Generic and therapeutic substitution: A viewpoint on achieving best practice in Europe

British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Volumn 72, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 727-730

  Johnston, Atholl ^a   Asmar, Roland ^b   Dahlöf, Björn ^c   Hill, Kate ^d   Jones, David Albert ^e   Jordan, Jens ^f   Livingston, Michael ^g   Macgregor, Graham ^h,i   Sobanja, Michael ^j   Stafylas, Panagiotis ^k   Rosei, Enrico Agabiti ^l   Zamorano, José ^m  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b The Cardiovascular Institute   (France)

^c SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^d InPractice Training   (United Kingdom)

^e ST MARY'S UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^f Institute for Clinical Pharmacology   (Germany)

^g Heart Europe   (United Kingdom)

^h ST GEORGE'S UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ The Blood Pressure Association   (United Kingdom)

^j NHS Alliance   (United Kingdom)

^k AHEPA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Greece)

^l UNIVERSITY OF BRESCIA   (Italy)

^m HOSPITAL CLÍNICO SAN CARLOS   (Spain)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT; GENERIC DRUG;

ADVERSE OUTCOME; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMORBIDITY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST CONTROL; DRUG COST; DRUG FORMULATION; DRUG SUBSTITUTION; EUROPE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; INFORMED CONSENT; MENTAL CAPACITY; NOTE; PATIENT SAFETY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; DRUG SUBSTITUTION; DRUGS, GENERIC; EUROPE; HUMANS; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC;

EID: 80053916376     PISSN: 03065251     EISSN: 13652125     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2011.03987.x     Document Type: Note

References (12)

1. Meredith PA. Potential concerns about generic substitution: bioequivalence versus therapeutic equivalence of different amlodipine salt forms. Curr Med Res Opin 2009; 25: 2179-89.
2. Thomas K, Koelwel C, Machei U, Färber L, Göpferich A. Three generations of cyclosporine A formulations: an in vitro comparison. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 2005; 31: 357-66.
3. Pouwels MJ, Hooymans PM, van der Aa GC, Gribnau FW. Comparison of steady-state serum concentrations of digoxin in tablets (Lanoxin) and capsules (Lanoxicaps) in the elderly. DICP 1991; 25: 1043-6.
4. Carter BL, Noyes MA, Demmler RW. Differences in serum levels and responses to generic verapamil in the elderly. Pharmacotherapy 1993; 13: 359-68.
5. Kesselheim AS, Misono AS, Lee JL, Stedman MR, Brookhart MA. Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2008; 300: 2514-26.
6. Tayrouz Y, Ding R, Burhenne J, Riedel K-D, Weiss J. Pharmacokinetic and pharmaceutic interaction between digoxin and Cremophor RH40. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2003; 73: 397-405.
7. Wandel C, Kim RB, Stein CM. 'Inactive' excipients such as Cremophor can affect in vivo drug disposition. Clin Pharm Ther 2003; 73: 394-6.
8. Gomez Y, Adams E, Hoogmartens J. Analysis of purity in 19 drug product tablets containing clopidogrel: 18 copies versus the original brand. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2004; 34: 341-8.
9. Lindgren-Furmaga EM, Schuna AA, Wolff NL, Goodfriend TL. Cost of switching hypertensive patients from enalapril maleate to lisinopril. Am J Hosp Pharm 1991; 48: 276-9.
10. Stafilas PC, Sarafidis PA, Lasaridis AN, Aletras VH, Niakas DA. An economic evaluation of the 2003 European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of mild-to-moderate hypertension in Greece. Am J Hypertens 2005; 18: 1233-40.
11. Murawski MM, Abdelgawad T. Exploration of the impact of preferred drug lists on hospital and physician visits and the costs to Medicaid. Am J Manag Care 2005; 11: SP35-42.
12. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence. Effective from August 1st 2010. Available at: (last accessed 3 June 2011).