Comparative bioavailability of phenytoin from generic formulations in the United Kingdom

Therapeutic Basis of Generic Substitution of Antiseizure Medications

More than thirty antiseizure medications (ASMs) are available for treating epilepsy. ASMs differ in their potency and efficacy in controlling seizures by acting on diverse targets in the brain, often with variable pharmacokinetics. Moreover, nearly 30% of people with epilepsy have drug-resistant or intractable seizures. Generic substitution of ASMs is a complex issue. It is thought that frequent generic substitution in people with epilepsy may cause problems because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules allow too much variability across products. The standard bioequivalence range (80% to 125%) appears too broad for many ASMs, especially those exhibiting little separation between therapeutic and toxic levels. Hence, sub-therapeutic concentration may lead to therapeutic failure with seizure recurrence, which could be life threatening. A supra-therapeutic level could result in adverse effects or compliance issues. There are reported issues with generic substitutions of phenytoin, topiramate, levetiracetam, carbamazepine, and lamotrigine. There is discussion in the epilepsy community about additional guidelines, including designation of generic ASMs as Narrow Therapeutic Index (NTI) drugs and how patient education plays a role in generic substitution. Overall, based on the published evidence on specific generic ASMs, FDA bioequivalence standards are not the cause of problems with generic ASM substitution. Rather, it is imperative that physicians and pharmacists provide adequate patient education on what to expect when switching to generic ASMs, including changes in medication shape and color. Another suggestion would be to consider that all ASMs be considered for inclusion in NTI class to prevent the clinical outcome issues associated with generic ASM switching. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: There are critical aspects to consider when switching from a brand name antiseizure medication (ASM) when a generic becomes available or switching between generics. Generic ASMs are interchanged with little consideration of differences in therapeutic equivalence and other clinical factors. This article describes key issues on generic substitution of ASMs and highlights critical pharmacotherapeutic issues associated with generic ASMs.

Potential problems and recommendations regarding substitution of generic antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review of literature

Despite the availability of generic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), still patients and neurologists hesitate to make a switch due to assorted reasons. The objectives of this review were to evaluate the risks associated with the generic substitution of AEDs. In this context, we also summarized the recommendations of various international societies to treat epileptic patients. We used a number of electronic databases to identify the relevant published studies which demonstrated the potential problems and recommendations regarding generic substitution of AEDs. Of 204 articles found initially, 153 were selected for additional review. Subsequently, 68 articles were finally selected. This review concluded that potential problems linked with the generic substitution of AEDs could be bioequivalence issues, failure of drug therapy, emergence of adverse events and increase in the frequency of seizures. The reasons could be the pharmacokinetics properties of AEDs and unique characteristics of some epilepsy patients. Consequently, the generic substitution of AEDs affects the successful treatment and quality of life of the patients. Various guidelines recommend the well-controlled epileptic patients to avoid switching from brand-to-generic products, generic-to-brand products or generic to some other generic products.

Three-way, three-period, crossover bioequivalence study of single oral dose of three brands of 300 mg phenytoin sodium tablets marketed in India, on healthy Indian human volunteers

OBJECTIVE

To compare the bioavailability of two brands of phenytoin sodium tablets available in the Indian market using Eptoin™ as the reference.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized, assessor-blind, three-way crossover design study was carried out over a period of 6 months after approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Twenty-two healthy male participants received a single oral 300 mg oral tablet of either of the formulations with a 2-week washout. Blood samples were collected predose and at regular intervals postdose. Plasma phenytoin levels were estimated by high-performance liquid chromatography. Calculation of Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ was done by the linear trapezoidal rule and 90-110% margin (90% confidence interval (CI)) was used to assess bioequivalence.

RESULTS

Twenty volunteers completed the study. It was seen that the log-transformed values of Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ of the test formulations were not within the specified limits.

CONCLUSION

Bioinequivalence of available phenytoin brands indicates that switching brands could lead to variations in blood concentrations and thus impact safety and efficacy. If a brand switch is done for any reason, stringent drug-level monitoring is advised.

Rational use of generic psychotropic drugs

For economic reasons, the generic substitution of branded medications is common and welcome. These replacements are based on the concept of bioequivalence, which is considered equal to therapeutic equivalence. Regulatory standards for bioequivalence require the 90 % confidence intervals of group averages of pharmacokinetic measures of a generic and the original drug to overlap within ±20 %. However, therapeutic equivalence has been challenged for several psychotropic agents by retrospective studies and case reports. To evaluate the degree of bioequivalence and therapeutic equivalence of branded and generic psychotropic drugs, we performed an electronic search (from database inception until 24 May 2012 and without language restrictions) in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Search terms were "(generic) AND (psychotropic OR psychoactive OR antipsychotic OR antiepileptic OR antidepressant OR stimulant OR benzodiazepine)" or the respective individual substances. We included clinical studies, regardless of design, comparing branded with generic psychotropic drug formulations, identifying 35 such studies. We also included case reports/series reporting on outcomes after a switch between brand and generic psychotropics, identifying 145 clinical cases. Bioequivalence studies in healthy controls or animals, in-vitro studies, and health economics studies without medical information were excluded. An overview of the few randomized controlled studies supports that US FDA regulations assure clinically adequate drug delivery in the majority of patients switched from brand to generic. However, with a growing number of competing generic products for one substance, and growing economic pressure to substitute with the currently cheapest generic, frequent generic-generic switches, often unbeknownst to prescribing clinicians, raise concerns, particularly for antiepileptics/mood stabilizers. Generic-generic switches may vary by more than ±20 % from each other in individual patients since the pharmacokinetic properties of each generic may differ from the innovator drug in opposing directions. Ideally, therapeutic equivalence studies in addition to pharmacokinetic equivalence studies would be performed for each generic, reflecting the full variability of clinical responses due to changes of pharmacokinetic properties related to age, sex, ethnicity, genetic factors, and body mass index. This is particularly relevant, as bioequivalence studies are based on single-dose studies in healthy controls who are likely not representative of the patients who are prescribed the psychotropic medications. Additionally, individual case reports suggest potential clinical effects during brand-generic switches. Knowledge and consideration of intra-individual variations can help guide the clinical management during brand-generic or generic-generic switch periods. To optimize outcomes, clinicians need to consider that when using generic psychotropic medications, a change in the patient's clinical status can be related to psychological, interactional, physiological, and pharmacological factors that may or may not be related to the change to a generic drug. In addition, throughout all treatment periods, clinicians need to be aware of the currently dispensed product (i.e., branded or exact generic formulation), particularly when evaluating clinical changes in efficacy, tolerability, and adherence. If clinical problems occur, the first response should be an assessment of adherence and a careful dose adjustments of the generic drug rather than an immediate switch back to the originator.

Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs--a survey of patients' perspectives in Germany and other German-speaking countries

In this study, we sought to determine the patients' attitudes towards generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and their experiences with the usage of generic antiepileptic drugs in Germany and other German-speaking countries. A questionnaire was designed for a cross-sectional study. Two thousand copies of the questionnaire were delivered with a magazine edited by a patients' organization. Additionally, the questionnaire was placed on the internet platform of another patients' organization. Thirty-two percent of the patients who already experienced a switch to generic AEDs complained of problems with the switch. Patients who answered the magazine survey worried significantly more about generic substitution of AEDs than patients who answered the internet version. Patients who had never switched were more concerned about generic substitution than those who had already switched. Moreover, patients' beliefs differed between the use of generic drugs in acute medical conditions such as pain and infections and the use of generic AEDs in epilepsy.

Generic Substitution of Antiepileptic Drugs: A Systematic Review of Prospective and Retrospective Studies

Objective:

To systematically review the literature on generic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), evaluate the efficacy and safety of generic AED substitution, and perform pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis using the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) scheme to classify evidence.

Data Sources:

PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature searches from January 1, 1980, to October 15, 2010, were performed using the search terms anticonvulsant, antiepileptic drug, carbamazepine, divalproex, ethosuximide, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, phénobarbital, Phenytoin, primidone, topiramate, valproate, valproic acid, and zonisamide; bioavailability, bioequivalence, bioequivalency, bioequivalent, and substitution; and generic.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

Retrospective and prospective controlled studies of generic substitution of AEDs were included in the review. Non-English-language articles and uncontrolled clinical studies were excluded, Published articles were categorized using the AAN criteria for systematic reviews.

Data Synthesis:

We identified 156 articles. Of these, 20 met our inclusion criteria; 7 were retrospective studies, 6 were prospective studies in patients with epilepsy, and 7 were prospective studies in healthy subjects. All articles were rated Class I to Class III, using AAN criteria. The retrospective studies were categorized as Class III and showed a significant relationship between generic substitution and increased use of health care resources because of seizures or AED toxicity. Prospective studies were categorized as Class I, II, and III. Prospective studies in patients showed no differences between brand and generic drugs in PK parameters of bioequivalence. Three prospective studies in healthy subjects reported significant differences in maximum drug concentrations. Comparison of brand and generic drugs revealed no significant difference in seizure frequency; however, some prospective studies showed significant differences in PK parameters, primarily those not used for bioequivalence determinations.

Conclusions:

There is inconsistency between retrospective and prospective studies of generic AED substitution. The highest levels of evidence indicate that there should not be a problem with generic substitution, although some patients are more prone to problems with the generic products. Some evidence suggests that switches between multiple generic AED products in certain individuals may be problematic.

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.

Prescribing antiepileptic drugs: should patients be switched on the basis of cost?

To assess the costs of switching from one antiepileptic drug (AED) to another, all associated direct and indirect costs, not only drug acquisition costs, must be considered. The perspective of the healthcare system evaluated in cost-effectiveness analysis is of crucial importance. Multiple clinical factors can influence clinical decisions regarding switching AEDs. The economic cost of poorly controlled epilepsy is enormous and the most cost-effective intervention is an AED that provides total seizure control. Cost-minimisation studies have evaluated costs associated with various medications. If only efficacy and adverse events were considered, then the 'older' AEDs were generally more cost effective than the 'newer' AEDs. Most studies only examine very specific clinical situations and are not suitable for establishing general clinical recommendations. The pharmacoeconomics of AED choice is highly country specific. While switching to generic formulations is, in general, cost effective, some changes may be detrimental and more costly than remaining on the trade name preparation. For example, as a result of differences in bioavailability and possible loss of seizure control, changing patients to generic phenytoin and carbamazepine can be problematic. Fosphenytoin may only be cost effective in certain clinical situations compared with intravenous phenytoin. Seizure control should not be sacrificed on the basis of costs alone, as the major endpoint in treating epilepsy with AEDs is seizure control without adverse effects. Switching AEDs in clinical practice still depends on the individual clinical situation and choosing AED therapy solely on the basis of initial acquisition costs is unlikely to be cost effective in the long-term care of patients with epilepsy.

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.

Comparison on bioequivalence of four phenytoin preparations in patients with multiple-dose treatment

In previous pharmacokinetic studies on phenytoin, the authors found that a hybrid parameter, Vd/F, was much higher in Chinese subjects. It could be due to a lower bioavailability (F) of the tested phenytoin preparations and/or a higher volume of distribution (Vd) in Chinese. Therefore, the relative bioavailability of four phenytoin oral preparations, i.e. Dilantin (Taiwan), Dilantin (USA), Aleviatin (Taiwan), and Aleviatin (Japan), were compared in patients who regularly took Dilantin (Taiwan) with their phenytoin plasma level at steady state. Twenty-four-hour area under curve was measured by an HPLC method after substituting the daily dose with each 300-mg dose of the test preparation. The plasma level resulted from Dilantin (USA) was found significantly higher than that from Dilantin (Taiwan). Similarly, Aleviatin (Japan) gave a significantly higher plasma level than Aleviatin (Taiwan). The study in part explained the unexpected high Vd/F of phenytoin in previous studies.

A comparative study of the bioavailability of five different phenytoin preparations

The concentration of phenytoin in saliva has been measured in 8 healthy volunteers at intervals after an intravenous dose and after single oral doses of five formulations commercially available in the United Kingdom. The six doses (all 300 mg) were given in random order and at least one week apart. There were no significant differences in the mean values of the peak saliva concentration, the time-to-peak and the area under the saliva concentration-time curve between the five oral formulations. The absolute bioavailability of phenytoin varied between 68 and 74%.