Clinical Equivalence of Generic and Brand-Name Drugs Used in Cardiovascular Disease A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 29.98). 01/2009; 300(21):2514-26. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2008.758
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Use of generic drugs, which are bioequivalent to brand-name drugs, can help contain prescription drug spending. However, there is concern among patients and physicians that brand-name drugs may be clinically superior to generic drugs.
To summarize clinical evidence comparing generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease and to assess the perspectives of editorialists on this issue.
Systematic searches of peer-reviewed publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from January 1984 to August 2008.
Studies compared generic and brand-name cardiovascular drugs using clinical efficacy and safety end points. We separately identified editorials addressing generic substitution.
We extracted variables related to the study design, setting, participants, clinical end points, and funding. Methodological quality of the trials was assessed by Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa scores, and a meta-analysis was performed to determine an aggregate effect size. For editorials, we categorized authors' positions on generic substitution as negative, positive, or neutral.
We identified 47 articles covering 9 subclasses of cardiovascular medications, of which 38 (81%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Clinical equivalence was noted in 7 of 7 RCTs (100%) of beta-blockers, 10 of 11 RCTs (91%) of diuretics, 5 of 7 RCTs (71%) of calcium channel blockers, 3 of 3 RCTs (100%) of antiplatelet agents, 2 of 2 RCTs (100%) of statins, 1 of 1 RCT (100%) of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and 1 of 1 RCT (100%) of alpha-blockers. Among narrow therapeutic index drugs, clinical equivalence was reported in 1 of 1 RCT (100%) of class 1 antiarrhythmic agents and 5 of 5 RCTs (100%) of warfarin. Aggregate effect size (n = 837) was -0.03 (95% confidence interval, -0.15 to 0.08), indicating no evidence of superiority of brand-name to generic drugs. Among 43 editorials, 23 (53%) expressed a negative view of generic drug substitution.
Whereas evidence does not support the notion that brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease are superior to generic drugs, a substantial number of editorials counsel against the interchangeability of generic drugs.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study developed a revised high-performance liquid chromatography fluorescence method to determine plasma tramadol concentration, and thereby to examine the bioequivalence of two tramadol formulations among healthy male Chinese volunteers. The study used a double-blind, randomized, 2×2 crossover-design principle. Calculated pharmacokinetic parameters for both formulations were consistent with previous reports. According to the observation of vital signs and laboratory measurement, no subjects had any adverse reactions. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) of the test drug/reference drug for tramadol were 100.2% (95.3%-103.4%) for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to the last measurable concentration, 99.6% (94.2%-102.7%) for the AUC from administration to infinite time, and 100.8% (93.1%-106.4%) for maximum concentration. For the 90% confidence intervals of the test/reference AUC ratio and maximum concentration ratio of tramadol, both were in the acceptance range for bioequivalence. According to the two preparations by pharmacokinetic parameter statistics, the half-life, mean residence time, and clearance values showed no significant statistical differences. Therefore, the conclusion of this study was that the two tramadol formulations (tablets and capsules) were bioequivalent.
    Drug Design, Development and Therapy 01/2015; 9:1225-31. DOI:10.2147/DDDT.S73723 · 3.03 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. 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. 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). Oncologists should be aware that use of a generic CDDP might be associated with more hyponatremia than would use of brand-name CDDP.
    Drug Design, Development and Therapy 01/2014; 8:2401-8. DOI:10.2147/DDDT.S71419 · 3.03 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Mar 5, 2015