Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

JAMA

Volumn 300, Issue 21, 2008, Pages 2514-2526

  Kesselheim, Aaron S ^a,b   Misono, Alexander S ^a   Lee, Joy L ^a   Stedman, Margaret R ^a   Brookhart, M Alan ^a   Choudhry, Niteesh K ^a   Shrank, William H ^a  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; AMLODIPINE BESYLATE; ATENOLOL; CARVEDILOL; CLOPIDOGREL; DILTIAZEM; ENALAPRIL MALEATE; FUROSEMIDE; GENERIC DRUG; HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE PLUS TRIAMTERENE; METOPROLOL SUCCINATE; PROCAINAMIDE; PROPAFENONE; PROPRANOLOL; RYTHMEX; SIMVASTATIN; TERAZOSIN; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; VERAPAMIL; WARFARIN;

BIOEQUIVALENCE; BLOOD PRESSURE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; HEART ATRIUM FIBRILLATION; HEART RATE; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

EID: 57549093120     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2008.758     Document Type: Review

References (114)

1. Fischer MA, Avorn J. Potential savings from increased use of generic drugs in the elderly. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2004;13(4):207-214.
2. Shrank W, Hoang T, Ettner S, et al. The implications of choice. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(3):332-337.
3. Goldman DP, Joyce GF, Zheng Y. Prescription drug cost sharing. JAMA. 2007;298(1):61-69.
4. Kesselheim AS, Fischer M, Avorn J. Extensions of intellectual property rights and delayed adoption of generic drugs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25(6):1637-1647.
5. Fischer MA, Avorn J. Economic implications of evidence-based prescribing for hypertension. JAMA. 2004;291(15):1850-1856.
6. Strom BL. Generic drug substitution revisited. N Engl J Med. 1987;316(23):1456-1462.
7. 21 CFR §320.1, 2000.
8. Shrank W, Cox E, Fischer MA, Mehta J, Choudhry NK. Patient perceptions of generic medications. Health Aff. In press.
9. Banahan BF, Bonnarens JK, Bentley JP. Generic substitution of NTI drugs. Formulary. 1998;33(11):1082-1096.
10. Gaither C, Kirking D, Ascione F, Welage L. Consumers' views on generic medications. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2001;41:729-736.
11. Saul S, Berenson A. Maker of Lipitor digs in to fight generic rival. New York Times. Nov 3, 2007:A1.
12. Beck M. Inexact copies: how generics differ from brand names. Wall Street Journal. Apr 22, 2008:D1.
13. Rockoff J. Cost of medicine could increase. Baltimore Sun. Jun 17, 2008:1A.
14. Stagnitti M. The top five therapeutic classes of outpatient prescription drugs ranked by total expense for adults age 18 and over in the US civilian non-institutionalized population, 2004. http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/ data_files/publications/st154/stat154.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2008.
15. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1-12.
16. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(27):iii-x, 1-173.
17. 21 CFR 320.33(c), 2000.
18. Guidance for industry: immediate release and solid oral dosage forms [Nov 1995]. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/cmc5.pdf. Accessed November 7, 2008.
19. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
20. Dunlap WP, Cortina JM, Vaslow JB, Burke MJ. Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychol Methods. 1996;1:170-177.
21. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. San Diego: Academic Press; 1985.
22. Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. Comparing effect sizes of independent studies. Psychol Bull. 1982;92:500-504.
23. Kripalani S, Yao X, Haynes B. Interventions to enhance medication adherence in chronic medical conditions. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(6):540-550.
24. Stelfox H, Chua G, O'Rourke K, Detsky A. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. N Engl J Med. 1998;338(2):101-106.
25. Ahrens W, Hagemeier C, Muhlbauer B, et al. Hospitalization rates of generic metoprolol compared with the original beta-blocker in an epidemiological database study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16(12):1298-1307.
26. Portoles A, Filipe A, Almeida S, Terleira A, Vallee F, Vargas E. Bioequivalence study of two different tablet formulations of carvedilol in healthy volunteers. Arzneimittelforschung. 2005;55(4):212-217.
27. Mirfazaelian A, Tabatabaeifar M, Rezaee S, Mahmoudian M. Bioequivalence study of atenolol. Daru J Faculty Pharm. 2003;11(3):95-98.
28. Bongers V, Sabin GV. Comparison of the effect of two metoprolol formulations on total ischaemic burden. Clin Drug Invest. 1999;17:103-110.
29. Chiang HT, Hou ZY, Lee DK, Wu TL, Chen CY. A comparison of antihypertensive effects between two formulations of atenolol. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei). 1995;55(5):366-370.
30. Sarkar MA, Noonan PK, Adams MJ, O'Donnell JP. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic comparisons to evaluate bioequivalence of atenolol. Clin Res Regul Aff. 1995;12(1):47-62.
31. Carter BL, Gersema LM, Williams GO, Schabold K. Once-daily propranolol for hypertension. Pharmacotherapy. 1989;9(1):17-22.
32. el-Sayed MS, Davies B. Effect of two formulations of a beta blocker on fibrinolytic response to maximum exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1989;21(4):369-373.
33. Sanderson JH, Lewis JA. Differences in side-effect incidence in patients on proprietary and generic propranolol. Lancet. 1986;1(8487):967-968.
34. Murray MD, Haag KM, Black PK, Hall SD, Brater DC. Variable furosemide absorption and poor predictability of response in elderly patients. Pharmacotherapy. 1997;17(1):98-106.
35. Awad R, Arafat T, Saket M, et al. A bioequivalence study of two products of furosemide tablets. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1992;30(1):18-23.
36. Kaojarern S, Poobrasert O, Utiswannakul A, Kositchaiwat U. Bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of furosemide marketed in Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai. 1990;73(4):191-197.
37. Sharoky M, Perkal M, Tabatznik B, Cane RC Jr, Costello K, Goodwin P. Comparative efficacy and bioequivalence of a brand-name and a generic triamterene-hydrochlorothiazide combination product. Clin Pharm. 1989;8(7):496-500.
38. Singh A, Gupta U, Sagar S. Comparative bioequivalence study of furosemide in patients with edema of renal origin. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1987;25(3):136-138.
39. Meyer BH, Muller FO, Swart KJ, Luus HG, Werkman IM. Comparative bio-availability of four formulations of furosemide. S Afr Med J. 1985;68(9):645-647.
40. Grahnen A, Hammarlund M, Lundqvist T. Implications of intraindividual variability in bioavailability studies of furosemide. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1984;27(5):595-602.
41. Garg SK, Gupta U, Mathur VS. Comparative bioequivalence study for furosemide in human volunteers. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1984;22(11):618-620.
42. Pan HY, Wang RY, Chan TK. Efficacy of two proprietary preparations of frusemide in patients with congestive heart failure. Med J Aust. 1984;140(4):21-222.
43. Maitai CK, Ogeto JO, Munenge RW. Comparative study of the efficacy of seven brands of frusemide tablets. East Afr Med J. 1984;61(1):6-10.
44. Martin BK, Uihlein M, Ings RM, Stevens LA, McEwen J. Comparative bioavailability of two furosemide formulations in humans. J Pharm Sci. 1984;73(4):437-441.
45. Kim SH, Kim YD, Lim DS, et al. Results of a phase III, 8-week, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial to assess the effects of amlodipine camsylate versus amlodipine besylate in Korean adults with mild to moderate hypertension. Clin Ther. 2007;29(9):1924-1936.
46. Mignini F, Tomassoni D, Traini E, Amenta F. Single-dose, randomized, crossover bioequivalence study of amlodipine maleate versus amlodipine besylate in healthy volunteers. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2007;29(8):539-552.
47. Park JY, Kim KA, Lee GS, et al. Randomized, openlabel, two-period crossover comparison of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of two amlodipine formulations in healthy adult male Korean subjects. Clin Ther. 2004;26(5):715-723.
48. Saseen JJ, Porter JA, Barnette DJ, Bauman JL, Zajac EJ, Carter BL. Postabsorption concentration peaks with brand-name and generic verapamil. J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;37(6):526-534.
49. Usha PR, Naidu MUR, Kumar TR, Shobha JC, Vijay T. Bioequivalence study of two slow-release diltiazem formulations usingdynamicmeasures in healthy volunteers. Clin Drug Investig. 1997;14(6):482-486.
50. Waldman SA, Morganroth J. Effects of food on the bioequivalence of different verapamil sustained-release formulations. J Clin Pharmacol. 1995;35(2):163-169.
51. Carter BL, Noyes MA, Demmler RW. Differences in serum concentrations of and responses to generic verapamil in the elderly. Pharmacotherapy. 1993;13(4):359-368.
52. Ashraf T, Ahmed M, Talpur MS, et al. Competency profile of locally manufactured clopidogrel Lowplat and foreign manufactured clopidogrel Plavix in patients of suspected ischemic heart disease. J Pak Med Assoc. 2005;55(10):443-448.
53. Rao TR, Usha PR, Naidu MU, Gogtay JA, Meena M. Bioequivalence and tolerability study of two brands of clopidogrel tablets, using inhibition of platelet aggregation and pharmacodynamic measures. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2003;64(9):685-696.
54. Merali RM, Walker SE, Paton TW, Sheridan BL, Borst SI. Bioavailability and platelet function effects of acetylsalicylic acid. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;3(1):29-33.
55. Portoles A, Terleira A, Almeida S, et al. Bioequivalence study of two formulations of enalapril, at a single oral dose of 20 mg. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2004;65(1):34-46.
56. Assawawitoontip S, Wiwanitkit V. A randomized crossover study to evaluate LDL-cholesterol lowering effect of a generic product of simvastatin (Unison company) compared to simvastatin (Zocor) in hypercholesterolemic subjects. J Med Assoc Thai. 2002;85(suppl 1):S118-S124.
57. Wiwanitkit V, Wangsaturaka D, Tangphao O. LDL-cholesterol lowering effect of a generic product of simvastatin compared to simvastatin (Zocor) in Thai hypercholesterolemic subjects. BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2002;2:1.
58. Tsai YS, Lan SK, Ou JH, Tzai TS. Effects of branded versus generic terazosin hydrochloride in adults with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Clin Ther. 2007;29(4):670-682.
59. Amit G, Rosen A, Wagshal AB, et al. Efficacy of substituting innovator propafenone for its generic formulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 2004;93(12):1558-1560.
60. Kasmer RJ, Nara AR, Green JA, Chawla AK, Fleming GM. Comparable steady-state bioavailability between two preparations of conventional-release procainamide hydrochloride. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1987;21(2):183-186.
61. Handler J, Nguyen TT, Rush S, Pham NT. A blinded, randomized, crossover study comparing the efficacy and safety of generic warfarin sodium to Coumadin. Prev Cardiol. 1998;4:13-20.
62. Pereira JA, Holbrook AM, Dolovich L, et al. Are brand-name and generic warfarin interchangeable? Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39(7-8):1188-1193.
63. Paterson JM, Naglie G, Laupacis A, Stukel T. Clinical consequences of generic warfarin substitution. JAMA. 2006;296(16):1969-1972.
64. Lee HL, Kan CD, Yang YJ. Efficacy and tolerability of the switch from a branded to a generic warfarin sodium product. Clin Ther. 2005;27(3):309-319.
65. Halkin H, Shapiro J, Kurnik D, Loebstein R, Shalev V, Kokia E. Increased warfarin doses and decreased international normalized ratio response after nationwide generic switching. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2003;74(3):215-221.
66. Witt DM, Tillman DJ, Evans CM, Plotkin TV, Sadler MA. Evaluation of the clinical and economic impact of a brand name-to-generic warfarin sodium conversion program. Pharmacotherapy. 2003;23(3):360-368.
67. Milligan PE, Banet GA, Waterman AD, Gatchel SK, Gage BF. Substitution of generic warfarin for Coumadin in an HMO setting. Ann Pharmacother. 2002;36(5):764-768.
68. Weibert RT, Yaeger BF, Wittkowsky AK, et al. A randomized, crossover comparison of warfarin products in the treatment of chronic atrial fibrillation. Ann Pharmacother. 2000;34(9):981-988.
69. Swenson CN, Fundak G. Observational cohort study of switching warfarin sodium products in a managed care organization. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2000;57(5):452-455.
70. Neutel JM, Smith DH. A randomized crossover study to compare the efficacy and tolerability of Barr warfarin sodium to the currently available Coumadin. Cardiovasc Rev Rep. 1998;19(2):49-59.
71. Richton-Hewett S, Foster E, Apstein CS. Medical and economic consequences of a blinded oral anti-coagulant brand change at a municipal hospital. Arch Intern Med. 1988;148(4):806-808.
72. Benditt DG. Generic antiarrhythmic drugs. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 1999;3(2):145-147.
73. Benet LZ. Relevance of pharmacokinetics in narrow therapeutic index drugs. Transplant Proc. 1999;31(3):1642-1644.
74. Benson SR, Vance-Bryan K. In favor of Coumadin over generic warfarin. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1998;55(7):727-729.
75. Burns M. Management of narrow therapeutic index drugs. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 1999;7(2):137-143.
76. Calvert RT. Bioequivalence and generic prescribing. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1996;48(1):9-10.
77. Consumers' Association. Generic medicines: can quality be assured? Drug Ther Bull. 1997;35(2):9-11.
78. DeCara JM, Croze S, Falk RH. Generic warfarin: a cost-effective alternative to brand-name drug or a clinical wild card? Chest. 1998;113(2):261-263.
79. Haines ST. Reflections on generic warfarin. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1998;55(7):729-733.
80. Hendeles L, Hochhaus G, Kazerounian S. Generic and alternative-brand-name pharmaceutical equivalents. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1993;50(2):323-329.
81. Keith LG, Oleszczuk JJ, Stika CS, Stine S. Generics: what's in a name? Int J Fertil Womens Med. 1998;43(3):139-149.
82. Marzo A, Balant LP. Bioequivalence: an updated reappraisal addressed to applications of interchangeable multi-source pharmaceutical products. Arzneimittelforschung. 1995;45(2):109-115.
83. Meredith PA. Generic drugs: therapeutic equivalence. Drug Saf. 1996;15(4):233-242.
84. Meyer GF. History and regulatory issues of generic drugs. Transplant Proc. 1999;31(3A)(suppl):10S-12S.
85. Meyer M, Chan K, Bolton S. Generic warfarin: implications for patient care. Pharmacotherapy. 1998;18(4):884-886.
86. Meyer MC. Generic drug product equivalence. Am J Manag Care. 1998;4(8):1183-1192.
87. Murphy JE. Generic substitution andoptimal patient care. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(5):429-433.
88. Scheidt S, Reidenberg MM. Generic warfarin: a difficult decision. Cardiovasc Rev Rep. 1998;19(2):46-48.
89. Wittkowsky AK. Generic warfarin: implications for patient care. Pharmacotherapy. 1997;17(4):640-643.
90. Abelli C, Andriollo O, Machuron L, Videau JY, Vennat B, Pouget MP. Pharmaceutical equivalence of generic essential drugs. STP Pharma Pratiques. 2001;11(2):102-115.
91. Henderson JD, Esham RH. Generic substitution: issues for problematic drugs. South Med J. 2001;94(1):16-21.
92. Hope KA, Havrda DE. Subtherapeutic INR values associated with a switch to generic warfarin. Ann Pharmacother. 2001;35(2):183-187.
93. McGavock H. Generic substitution: issues relating to the Australian experience. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2001;10(6):555-556.
94. McLachlan AJ. Frequently asked questions about generic medicines. Aust Prescr. 2007;30:41-43.
95. Meredith P. Bioequivalenceandother unresolved issues in generic drug substitution. Clin Ther. 2003;25(11):2875-2890.
96. Reiffel JA. Issues in the use of generic antiarrhythmic drugs. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2001;16(1):23-29.
97. Reiffel JA. Formulation substitution: a frequently overlooked variable in cardiovascular drug management. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2004;47(1):3-10.
98. Reiffel JA. Formulation substitution and other pharmacokinetic variability. Am J Cardiol. 2000;85(10A):46D-52D.
99. Renn E. Narrow therapeutic index drugs and generic substitutions. P and T. 2000;25(9):487-490.
100. Sawoniak AE, Shalansky KF, Zed PJ, Sunderji R. Formulary considerations related to warfarin interchangeability. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2002;55(3):215-218.
101. Verbeeck RK, Kanfer I, Walker RB. Generic substitution: the use of medicinal products containing different salts and implications for safety and efficacy. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2006;28(1-2):1-6.
102. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Myth: generic drugs are lower quality and less safe than brand-name drugs. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(4):255-256.
103. Al-Jazairi AS, Bhareth S, Eqtefan IS , Al-Suwayeh SA. Brand and generic medications: are they interchangeable? Ann Saudi Med. 2008;28(1):33-41.
104. Ballin JC. The real costs of generic substitution. N Y State J Med. 1988;88(3):121-122.
105. Colaizzi JL, Lowenthal DT. Critical therapeutic categories: a contraindication to generic substitution? Clin Ther. 1986;8(4):370-379.
106. Lofholm PW. Pharmacists need to know as much information as possible about generic drug products in order to evaluate product efficacy. US Pharm. 1991;16(11):44, 46, 51-55.
107. McCue JD. Serious disease and generic drug: substitution risks with meager benefits? P and T. 1991;16(9):770-772.
108. Rheinstein PH. Therapeutic inequivalence. Drug Saf. 1990;5(suppl 1):114-119.
109. Schwartz LL. The debate over substitution policy. Am J Med. 1985;79(2B)(2B):38-44.
110. Somberg J, Sonnenblick E. Perspective: the bioequivalence of generic drugs. Cardiovasc Rev Rep. 1985;6(9):1010-1015.
111. Kowey PR. Issues in the generic substitution of antiarrhythmic drugs. Intern Med Specialist. 1990;11(2):146-148, 151.
112. Nolan PE Jr. Generic substitution of antiarrhythmic drugs. Am J Cardiol. 1989;64(19):1371-1373.
113. Ross MB. Status of generic substitution. Hosp Formul. 1989;24(9):441-444, 447-449.
114. Riechelmann R, Wang L, O'Carroll A, Krzyzanowska M. Disclosure of conflicts of interest by authors of clinical trials and editorials in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(29):4642-4647.