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

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.

Knowledge, perceptions and practices of pharmacists regarding generic substitution in China: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate pharmacists' knowledge, perceptions and practices towards generic substitution in the 11 pilot locations in China.

DESIGN

An online cross-sectional survey using questionnaires was conducted. A convenience sampling technique was implemented to recruit pharmacists.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The study took place in medical institutions of 11 pilot locations that participated in the pilot national centralised procurement programme in 2019. Two thousand two hundred and ninety-one pharmacists including hospital pharmacists or community pharmacists based on health-systems or clinics participated in the study.

RESULTS

Most of the participants had the good knowledge of requirements for evaluating the quality and efficacy of generic drugs (n=2118; 92.4%), and the definition of generic drugs (n=2078; 90.7%). In terms of perceptions, 67.3% of respondents were of the opinion that generic drugs are equally as effective as the brand-name drugs, and 69.0% of respondents were of the opinion that generic drugs are as safe as brand equivalents. A high percentage of participants supported the policy of generic substitution (n=1634; 71.4%). A significant positive correlation was demonstrated between total knowledge score and total perception score (ρ=0.267; p<0.001). Efficacy, safety and the direction of national policies and hospital regulations were the main factors affecting pharmacists' willingness to dispense generic drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

The study identified gaps in respondents' knowledge and perceptions of generic substitution. Pharmacists who are more knowledgeable in generic drugs tend to hold a more supportive attitude towards generic substitution. Although it appeared that pharmacists in China have largely accepted generic substitution, they still have concerns regarding the reliability and quality of generic drugs. The current issues need to be addressed for the realisation of the true value of generic drugs as part of the country's healthcare cost-containment strategy as well as the implementation of generic substitution policy in China.

A proposed taxonomy for population-level prescription use patterns

Recent and increasing discussion of prescription price transparency highlights the importance of defining, measuring and communicating prescription drug value. To help advance these goals, the authors propose a taxonomy of population-level prescription drug use patterns. The taxonomy assigns prescription use to one of five categories according to likely population-level health impact. The categories include effective, potentially discretionary, potentially harmful, wasteful, and lifestyle. The authors hope the proposed taxonomy will inform discussion of prescription drug value by providing estimates of population impact, especially the balance of anticipated benefit and harm.

Effects of generic exchange of solid oral dosage forms in neurological disorders: a systematic review

Background Generic drug exchange is common practice in most healthcare systems. While generics certainly contribute to economic savings, the altered drug formulation might be associated with potential therapeutic problems. Given the narrow therapeutic windows in neurologic indications, any detrimental effect on the therapy can lead to significant consequences. Aim of the review This review aims to investigate potential problems related to a switch from brand-name to generic or from generic to generic drug products in patients with neurologic diseases. Method The review was conducted following the PICO framework and the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched for articles published in English and German language between January 1, 1995 and October 17, 2018. Studies included in this review were randomized controlled studies, reviews, systematic reviews, overviews, cohort studies and case-control studies. Studies excluded were letters, comments, authors view, congress or seminar papers and studies with a focus on economic impact or costs. Results were synthesized qualitatively. The primary outcomes were pharmacokinetic parameters such as the area under the curve (AUC), the peak serum concentration (c_max) or the time at which c_max is observed (t_max). Results The search identified 67 studies with a great variety of endpoints and study designs. The leading indication was epilepsy. Two small RCTs were found on lamotrigine switch. Analysis of the other studies found no significant differences in pharmacokinetic parameters when switching to generic drugs. A more heterogeneous picture was revealed regarding hospitalizations, breakthrough seizures, failure of therapy, adherence and patient concerns. Conclusion While most reports were of poor quality, lamotrigine was the drug with the best available data. Summarizing the results of the available studies, pharmacokinetic parameters of antiepileptic drugs show low deviation. In contrast, data on clinical parameters are less consistent. Some studies found increased seizure frequencies and adverse-drug events, while others showed no complications. Adherence and patient satisfaction seemed to be impaired. In daily practice, generic exchange in epilepsy should be a carefully balanced decision, conducted with great caution. Further research is needed, especially regarding neurologic indications other than epilepsy.

Lack of Association of Generic Brittle Status with Genetics and Physiologic Measures in Patients with Epilepsy

PURPOSE

A patient was denoted to be generic brittle (GB) if they had a negative opinion about generics (e.g. prior history of a switch problem) or took the innovator brand of their most problematic anti-epileptic drug (AED) when generic was available. The aim of this hypothesis-generating study was to assess possible genetic and physiologic differences between GB and not GB patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

Patients (n = 148) with epilepsy were previously characterized as being either GB or not GB. Blood was collected from each subject for genotyping and physiologic testing. Genotyping for 24 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and two copy number variants (CNVs) was performed across 12 genes in each patient. Forty-four physiologic tests were conducted in each patient. Chi square analysis was performed to assess for associations between genotyping results and GB status, as well as between physiologic test results and GB status.

RESULTS

No SNP or CNV discriminated GB status in genetic analysis (genotype or allele frequency). Physiologic test results in this study were not associated with GB status.

CONCLUSIONS

Questions from neurologists and patients about generics is frequently based on applicability of generic drug standards to individual subjects. However, findings here in patients with epilepsy did not uncover genetic or physiologic reasons that explained which patients were GB and which were not GB.

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.

Exploring knowledge and perceptions on generic drugs of final year pharmacy school students in Greece

Objectives: The economic crisis in Greece has triggered an extensive public debate about the use of generic drugs (generics). Despite their cost-saving potential, generic market penetration remains very low. This raises questions on awareness of, perception on and preference for generics by health-care professionals and patients. This is a descriptive study on the level of knowledge and attitudes towards generics of final year pharmacy school students in Greece. Methods: An electronic questionnaire was distributed to 173 senior pharmacy school students in three Universities in Greece. Responses were submitted electronically. Results: The majority of students knew that generics contain the same active ingredient as the originator products and are cheaper. Students were somehow concerned with safety and efficacy of generics. The majority of students agreed that pharmacists should probably recommend the use of generics, and indicated that prescribing and dispensing practices would largely depend on the profit margin. Despite more than half of the students expressing a positive attitude towards generics, they were inadequately educated on their features. Conclusion: It is critical to improve knowledge of and preference for generics amongst health-care professionals from early on if to build the trust required to increase generic market penetration and achieve measurable savings in pharmaceutical expenditure.

Quality and In-Use Stability Comparison of Brand and Generics of Extended-Release Phenytoin Sodium Capsules

The objective of the present study was to understand quality of brand and generic products of phenytoin sodium by in vitro methods. Three commercial products were selected for the study, 1 brand and 2 generics (product-A, product-B, and product-C). Products were repacked in pharmacy vials and stored for 12 weeks at 30°C/75% RH to simulate in-use conditions. The products were examined visually and microscopically for morphologic changes, spectroscopic and diffractometric methods for chemical changes, and dissolution, assay, and impurities for performance evaluation. Capsules content of the product-A turned yellowish to dark orange color from initial white powder, which indicated a possible chemical interaction between lactose and the drug in addition to disproportionation. This was supported by pH, microscopic, spectroscopic, and X-ray diffraction data. Product-A failed to meet United States Pharmacopoeia dissolution specification of 75% in 120 min after 2-weeks whereas product-B and product-C failed at 6-weeks of in-use stability conditions exposure. Furthermore, product-A also failed to meet United States pharmacopoeia assay and impurities specifications in 12 weeks in-use period. In summary, this study indicated salt disproportionation, chemical interactions, and phase transformations of drug and excipients in the commercial products of phenytoin sodium, which may affect the clinical performance of the product.

Bioequivalence and Therapeutic Equivalence of Generic and Brand Bupropion in Adults With Major Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Controversy persists about bupropion XL 300 mg generic equivalence to brand product. A prospective, randomized, double-blinded crossover in 70 adults with major depression in stable remission taking any bupropion XL 300 mg tested bioequivalence and therapeutic equivalence of available XL 300 mg products. After a 4-week lead-in on patients' existing bupropion, four 6-week phases evaluated brand and three generics. Patients were uninformed of switching. Drug overencapsulation ensured blinding. There were no differences between any generic and brand, or between generics, in peak plasma concentration (C_max ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve over the 24-hour dosing interval (AUC_0-24 ) for racemic bupropion or major metabolites. All generics met formal bioequivalence criteria for bupropion and metabolites. There were no differences between generics and brand, or between generics, in depression symptoms or side effects, assessed by every 3-week in-person interview and daily smartphone-based self-report. There were no differences in patients' perceptions of bupropion products. Results show three bupropion XL 300 mg generic products are both bioequivalent and not therapeutically different from brand drug and each other.

Generic antiepileptic drugs-Safe or harmful in patients with epilepsy?

Generic antiepileptic drugs (AED) are significantly cheaper than brand name drugs, and may reduce overall health care expenditures. Regulatory bodies in Europe and North America require bioequivalence between generic and innovator drugs with regard to area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and peak plasma concentration (C_max ); strict cutoff values have been defined. The main issue is if bioequivalence ensures therapeutic equivalence. Are switches from brand to generic, or between generic AEDs entirely safe or potentially harmful in patients with epilepsy? We summarized and evaluated the available evidence from bioequivalence, health care utilization, and clinical studies on safety of generic AEDs. In most cases, variations in AUC and C_max were negligible when comparing innovator and generic AEDs. Due to interindividual pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability, measured differences between innovator and generic drugs may be the same as differences between different lots of the same brand. Studies from several countries based on insurance data have reported an increase in health care usage after switch from brand to generic AEDs; switchback rates are significantly higher for AEDs compared to other compounds. Patients may be confused, and nonadherence may increase, when AEDs are switched between manufacturers, perhaps due to changes in medication shape and color. But clinical studies do not report changes in seizure frequency and tolerability attributable to generics. Sufficient evidence indicates that most generics are bioequivalent to innovator AEDs; they do not pose a relevant risk for patients with epilepsy. However, some patients are reluctant towards variations in color and shape of their AEDs which may result in nonadherence. We recommend administering generics when a new AED is initiated. Switches from brand to generic AEDs for cost reduction and between generics, which is rarely required, generally seem to be safe, but should be accompanied by thorough counseling of patients on low risks.

The economic impact of switching from Synthroid for the treatment of hypothyroidism

AIMS

To compare hypothyroidism-related costs for patients who continuously used Synthroid and patients who switched from Synthroid to alternative therapies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Truven's Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2014 was queried for US adults diagnosed with hypothyroidism who initiated Synthroid and adhered to such therapy for at least 6 months. Propensity score matching matched continuous users of Synthroid to patients who switched from Synthroid to alternative levothyroxine agents. Kruskal-Wallis tests assessed differences between the matched cohorts in several categories of costs, including disease-related drug costs, non-drug medical costs, and total direct medical costs.

RESULTS

There were 10,159 individuals included in the study, with 7,991 continuous users of Synthroid and 2,168 switchers. After matching (n = 2,052 for each cohort), continuous use of Synthroid was associated with significantly lower hypothyroidism-related non-drug medical costs ($595 vs $1,023; p = .003) and reduced hypothyroidism-related total medical costs ($757 vs $1,132; p = .010), despite being associated with significantly higher drug costs ($161 vs $109; p < .001). Hypothyroidism-related total medical costs rose as the number of switches of hypothyroidism treatment increased, with continuous users having significantly lower hypothyroidism-related total medical costs ($757) compared with patients who switched twice ($1,179; p = .001) or three or more times ($1,268; p = .004).

LIMITATIONS

The analyses focused on continuously insured patients who were adherent to Synthroid for at least 6 months and results may not be generalizable. The reliance on claims data does not allow for clinical examination of hypothyroidism or inclusion of some factors that may be associated with outcomes. The analyses assume that all prescriptions filled are taken as prescribed.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that there are significant direct economic healthcare costs associated with switching from Synthroid to alternative levothyroxine therapies, and that these costs increase as patients switch therapies more frequently.

Drug Treatment of Seizures and Epilepsy in Newborns and Children

The mainstay of treatment of childhood epilepsy is to administer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). This article provides an overview of the clinical approach to drug treatment of childhood epilepsy, focusing on general principles of therapy and properties of recently introduced medications. Initiation and cessation of therapy, adverse medication effects, drug interactions, indications for the various AEDs, and off-label use of AEDs are reviewed. The distinct challenges in treatment of epileptic spasms and neonatal seizures are addressed. Finally, ideas for the future of drug treatment of childhood epilepsy are presented, with particular attention to precision medicine.

Nonbioequivalent prescription drug interchangeability, concerns on patient safety and drug market dynamics in Brazil

Since the enforcement of Generics Act (1999), three types of pharmaceutically equivalent products are marketed in Brazil: innovative reference (REF), "similar" (S) and generic (G) drugs. The S (brand name) and G (generic name) borrow from REF (brand name) clinical data on safety and efficacy and dosage regimen. G (but not S) is bioequivalent to and interchangeable with REF. Starting in 2003, Brazilian Sanitary Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) has required data on relative bioavailability tests (with REF) to approve (or renew registration of) S drugs. In 2014, Anvisa extended interchangeability notion to similar drugs with a "comparable" bioavailability, i.e., an "equivalent" similar drug (EQ). Drugs for chronic diseases and "critical dose medicines" are listed among the EQ drugs approved. Interchangeability of nonbioequivalent medicines raises deep concerns regarding therapeutic failures and adverse events. Concerns are even more worrisome if patients switch from one drug to another during an ongoing treatment for illnesses such as epilepsy, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes and/or substitutable drugs have a narrow therapeutic index.

Association between switching antiepileptic drug products and healthcare utilization: A systematic review

AIMS

There is ongoing concern whether switching between different antiepileptic drug (AED) products may compromise patient care. We systematically reviewed changes in healthcare utilization following AED switch.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (1980-October 2016) for studies that assessed the effect of AED switching in patients with epilepsy on outpatient visits, emergency room visits, hospitalization and hospital stay duration.

RESULTS

A total of 14 articles met the inclusion criteria. All were retrospective studies. Four provided findings for specific AEDs only (lamotrigine, topiramate, phenytoin and divalproex), 9 presented pooled findings from multiple AEDs, and 1 study provided both specific (lamotrigine, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, and levetiracetam) and pooled findings. Three studies found an association between a switch of topiramate and an increase in healthcare utilization. Another three studies found that a brand-to-generic lamotrigine switch was not associated with an increased risk of emergently treated events (ambulance use, ER visits or hospitalization). The outcomes of the pooled AED switch studies were inconsistent; 5 studies reported an increased healthcare utilization while 5 studies did not.

CONCLUSION

Studies that have examined the association between an AED switch and a change in healthcare utilization report conflicting findings. Factors that may explain these inconsistent outcomes include inter-study differences in the type of analysis undertaken (pooled vs individual AED data), the covariates used for data adjustment, and the type of switch examined. Future medical claim database studies employing a prospective design are encouraged to address these and other factors in order to enhance inter-study comparability and extrapolation of findings.

Biosimilars in rheumatic diseases: structural and functional variability that may impact clinical and regulatory decisions

Biologics as therapeutic interventions for human disease represent both a distinctly modern novelty and an echo of ancient, or at least old, medical practice. The similarity lies in the sense that in both the synthetic effort occurs in living organisms (an extract of a plant, animal tissue, or a cell culture) while the difference is apparent in the bioengineering required in modern methods and the corresponding flexibility to customize the therapeutic product. Although the concept of looking to living systems as a source of medically useful compounds either for research or for actual patient care has never vanished, the development of biochemistry and advances in medicinal chemistry made production by total synthesis the standard for a safe, reliable, and commercial drug production at sufficient scale. In this interval was where much of the modern apparatus for approving medical therapies came to be developed, and as such, the most proper extension of the regulatory regime to modern biologics is not entirely obvious. In particular, the notion of generics for off-patent conventional pharmaceuticals and their role in the marketplace with respect to increasing the accessibility of treatment is not congruent with the relationship between what are known as biosimilars and off-patent originating biologics. In this article, we review elements of the scientific basis for challenges in the production, use, and regulation of biosimilars. In light of these advances, we propose suggestions to modify constraints on biosimilar regulations in the interest of patient care and access to therapies.

Bioequivalence and in vitro antimicrobial activity between generic and brand-name levofloxacin

Generic agents play a crucial role in reducing the cost of medical care in many countries. However, the therapeutic equivalence remains a great concern. Our study aims to assess the in vitro antimicrobial activity and bioequivalence between generic and brand-name levofloxacin. Enantiomeric purity test, dissolution test, and in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility against seven clinically important pathogens by the agar dilution method were employed to assess the similarity between four generic products and brand-name levofloxacin (Daiichi Sankyo). All the generic and brand-name levofloxacin passed enantiomeric purity test. The results of dissolution tests were not similar among the generic products and the brand-name levofloxacin. Compared with the generic products, the brand-name levofloxacin had the smallest mean variations (-25% to 13%) with reference standard (United States Pharmacopeia levofloxacin Reference Standards). Variations were observed particularly in dissolution profiles and in vitro activity between generic products and brand-name levofloxacin.

Intrapatient variation in antiepileptic drug plasma concentration after generic substitution vs stable brand-name drug regimens

Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is still a matter of controversy and concern among clinicians and patients. We aimed to assess intrasubject variation in plasma concentrations of lamotrigine (LTG), levetiracetam (LEV) and topiramate (TPM) after generic substitution compared with a stable brand-name drug regimen in a population of patients with epilepsy. A retrospective analysis was performed on prospectively collected and stored data from our therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) database for the years 2009-2014. The main outcome variable was the proportion of patients who, after switching from branded to generic formulations, showed a greater than ±20% change in AED plasma concentrations compared to the proportion of control patients showing a change in AED plasma concentrations of the same extent while receiving stable branded formulations over repeated TDM tests. Fifty patients on LTG, 27 on LEV and 16 on TPM showing at least one TDM test while receiving generic products fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the analysis and were compared with 200 control patients for LTG, 120 for LEV and 80 for TPM. The proportion of patients showing an intrasubject change greater than ±20% in AED plasma concentrations was similar in the brand name vs generic group compared with the control one for LTG (22% vs 33%) and LEV (44% vs 38%), while it was higher in the control group for TPM (41% vs 6%, p<0.01). These are the first data in the literature about the within-patient variation in steady-state plasma concentrations of a series of stable treatments with brand-name AEDs in a real clinical setting. In conclusion, a significant interday variability in intrapatient LTG, LEV and TPM plasma concentrations can be observed even in patients stabilized with the same brand name product over time. This suggests that any change in plasma AED concentration and possible related clinical effects after generic substitution may be not necessarily related to the switch. Our results should be confirmed by large, prospective, blinded, randomized controlled studies in people with epilepsy.

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.

Generic medicines and generic substitution: contrasting perspectives of stakeholders in Ireland

BACKGROUND

The Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) Act 2013 passed into law in July 2013 and legislated for generic substitution in Ireland. The aim of the study was to ascertain the knowledge and perceptions of stakeholders i.e. patients, pharmacists and prescribers, of generic medicines and to generic substitution with the passing of legislation.

METHODS

Three stakeholder specific questionnaires were developed to assess knowledge of and perceptions to generic medicines and generic substitution. Purposive samples of patients, prescribers and pharmacists were analysed. Descriptive quantitative and qualitative analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 762 healthcare professionals and 353 patients were recruited. The study highlighted that over 84% of patients were familiar with generic medicines and are supportive of the concept of generic substitution. Approximately 74% of prescribers and 84% of pharmacists were supportive of generic substitution in most cases. The main areas of concern highlighted by the healthcare professionals that might impact on the successful implementation of the policy, were the issue of bioequivalence with generic medicines, the computer software systems used at present in general practitioner (GP) surgeries and the availability of branded generics. The findings from this study identify a high baseline rate of acceptance to generic medicines and generic substitution among patients, prescribers and pharmacists in the Irish setting. The concerns of the main stakeholders provide a valuable insight into the potential difficulties that may arise in its implementation, and the need for on-going reassurance and proactive dissemination of the impact of the generic substitution policy.

CONCLUSION

The existing positive attitude to generic medicines and generic substitution among key stakeholders in Ireland to generic substitution, combined with appropriate support and collaboration should result in the desired increase in rates of prescribing, dispensing and use of generic medicines.

Cisplatin-induced hyponatremia in malignancy: comparison between brand-name and generic formulation

Introduction

Widespread use of generic drugs is considered to be indispensable if reductions in total health care costs are to be achieved, but the market share of such drugs remains low. In general, generic drugs have the same active ingredients as brand-name drugs, but this is not always the case. Thus, toxicity profiles may vary when brand-name and generic drugs are compared. We retrospectively investigated the incidence of hyponatremia in patients receiving brand-name cisplatin (CDDP) and a generic counterpart thereof.

Methods

We reviewed the medical records of patients treated with brand-name CDDP (n=53) and a generic formulation (n=26), and compared the incidences of hyponatremia and renal toxicity. Toxicities were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Differences between groups were evaluated using the Student’s t-test, and the odds ratio for hyponatremia was estimated via logistic regression analysis.

Results

Serum creatinine levels after chemotherapy increased significantly in both the brand-name and generic CDDP groups; no significant difference was evident between the two groups. Hyponatremia of grade 3 or above developed in 30.7% of the generic CDDP group compared to 15.1% of the brand-name CDDP group (P=0.011). Multivariate analysis showed that the use of generic CDDP increased the incidence of hyponatremia (odds ratio =5.661, 95% confidence interval =1.403–22.839; P=0.015).

Conclusion

Oncologists should be aware that use of a generic CDDP might be associated with more hyponatremia than would use of brand-name CDDP.

The impact on health outcomes and healthcare utilisation of switching to generic medicines consequent to reference pricing: the case of lamotrigine in New Zealand

BACKGROUND

Many countries have implemented generic reference pricing and substitution as methods of containing pharmaceutical expenditure. However, resistance to switching between medicines is apparent, especially in the case of anti-epileptic medicines.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to exploit a nation-wide policy intervention on generic reference pricing in New Zealand to evaluate the health outcomes of patients switching from originator to generic lamotrigine, an anti-epileptic medicine.

METHODS

A retrospective study using the national health collections and prescription records was conducted comparing patients who switched from originator brand to generic lamotrigine with patients who remained on the originator brand. Primary outcome measures included switch behaviour, changes in utilisation of healthcare services at emergency departments, hospitalisations and use of specialist services, and mortality.

RESULTS

Approximately one-quarter of all patients using the originator brand of lamotrigine switched to generic lamotrigine, half of whom made the switch within 60 days of the policy implementation. Multiple switches (three or more) between generic and brand products were evident for around 10% of switchers. Switch-back rates of 3% were apparent within 30 days post-switch. No difference in heath outcome measures was associated with switching from originator lamotrigine to a generic equivalent and hence no increased costs could be found for switchers.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from brand to generic lamotrigine is largely devoid of adverse health outcomes; however, creating an incentive to ensure a greater proportion of patients switch to generic lamotrigine is required to achieve maximal financial savings from a policy of generic reference pricing.

Single dose pharmacokinetic equivalence study of two gabapentin preparations in healthy subjects

BACKGROUND

The current study was conducted to find out whether two oral preparations of 300 mg gabapentin (the test and reference capsules) were bioequivalent.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This was a randomized, single-blind, crossover study under fasting condition, with a 7-day washout period, which included 37 healthy adult male and female subjects. After an overnight fast, subjects were given, orally, one capsule of the test drug or of the reference drug. Blood samples were drawn immediately before taking the drug, then at 20 and 40 minutes, and 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 24 hours after dosing, to evaluate pharmacokinetic parameters of the single dose administration, ie, the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to 24 hours (AUCt), AUC from time zero to infinity (AUC(inf)), the peak plasma concentration of the drug (Cmax), time needed to achieve Cmax (tmax), and the elimination half-life (t1/2). The plasma concentrations of gabapentin were determined using validated high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection.

RESULTS

The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) of the test drug/reference drug for gabapentin were 103.15% (90.38%-117.72%) for AUCt, 103.53% (90.78%-118.07%) for AUC(inf), and 108.06% (96.32%-121.24%) for Cmax. The differences in tmax and t1/2 values between the test and reference drug products for gabapentin were not statistically significant. Light-headedness, nausea, and headache were encountered during the study, but they were all mild and well tolerated. The 90% confidence intervals of the test/reference AUC ratio and Cmax ratio of gabapentin were within the acceptance range for bioequivalence.

CONCLUSION

The two preparations of gabapentin 300 mg capsule were bioequivalent, thus both can be used interchangeably in the clinical setting.

Comparison of the potency of different propofol formulations: a randomized, double-blind trial using closed-loop administration

BACKGROUND

Several commercial formulations of propofol are available. The primary outcome of this study was the required dose of propofol alone or combined with lidocaine to achieve induction of general anesthesia.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blinded trial randomized patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III) just before elective surgery with the use of a computer-generated list. Three different propofol 1% formulations-Diprivan (Astra-Zeneca, Cheshire, United Kingdom), Propoven (Fresenius-Kabi AG, Bad Homburg, Germany), and Lipuro (B-Braun, Melshungen AG, Germany)-were compared with either placebo (saline solution) or lidocaine 1% mixed to the propofol solution. Depth of anesthesia was automatically guided by bispectral index and by a computerized closed-loop system for induction, thus avoiding dosing bias. The authors recorded the total dose of propofol and duration of induction and the patient's discomfort through a behavioral scale (facial expression, verbal response, and arm withdrawal) ranging from 0 to 6. The authors further evaluated postoperative recall of pain using a Visual Analog Scale.

RESULTS

Of the 227 patients enrolled, 217 were available for analysis. Demographic characteristics were similar in each group. Propoven required a higher dose for induction (2.2 ± 0.1 mg/kg) than Diprivan (1.8 ± 0.1 mg/kg) or Lipuro (1.7 ± 0.1 mg/kg; P = 0.02). However, induction doses were similar when propofol formulations were mixed with lidocaine. Patient discomfort during injection was significantly reduced with lidocaine for every formulation: Diprivan (0.5 ± 0.3 vs. 2.3 ± 0.3), Propoven (0.4 ± 0.3 vs. 2.4 ± 0.3), and Lipuro (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 1.4 ± 0.3), all differences significant, with P < 0.0001. No adverse effect was reported.

CONCLUSION

Plain propofol formulations are not equipotent, but comparable doses were required when lidocaine was concomitantly administered.

Adverse drug reactions induced by valproic acid

Valproic acid is a widely-used first-generation antiepileptic drug, prescribed predominantly in epilepsy and psychiatric disorders. VPA has good efficacy and pharmacoeconomic profiles, as well as a relatively favorable safety profile. However, adverse drug reactions have been reported in relation with valproic acid use, either as monotherapy or polytherapy with other antiepileptic drugs or antipsychotic drugs. This systematic review discusses valproic acid adverse drug reactions, in terms of hepatotoxicity, mitochondrial toxicity, hyperammonemic encephalopathy, hypersensitivity syndrome reactions, neurological toxicity, metabolic and endocrine adverse events, and teratogenicity.

Bioequivalent antiepileptic drug switching and the risk of seizure-related events

BACKGROUND

Older antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are known to have a narrow therapeutic index. As a consequence, switching between bioequivalent AEDs remains controversial in the management of epilepsy. We investigated the association between A-rated switching of each class of currently available AED and emergent treatment for a seizure-related event.

METHODS

We used a case-control method and claims data from the 2010 to 2011 Truven Health MarketScan(®) Commercial Claims Database to estimate the risk of seizure following a medication switch. Cases and controls with an epilepsy diagnosis were identified by emergency/inpatient or outpatient visit claims, respectively. Cases and controls (N=9110) were matched 1:1 by age, epilepsy diagnosis category and seizure medication. The exposure was defined as a switch between A-rated AEDs during the 90 days prior to index date. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the association, adjusting for gender, baseline Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index (0, 1, 2, or 3+), region (Northeast, Central, South, and West), and total AED medications.

RESULTS

A switch between A-rated AEDs occurred in 1053 (23.2%) cases and 827 (18.1%) matched controls. The unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of a seizure-related event for switching were 1.38 (95% CI: 1.25-1.52) and 1.27 (95% CI: 1.14-1.41), respectively. The independent risk of an event also increased with each category increase in the Charlson score (CCI=1: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.02-1.33; CCI=2: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.09-1.62; CCI=3+: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.64-2.41). Older AEDs had infrequent switches compared to newer agents and were not associated with events.

DISCUSSION

We found a modest association between AED switching and seizure-related events. Our analysis suggests that the behavior of switching alone may lead to seizure-related events regardless of the medication or type of switch. Other disease or environmental characteristics may contribute to this association. Based on these and other findings, health care professionals and patients should be cautious about switching bioequivalent AEDs.

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 antiepileptic drug prescribing: a cross-sectional study

The use of generic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in patients with epilepsy is controversial. The purpose of this study is to identify patient characteristics associated with increased odds of receiving a generic AED product. A large commercial database was used to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of epilepsy who were prescribed an AED during a three-month window. Data analysis found that those ≥65 years old had 15.7% greater odds of receiving a generic AED (OR = 1.157; 95% CI = 1.056-1.268). Patients with Medicaid were found to have 2.44 times the odds of having had a generic AED prescription (OR = 2.44; CI = 2.168-2.754). Patients residing in the Northeast had 12.6% decreased odds of receiving a generic AED (OR = 0.874; C I= 0.821-0.931). These patient characteristics could signify certain health care disparities and may represent potential confounders to future observational studies.

A high-stakes decision: Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs

In recent years, generic versions of several antiepileptic drugs have been approved and released to the US market. This article reviews some of the concerns associated with generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs.

Generic substitution of lamotrigine among medicaid patients with diverse indications: a cohort-crossover study

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists about the safety of substituting generic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Lamotrigine, the prototypical newer AED, is often used for psychiatric and neurological conditions other than epilepsy. The safety of generic substitution of lamotrigine in diverse populations of AED users is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate potential associations between generic substitution of lamotrigine and adverse consequences in a population of diverse users of this drug.

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a retrospective cohort-crossover design using state Medicaid claims data from July 2006 through June 2009.

METHODS

Subjects were included in the cohort if they converted from brand to generic lamotrigine and had 2 years of lamotrigine use prior to conversion. The frequency of emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations and condition-specific ED visits or hospitalizations were recorded in the 60 days immediately following the conversion to generic lamotrigine, then compared with the incidence of the same events during a randomly selected time period indexed to one of the patient's past refills of branded lamotrigine. Multivariate conditional logistic regression was used to quantify the association between generic conversion and health services utilization while controlling for changes in lamotrigine dose and concurrent drug use.

RESULTS

Of the 616 unique subjects included in this analysis, epilepsy was the most common diagnosis (41%), followed by bipolar disorder (32%), pain (30%) and migraine (18%). Conversion to generic lamotrigine was not associated with a statistically significant increase in the odds of an ED visit (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92, 1.97), hospitalization (AOR = 1.21; 95% CI 0.60, 2.50) or condition-specific encounter (AOR 1.75; 95 CI 0.87, 3.51).

CONCLUSIONS

A statistically significant increase in ED visits, hospitalizations or condition-specific encounters was not observed following the switch from brand to generic lamotrigine, although a type II error cannot be ruled out.

Deficiencies of the FDA in evaluating generic formulations: addressing narrow therapeutic index drugs

Generic drugs represent a significant portion of the medical arsenal in treating disease. As copies of originator drugs, these drugs have been permitted abbreviated approval under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Yet with the current cost focus upon generic formulations, potential safety issues with generics have arisen. Although there is an established criterion of "bioequivalence" that generic formulations must demonstrate, narrow-therapeutic index drugs for sensitive clinical circumstances such as epilepsy, antiplatelet therapies, and mental health treatments may require different regulatory treatment than other generic drugs. Further, in these circumstances, differences in generic formulations may lead to adverse clinical outcomes due to less stringent bioequivalence tolerances. Yet there is no mandate for comparison between different generic formulations. Countries outside the United States advocate for narrowing tolerance ranges for these high risk health situations and the drugs for their treatment. We argue in this paper that additional patient safety matters must be taken into account for narrow therapeutic disease drugs, and regulatory bodies should emphasize greater tightness in bioequivalence before these narrow-therapeutic drug generic formulations are approved.