Generic and therapeutic substitutions: Are they always ethical in their own terms?

Pharmacy World and Science

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 691-695

  AlAmeri, Mubarak ^a   Epstein, Miran ^a   Johnston, Atholl ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bioequivalence trials; Ethics; Generic substitution; Non inferiority trials; Therapeutic substitution

Indexed keywords

BIOEQUIVALENCE; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SUBSTITUTION; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL PRACTICE; NOTE; PATIENT RIGHT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHARMACEUTICAL CARE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COST CONTROL; DRUG SUBSTITUTION; DRUGS, GENERIC; HUMANS;

EID: 79952637811     PISSN: 09281231     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-010-9429-2     Document Type: Note

References (37)

1. Johnston A. Challenges of therapeutic substitution of drugs for economic reasons: focus on CVD prevention. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(4):871-8
2. Suh DC. Trends of generic substitution in community pharmacies. Pharm World Sci. 1999;21(6):260-5.
3. Kereiakes DJ, Willerson JT. Therapeutic substitution: guilty until proven innocent. Circulation. 2003;108(21):2611-2. (Pubitemid 37466799)
4. National Health Service. Prescriptions dispensed in the community statistics for 1998 to 2008: England. http://tinyurl.com/2423uov. Accessed 3 Feb 2010.
5. Department of Health. Consultation on the proposals to implement 'Generic Substitution' in primary care. http://tinyurl.com/2f2wlrt. Accessed 26 Jan 2010.
6. Department of Health. The NHS Constitution for England. http://tinyurl.com/8gplsm. Accessed 26 Feb 2009.
7. Andersson K, Sonesson C, Petzold M, Carlsten A, Lonnroth K. What are the obstacles to generic substitution? An assessment of the behaviour of prescribers, patients and pharmacies during the first year of generic substitution in Sweden. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005;14(5):341-8. (Pubitemid 40716327)
8. Haskins LS, Tomaszewski KJ, Crawford P. Patient and physician reactions to generic antiepileptic substitution in the treatment of epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2005;7(1):98-105. (Pubitemid 40975284)
9. Dombrowski C. U.K. drug pricing scheme to allow generic substitution, promote innovation. EuroPharma Today. www.europharmatoday.com. Accessed 17 June 2009.
10. Johnston A, Stafylas P, Stergiou GS. Effectiveness, safety and cost of drug substitution in hypertension. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010 (accepted). http://tinyurl.com/2v6tkaq.
11. Lister S. Plan to switch to cheaper medicines will harm patients, say experts. timesonline. http://tinyurl.com/2wlhr4p. Accessed 4 March 2010.
12. Phillips B, Roberts C, Rudolph AE, Morant S, Aziz F, O'Regan CP. Switching Statins: the impact on patient outcomes. Br J Cardiol. 2007;14(5):280-5.
13. Gafni A, Birch S. Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: when costing less means costing more. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(6):523-8. (Pubitemid 46849192)
14. Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150-4. (Pubitemid 351898384)
15. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence. http://tinyurl.com/2c8fsrw. 5 July 2010.
16. Blakwelder WC. Showing a treatment is good because it is not bad: when does "noninferiority" imply effectiveness? Control Clin Trials. 2002;23:52-4.
17. Garattini S, Bertele V. Non-inferiority trials are unethical because they disregard patients' interests. Lancet. 2007;370(9602):1875-7. (Pubitemid 350180009)
18. Meredith P. Bioequivalence and other unresolved issues in generic drug substitution. Clin Ther. 2003;25(11):2875-90. (Pubitemid 37510596)
19. Pocock SJ. The pros and cons of noninferiority trials. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2003;17(4):483-90. (Pubitemid 36920651)
20. Himmel W, Simmenroth-Nayda A, Niebling W, Ledig T, Jansen R-D, Kochen MM, et al. What do primary care patients think about generic drugs. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005;43(10):472-9. (Pubitemid 41448421)
21. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Facts & statistics from the pharmaceutical industry medicines and the NHS, 2007. http://tinyurl.com/34vm2nd. Accessed 10 July 2010.
22. Bandolier. Switching Statins. 2007. http://tinyurl.com/2wdgxu3. Accessed 27 July 2010.
23. Snow V, Weiss KB, Mottur-Pilson C. The evidence base for tight blood pressure control in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(7):587-92. (Pubitemid 38124681)
24. Berg MJ, Gross RA, Tomaszewski KJ, Zingaro WM, Haskins LS. Generic substitution in the treatment of epilepsy: case evidence of breakthrough seizures. Neurology. 2008;71(7):525-30.
25. Richton-Hewett S, Foster E, Apstein CS. Medical and economic consequences of a blinded oral anticoagulant brand change at a municipal hospital. Arch Intern Med. 1988;148(4):806-8.
26. Pahkla R, Lambert J, Ansko P, Winstanley P, Davies PD, Kiivet RA. Comparative bioavailability of three different preparations of rifampicin. J Clin Pharm Ther. 1999;24(3):219-25. (Pubitemid 29354039)
27. Olling M, Mensinga TT, Barends DM, Groen C, Lake OA, Meulenbelt J. Bioavailability of carbamazepine from four different products and the occurrence of side effects. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 1999;20(1):19-28. (Pubitemid 29054650)
28. Hellstrom J, Rudholm N. Side effects of generic competition? Eur J Health Econ. 2004;5(3):203-8.
29. Kovarik JM, Noe A, Wang Y, Mueller I, DeNucci G, Schmouder RL. Differentiation of innovator versus generic cyclosporine via a drug interaction on sirolimus. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;62(5):361-6.
30. Qazi YA, Forrest A, Tornatore K, Venuto RC. The clinical impact of 1:1 conversion from Neoral to a generic cyclosporine (Gengraf) in renal transplant recipients with stable graft function. Clin Transplant. 2006;20(3):313-7. (Pubitemid 43880565)
31. Roza A, Tomlanovich S, Merion R, Pollak R, Wright F, Rajagopalan P, et al. Conversion of stable renal allograft recipients to a bioequivalent cyclosporine formulation. Transplantation. 2002;74(7):1013-7. (Pubitemid 35191253)
32. Lima DM, dos Santos LD, Lima EM. Stability and in vitro release profile of enalapril maleate from different commercially available tablets: possible therapeutic implications. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2008;47(4-5):934-7.
33. Smith JC, Tarocco G, Merazzi F, Salzmann U. Are generic formulations of carvedilol of inferior pharmaceutical quality compared with the branded formulation? Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(4):709-20.
34. Taber DJ, Baillie GM, Ashcraft EE, Rogers J, Lin A, Afzal F, et al. Does bioequivalence between modified cyclosporine formulations translate into equal outcomes? Transplantation. 2005;80(11):1633-5.
35. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations. 2009. http://tinyurl.com/y92ahby. Accessed 1 Feb 2010.
36. Hibberd AD, Trevillian PR, Roger SD, Wlodarczyk JH, Stein AM, Bohringer EG, et al. Assessment of the bioequivalence of a generic cyclosporine A by a randomized controlled trial in stable renal recipients. Transplantation. 2006;81(5):711-7.
37. Andorno R. The precautionary principle: a new legal standard for a technological age. J Int Biotechnol Law. 2004;1:11-9.