Bio-availability and dissolution of three phenytoin preparations for children

Development of a Pediatric Relative Bioavailability/Bioequivalence Database and Identification of Putative Risk Factors Associated With Evaluation of Pediatric Oral Products

Generally, bioequivalence (BE) studies of drug products for pediatric patients are conducted in adults due to ethical reasons. Given the lack of direct BE assessment in pediatric populations, the aim of this work is to develop a database of BE and relative bioavailability (relative BA) studies conducted in pediatric populations and to enable the identification of risk factors associated with certain drug substances or products that may lead to failed BE or different pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters in relative BA studies in pediatrics. A literature search from 1965 to 2020 was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify BE studies conducted in pediatric populations and relative BA studies conducted in pediatric populations. Overall, 79 studies covering 37 active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) were included in the database: 4 bioequivalence studies with data that passed BE evaluations; 2 studies showed bioinequivalence results; 34 relative BA studies showing comparable PK parameters, and 39 relative BA studies showing differences in PK parameters between test and reference products. Based on the above studies, common putative risk factors associated with differences in relative bioavailability (DRBA) in pediatric populations include age-related absorption effects, high inter-individual variability, and poor study design. A database containing 79 clinical studies on BE or relative BA in pediatrics has been developed. Putative risk factors associated with DRBA in pediatric populations are summarized.

Clinical outcomes associated with brand-to-generic phenytoin interchange

BACKGROUND

Concerns that antiepileptic brand-to-generic interchange results in disruption of seizure control are widespread. However, little within-patient evidence exists examining such interchanges.

OBJECTIVE

To compare within-patient seizure control before and after the interchange of a branded to a single-source generic phenytoin among patients with seizures in a managed care organization.

METHODS

This was a pre-post, self-controlled, retrospective study. Adults with a history of seizure who used Dilantin Kapseals 100 mg extended phenytoin sodium, USP, capsules and whose therapy was interchanged to Taro Pharmaceuticals' AB-rated generic extended phenytoin sodium capsules, USP, 100 mg between July 2007 and May 2008 were included. Study outcomes included the comparisons of the proportions of patients with at least emergency department (ED) visit/inpatient hospitalization and medical office visit/nonoffice consultation for acute seizure in the 6 months before and after interchange. Outcomes were confirmed with manual chart reviews and adjusted for potential confounding medication use.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were included in the study. Patients were primarily middle-aged (mean 56 years), equally mixed by sex (47% female); most had nonintractable seizures. The majority of patients (~70%) were on phenytoin as monotherapy and had equivalent rates of purchases for potentially confounding medications in both pre- and postinterchange time periods (all p > 0.05). Low serum concentrations were detected more often in the postinterchange study period (adjusted p < 0.001). Despite this, there were low proportions of patients with confirmed seizure events that resulted in an ED visit/inpatient hospitalization in both pre- and postinterchange periods (both 6.3%, adjusted p = 0.937). The proportion of patients with confirmed seizure events diagnosed at a medical office visit was not significantly different between the preinterchange and postinterchange periods (12.2% vs 11.3%, adjusted p = 0.545).

CONCLUSIONS

No increased proportion of seizures was observed within patients when branded phenytoin was interchanged to an AB-rated, single-source, generic equivalent. More rigorous studies should be conducted to more thoroughly evaluate patient tolerability and drug efficacy when antiepileptic drugs are interchanged from brand to generic formulations.

Seizure outcomes following the use of generic versus brand-name antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The automatic substitution of bioequivalent generics for brand-name antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) has been linked by anecdotal reports to loss of seizure control. To evaluate studies comparing brand-name and generic AEDs, and determine whether evidence exists of superiority of the brand-name version in maintaining seizure control. English-language human studies identified in searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1984 to 2009). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing seizure events or seizure-related outcomes between one brand-name AED and at least one alternative version produced by a distinct manufacturer. We identified 16 articles (9 RCTs, 1 prospective nonrandomized trial, 6 observational studies). We assessed characteristics of the studies and, for RCTs, extracted counts for patients whose seizures were characterized as 'controlled' and 'uncontrolled'. Seven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The aggregate odds ratio (n = 204) was 1.1 (95% CI 0.9, 1.2), indicating no difference in the odds of uncontrolled seizure for patients on generic medications compared with patients on brand-name medications. In contrast, the observational studies identified trends in drug or health services utilization that the authors attributed to changes in seizure control. Although most RCTs were short-term evaluations, the available evidence does not suggest an association between loss of seizure control and generic substitution of at least three types of AEDs. The observational study data may be explained by factors such as undue concern from patients or physicians about the effectiveness of generic AEDs after a recent switch. In the absence of better data, physicians may want to consider more intensive monitoring of high-risk patients taking AEDs when any switch occurs.

Recommendations of the Italian League Against Epilepsy Working Group on Generic Products of Antiepileptic Drugs

The availability of generic products of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) has been increasing in recent years. In view of the importance of the issue, the Italian League against Epilepsy (LICE) set up an ad hoc working group whose task was to assess available evidence on the efficacy and safety of generic AEDs in the treatment of epilepsy and to produce recommendations on their use. A careful review of the literature revealed no adequately powered randomized controlled trials that assessed the risk/benefit ratio of generic substitution. Although there have been reports of loss or worsened seizure control, or appearance of adverse events, following the switch from brand products to generics, a critical assessment of the evidence generally does not allow us to establish a cause-effect relationship between the switch and a change in clinical status. Overall, the working group concluded that generic AEDs meeting current regulatory criteria for bioequivalence represent a valuable choice in the management of epilepsy by allowing a substantial reduction of treatment costs, particularly in patients initiating monotherapy or adjunctive treatment and in those with persistent seizures. The working group considered that in patients who achieved seizure freedom a modest change in plasma drug levels, which may occasionally occur even after substitution of products that meet bioequivalence criteria, could in rare cases lead to seizure breakthrough. Therefore, generic substitution is not recommended in patients who achieved seizure remission. Switches between a particular generic and another generic should also be preferably avoided. Finally, sustained-release AED formulations should not be used interchangeably with immediate-release brand or generic products. Patients need to be informed about the stringent criteria that currently govern the approval of generic products and about the implications of the use of generic AEDs, and their opinion should be taken into consideration at the time of prescribing.

Are there potential problems with generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs?

In response to increasing cost pressures, healthcare systems are encouraging the use of generic medicines. This review explores potential problems with generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). A broad search strategy identified approximately 70 relevant articles. Potential problems with generic substitution included: The limited evidence (mainly case reports with some pharmacokinetic studies) appears to support these concerns for older AEDs. As a result, restrictions on use of specific generic AEDs are in place in some countries and recommended by some lay epilepsy organisations. As more AEDs lose patent protection, it is important to examine the question of whether generic substitution may pose problems for patients with epilepsy, and whether there should be safeguards to ensure that both physician and patient are informed when generic substitution occurs.

Bioequivalence and other unresolved issues in generic drug substitution

BACKGROUND

Substitution of generic drugs for brand-name products is highly controversial and often is met with suspicion by health care providers and patients. Historically, the debate has focused on the issue of bioequivalence, and clinical practice has identified a number of drug classes for which generic substitution should be approached with caution. Current bioequivalence requirements are based on a measure of average bioequivalence; however, there are fears that use of this measure may be inappropriate in the case of a drug with a narrow or wide therapeutic range or high intrasubject or intersubject variability. Under these circumstances, measures of individual and population bioequivalence are proposed to be more accurate than measures of average bioequivalence.

OBJECTIVE

This paper addresses issues of bioequivalence and other concerns with generic drug substitution.

METHODS

I conducted a MEDLINE search of the English-language literature containing the key terms generic, multisource, quality, and brand and published between 1973 and 2003. The names of branded pharmaceuticals whose patents had recently expired (eg, Ventolin HFA, Adalat, Capoten, Tagamet HB 200, and Valium) also were used to search for articles on generic substitution. Reference lists of relevant articles also were searched. Bioequivalence issues are presented together with more general concerns over generic drug substitution, such as consumer perception of risk, differences in product and packaging appearance, and differences in excipients.

RESULTS

The literature reviewed act to highlight a number of different drug categories and patient subpopulations for which generic substitution can still prove to be problematic.

CONCLUSION

I recommend that health care providers continue to exercise caution in the consideration of generic drug substitution under certain circumstances.

The bioequivalence and therapeutic efficacy of generic versus brand-name psychoactive drugs

BACKGROUND

For the purposes of drug approval, the interchangeability of a generic drug and the corresponding brand-name drug is based on the criterion of "essential similarity," which requires that the generic drug have the same amount and type of active principle, the same route of administration, and the same therapeutic effectiveness as the original drug, as demonstrated by a bioequivalence study. However, bioequivalence and therapeutic effectiveness are not necessarily the same.

OBJECTIVE

This review summarizes available data comparing the bioequivalence and therapeutic efficacy of brand-name psychoactive drugs with those of the corresponding generic products.

METHODS

Relevant information was identified through searches of MEDLINE, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, and EMBASE for English-language articles and English abstracts of articles in other languages published between 1975 and the present. The search terms used were generic drug, branded drug, safety, toxicity, adverse events, clinical efficacy, bioequivalence, bioavailability, psychoactive drugs, and excipients.

RESULTS

Few publications compared the bioequivalence and efficacy of brand-name and generic psychoactive drugs. Those that were identified revealed differences in the efficacy and tolerability of brand-name and generic psychoactive drugs that had not been noted in the original bioequivalence studies. Specifically, l study found that plasma levels of phenytoin were 31% lower after a switch from a brand-name to a generic product. Several controlled studies of carbamazepine showed a recurrence of convulsions after the shift to a generic formulation. After a sudden recurrence of seizures when generic valproic acid was substituted for the brand-name product, an investigation by the US Food and Drug Administration found a difference in bioavailability between the 2 formulations. Statistically significant differences in pharmacokinetic variables have been reported in favor of brand-name versus generic diazepam (P < 0.001). Finally, a case report involving paroxetine mesylate cast doubt on the tolerability and efficacy of the generic formulation.

CONCLUSION

The essential-similarity requirement should be extended to include more rigorous analyses of tolerability and efficacy in actual patients as well as in healthy subjects.

Bioavailability and dissolution of proprietary and generic formulations of phenytoin

A comparative study of the bioavailability of seven formulations of phenytoin was carried out on 17 patients with epilepsy who were taking phenytoin regularly as part of their drug therapy. Three patients withdrew for personal reasons. No significant differences were found between Epanutin capsules and other generic formulations. However significant differences were noted between the generic products. Phenytoin BP tablets manufactured by Regent Laboratories (now withdrawn) had a relative bioavailability of only 76% compared with tablets manufactured by A H Cox and Company. In vitro dissolution tests requirements were met by all formulations of generic 100 mg tablets, and it was concluded that in vitro dissolution tests are not reliable indicators of biological equivalence. Significantly higher plasma levels were found with Epanutin Infatabs, but this was accounted for by their higher content of phenytoin, which is present in the acid form rather than the sodium salt.

Neurotoxicity of phenytoin administered to newborn mice on developing cerebellum

To examine the neurotoxic effects of phenytoin (PHT) on cerebellar development, we administered 50 mg/kg PHT suspended in sesame oil orally to newborn Jcl:ICR mice once a day during postnatal days 2-14 and determined plasma PHT concentrations at designated intervals during the administration period. In the treated group, walking reflex and negative geotaxis were poorly developed on postnatal day 14. Pyknotic cells in the external granular layer (EGL) significantly increased and were prominent in the vermis area compared with controls on postnatal day 14. Plasma PHT levels were 34-36 micrograms/ml on the 3rd day of PHT treatment and approached a steady-state situation. Total brain weight, size of the cerebellum, and cerebellar weight were significantly reduced in the treated group on postnatal day 56. Accordingly, oral administration of PHT in the neonatal period induced neurotoxic damage on the developing cerebellum.