Efficacy and safety of a generic rosuvastatin in a real-world setting: prospective, observational clinical study in Lebanese patients

Comparative efficacy and safety among high-intensity statins. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aim: To summarize the evidence in terms of efficacy and safety of head-to-head studies of high-intensity statins regardless of the underlying population. Materials & methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to summarize the effect sizes in randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that compared high-intensity statins. Results: Based on 44 articles, similar effectiveness was observed across the statins in reducing LDL levels from baseline. All statins were observed to have similar adverse drug reactions (ADRs), although higher dosages were associated with more ADRs. Based on a pooled quantitative analysis of atorvastatin 80 mg versus rosuvastatin 40 mg, rosuvastatin was statistically more effective in reducing LDL. Conclusion: This review further confirms that high-intensity statins reduce LDL by ≥50%, favoring rosuvastatin over atorvastatin. Additional data are needed to confirm the clinical significance on cardiovascular outcomes using real-world studies.

The problem of choice: original drug or generic? Emphasis on rosuvastatin

An increase in the life expectancy of the population and the number of polymorbid patients with a combination of two or more diseases in different age categories, including among young people, has led to a significant increase in the cost of medical care in the field of public health. The transition from original drugs to generic ones has become a common measure to contain these costs. While this is an important goal for healthcare systems around the world, the impact of this practice on patient outcomes needs to be carefully considered. In some cases, generics may represent a suitable alternative to branded products, but this is not always the case. In particular, studies have shown that changing the drug can negatively affect not only patients' adherence to treatment, but also clinical outcomes, and a subsequent increase in the total cost of treatment, therefore, the use of generics in clinical practice still causes caution and concerns on the part of both the doctor and the patient. Due to the high prevalence of dyslipidemia and hypercholesterolemia both worldwide and in Russia, in this review the problem of choosing an original drug or generic is described by the example of such a hypolipidemic agent as rosuvastatin. According to numerous studies, rosuvastatin is one of the most potent and widely prescribed statins. Considering that most of the clinically significant effects of this drug are demonstrated in relation to its original form, the review emphasizes the importance of prescribing the original drug rosuvastatin in routine clinical practice.

Lipid-Lowering Efficacy and Safety of a New Generic Rosuvastatin in Koreans: an 8-Week Randomized Comparative Study with a Proprietary Rosuvastatin

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate whether a new generic rosuvastatin is non-inferior to a proprietary one in terms of lipid-lowering efficacy. We also evaluated its non-lipid effects including adverse events.

Methods

One-hundred and fifty-eight patients with cardiovascular risks requiring pharmacological lipid-lowering therapy were screened. After a 4-week run-in period, 126 individuals who met the lipid criteria for drug therapy were randomly assigned to receive the new generic or proprietary rosuvastatin 10 mg daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome variables were low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction and LDL-C target achievement. Hematological and biochemical parameters and adverse events were assessed.

Results

After 8 weeks of drug treatment, the mean percentage change in LDL-C was not different between the groups (−45.5%±19.9% and −45.1%±19.0% for generic and proprietary rosuvastatin, respectively; p=0.38). The LDL-C target achievement rate was similar between the groups (75.0% and 77.1% for generic and proprietary rosuvastatin, respectively; p=0.79). The percentage change in the other lipid profiles was not significantly different. Although generic- and proprietary rosuvastatins modestly affected creatine kinase and blood pressure, respectively, the changes were all within normal ranges. Incidence of adverse events did not differ between the receivers of the 2 formulations.

Conclusion

The new generic rosuvastatin was non-inferior to the proprietary rosuvastatin in terms of lipid-lowering efficacy. The rosuvastatin formulations did not exhibit clinically significant non-lipid effects with good safety profiles. Our study provides comprehensive data regarding 2 rosuvastatin formulations in East Asian subjects.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03949374