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.

Is generic prescribing acceptable in epilepsy?

There is considerable debate about the role of generic prescribing for people with epilepsy. The arguments go beyond simple considerations of cost on one hand and the possibility of toxicity or loss of seizure control on the other. The concepts of bioavailability and bioequivalence require further consideration. The measures that are currently used may not apply equally well to all situations. For example, additional measures may be needed for controlled-release preparations and in the other special cases. There is an extensive literature on the bioequivalence of various phenytoin preparations. This anticonvulsant drug is poorly soluble in water, has nonlinear kinetics and has a narrow therapeutic range, implying that problems with bioequivalence are likely to occur. This is borne out by clinical experience. There are a few published investigations on carbamazepine. The systematic studies, on the whole, fail to show major differences in bioequivalence between the various formulations. There is sparse information on the comparison between generic and proprietary formulations of other anticonvulsant drugs. Whatever arguments might be put forward supporting brand name or generic prescribing, there are strong reasons for recommending tight control on the consistency of anticonvulsant drugs, both generic and proprietary. There is also a strong case for ensuring that the physician who signs the prescription remains in control of the situation and that any decisions that the physician makes should be based on accurate and reliable information.

Generic prescribing for epilepsy. Is it safe?

Generic prescribing for epilepsy remains controversial. This study aimed to ascertain if a change occurred in the incidence of seizures or side-effects when a different pharmaceutical manufacturer's version of the same antiepileptic drug was taken (a 'switch'). Forty general practices with a list size of 350 168 were recruited. They identified 2285 people being treated for epilepsy with either carbamazepine, phenytoin or sodium valproate. A questionnaire was sent to the people with epilepsy. Those who recalled taking a different pharmaceutical manufacturer's supply of the same antiepileptic drug over the last 2 years were interviewed by their practice if they reported a problem with the control of their epilepsy after a 'switch'. One thousand, three hundred and thirty-three (58.8%) people with epilepsy responded: 251 (18.7%) had experienced a 'switch', 27 (10.8%) reported 'validated' problems; 25 (9.9%) reported unproven problems; 22 (8.8%) reported problems, but follow-up was incomplete; 177 (70.5%) reported no problems. This study suggests that money saved by generic prescribing is outweighed by negative health gain for the person with epilepsy, increased work in general practice, and increased social costs.

Anticonvulsant activity of phenytoin-lipid conjugates, a new class of phenytoin prodrugs

The anticonvulsant activity of phenytoin-lipid conjugates obtained by covalent binding of 3-hydroxy-methylphenytoin to dimyristoylglycerides via a succinidyl linkage, to 2-(1,3-dimyristoylglyceryl)butyric acid and to 3-myristoyl-2-myristoylmethylpropionic acid was evaluated in the maximal electroshock (MES) test and the seizure threshold test with subcutaneous pentetrazol. The phenytoin-lipid conjugates were less active than the parent drug in the MES test after intraperitoneal administration as suspensions, but exhibited comparable activity when injected as a solution in dimethylsulphoxide. They also protected mice from MES-induced seizures following oral administration of aqueous suspensions of the compounds or when incorporated into emulsions. The anticonvulsant activity could be correlated to in-vitro pancreatic lipase-mediated hydrolysis. The bis-deacyl derivatives were at least as active but in some cases also more toxic than phenytoin. Oral administration of two of the lipid conjugates resulted in a faster onset of the anticonvulsant activity compared with the administration of an equimolar dose of phenytoin itself. All compounds were inactive in the subcutaneous pentetrazol test. It is concluded that the lipids act as prodrugs of phenytoin, which is generated by lipolysis upon oral administration.

Bioavailability of three phenytoin preparations in healthy subjects and in epileptics

Serum phenytoin concentrations have been studied in epileptic patients and healthy subjects taking tablets of phenytoin calcium (Desitin), A, phenytoin acid (Desitin), B, and phenytoin acid (Nordmark), C. Retrospective data and prospective investigation of hospitalized patients on long-term phenytoin treatment showed that significantly higher serum concentrations of phenytoin were produced by the phenytoin acid preparations B and C than by the phenytoin calcium preparation A. In a cross over study six volunteers received 200 mg/day of preparations A, B, and C for three weeks. In this study, too, higher phenytoin serum concentrations were produced by B and C than by A, although the differences were not statistically significant. The reasons for the discrepancies between the studies in healthy and epileptic subjects are discussed.