessed the published literature from March 1, 2010 through June 30, 2017 via PubMed using the MeSH term 'generics, drugs' alone and in combination with class-specific terms (e.g., 'anticonvulsants', 'mood stabilisers'), for studies detailing outcomes following product switches.

RESULTS

Although some studies comparing the initiation of reference versus generic drugs suggest equivalence between products, several studies detailing a switch between reference and generic products describe reductions in efficacy, reduced medication adherence and persistence, and increased overall health care resource utilization and costs associated with generic substitution.

CONCLUSION

When product switches are considered, they should only proceed with the full knowledge of both patient and provider.

Comparison of the effectiveness of brand-name and generic antipsychotic drugs for treating patients with schizophrenia in Taiwan

The purpose of this nationwide population-based study is to compare the long-term effectiveness of brand-name antipsychotics with generic antipsychotics for treating schizophrenia. We identified patients with schizophrenia who were prescribed antipsychotics from a random sample of one million records from Taiwan's National Health Insurance database, observed between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2012. Only those with no prior use of antipsychotics for at least 180days were included. We selected patients who were prescribed brand-name risperidone (N=404), generic risperidone (N=145), brand-name sulpiride (N=334), or generic sulpiride (N=991). The effectiveness of the treatments researched in this study consisted of average daily doses, rates of treatment discontinuation, augmentation therapy, and psychiatric hospitalization. We found that compared to patients treated with generic risperidone, those treated with brand-name risperidone required lower daily doses (2.14mg vs. 2.61mg). However, the two groups demonstrated similar rates of treatment discontinuation, augmentation, and psychiatric hospitalization. On the other hand, in comparison with patients prescribed generic sulpiride, those treated with brand-name sulpiride not only required lower daily doses (302.72mg vs. 340.71mg) but also had lower psychiatric admission rates (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.24, 95% confidence interval: 0.10-0.56). In conclusion, for both risperidone and sulpiride, higher daily doses of the respective generic drugs were prescribed than with brand-name drugs in clinical settings. Furthermore, the brand-name sulpiride is more effective at preventing patients from hospitalization than generic sulpiride. These findings can serve as an important reference for clinical practices and healthcare economics for treating schizophrenic patients.

Quality Attributes and In Vitro Bioequivalence of Different Brands of Amoxicillin Trihydrate Tablets

Bacterial resistance and antibiotic drug effectiveness can be related to administering generic products with a subtherapeutic dose or poor in vivo drug release. The aim of this study was to investigate whether locally marketed amoxicillin tablets have the required chemical and physical attributes, including in vitro bioequivalence performance. Five generic products (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5) containing combination of amoxicillin trihydrate and potassium clavulanate as 1 g strength present in immediate release tablets were compared to the reference listed drug product Augmentin® (R) for weight variation, friability, resistance to crushing, and chemical content of amoxicillin. Difference (ƒ1) and similarity (ƒ2) factors were calculated to assess in vitro bioequivalence requirements. The tablets from different products have shown compliance with the pharmacopeial requirements of the performed tests. The measured resistance to crushing of tablets did not influence the dissolution time. Three generic products released more than 85% of amoxicillin by the first 15 min as did the reference product and were considered as bioequivalent products. T1 and T4 had ƒ1 values of 16.5% and 25.4% respectively and their ƒ2 values were 44.5 and 34.6 respectively, indicating failure to meet in vitro bioequivalence requirements. Tablet formulations can play an important role in achieving bioequivalence. Independent investigations such as this study serve as an important tool to reveal possible inferior or noncompliant products that may find their way to the market.