Pharmacodynamics of nine generic products of amikacin compared with the innovator in the neutropenic mouse thigh infection model

Intravenously delivered aminoglycoside antibiotics, tobramycin and amikacin, are not ototoxic in mice

Many drugs on the World Health Organization's list of critical medicines are ototoxic, destroying sensory hair cells within the ear. These drugs preserve life, but patients can experience side effects including permanent hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction. Aminoglycoside ototoxicity was first recognised 80 years ago. However, no preventative treatments have been developed. In order to develop such treatments, we must identify the factors driving hair cell death. In vivo, studies of cell death are typically conducted using mouse models. However, a robust model of aminoglycoside ototoxicity does not exist. Previous studies testing aminoglycoside delivery via intraperitoneal or subcutaneous injection have produced variable ototoxic effects in the mouse. As a result, surgical drug delivery to the rodent ear is often used to achieve ototoxicity. However, this technique does not accurately model clinical practice. In the clinic, aminoglycosides are administered to humans intravenously (i.v.). However, repeated i.v. delivery has not been reported in the mouse. This study evaluated whether repeated i.v. administration of amikacin or tobramycin would induce hearing loss. Daily i.v. injections over a two-week period were well tolerated and transient low frequency hearing loss was observed in the aminoglycoside treatment groups. However, the hearing changes observed did not mimic the high frequency patterns of hearing loss observed in humans. Our results indicate that the i.v. delivery of tobramycin or amikacin is not an effective technique for inducing ototoxicity in mice. This result is consistent with previously published reports indicating that the mouse cochlea is resistant to systemically delivered aminoglycoside ototoxicity.

Nontherapeutic equivalence of a generic product of imipenem-cilastatin is caused more by chemical instability of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (imipenem) than by its substandard amount of cilastatin

Background

We demonstrated therapeutic nonequivalence of “bioequivalent” generics for meropenem, but there is no data with generics of other carbapenems.

Methods

One generic product of imipenem-cilastatin was compared with the innovator in terms of in vitro susceptibility testing, pharmaceutical equivalence, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) equivalence in the neutropenic mouse thigh, lung and brain infection models. Both pharmaceutical forms were then subjected to analytical chemistry assays (LC/MS).

Results and conclusion

The generic product had 30% lower concentration of cilastatin compared with the innovator of imipenem-cilastatin. Regarding the active pharmaceutical ingredient (imipenem), we found no differences in MIC, MBC, concentration or potency or AUC, confirming equivalence in terms of in vitro activity. However, the generic failed therapeutic equivalence in all three animal models. Its E_max against S. aureus in the thigh model was consistently lower, killing from 0.1 to 7.3 million less microorganisms per gram in 24 hours than the innovator (P = 0.003). Against K. pneumoniae in the lung model, the generic exhibited a conspicuous Eagle effect fitting a Gaussian equation instead of the expected sigmoid curve of the Hill model. In the brain infection model with P. aeruginosa, the generic failed when bacterial growth was >4 log₁₀ CFU/g in 24 hours, but not if it was less than 2.5 log₁₀ CFU/g. These large differences in the PD profile cannot be explained by the lower concentration of cilastatin, and rather suggested a failure attributable to the imipenem constituent of the generic product. Analytical chemistry assays confirmed that, besides having 30% less cilastatin, the generic imipenem was more acidic, less stable, and exhibited four different degradation masses that were absent in the innovator.