Cisplatin-induced hyponatremia in malignancy: Comparison between brand-name and generic formulation

Drug Design, Development and Therapy

Volumn 8, Issue , 2014, Pages 2401-2408

  Ochi, Nobuaki ^a,b   Yamane, Hiromichi ^a   Hotta, Katsuyuki ^c   Fujii, Hiromi ^a   Isozaki, Hideko ^b   Honda, Yoshihiro ^a,b   Yamagishi, Tomoko ^a   Kubo, Toshio ^c   Tanimoto, Mitsune ^b,c   Kiura, Katsuyuki ^c   Takigawa, Nagio ^a  

^a KAWASAKI MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Japan)

^b OKAYAMA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c OKAYAMA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Japan)

Author keywords

Brand name; Cisplatin; Generic drug; Hyponatremia

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; APREPITANT; CISPLATIN; CREATININE; DEXAMETHASONE; DOCETAXEL; ETOPOSIDE; GEMCITABINE; GENERIC DRUG; IRINOTECAN; MAGNESIUM SULFATE; MANNITOL; NAVELBINE; PEMETREXED; POTASSIUM CHLORIDE; SEROTONIN 3 ANTAGONIST; TOPOTECAN; PRESCRIPTION DRUG;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHEMOTHERAPY INDUCED EMESIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CREATININE BLOOD LEVEL; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM CANCER; DRUG DOSAGE FORM COMPARISON; DRUG FORMULATION; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HYDRATION; HYPONATREMIA; INCIDENCE; LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; NEPHROTOXICITY; NON SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SODIUM BLOOD LEVEL; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY; MIDDLE AGED; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ADULT; AGED; CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; CISPLATIN; DRUGS, GENERIC; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPONATREMIA; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRESCRIPTION DRUGS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84919346904     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11778881     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S71419     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Hartman M, Martin A, McDonnell P, Catlin A; National Health Expenditure Accounts Team. National health spending in 2007: slower drug spending contributes to lowest rate of overall growth since 1998. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(1):246–261.
2. Hotta K, Matsuo K, Ueoka H, Kiura K, Tabata M, Tanimoto M. Metaanalysis of randomized clinical trials comparing Cisplatin to Carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(19):3852–3859.
3. Hotta K, Matsuo K. Long-standing debate on cisplatin- versus carboplatin-based chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2(1):96.
4. Hamdi T, Latta S, Jallad B, Kheir F, Ahosaini MN, Patel A. Cisplatin-induced renal salt wasting syndrome. South Med J. 2010;103(8):793–799.
5. Raftopoulos H. Diagnosis and management of hyponatremia in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2007;15(12):1341–1347.
6. Sekine I, Kubota K, Tamura Y, et al. Innovatorand generic cisplatin formulations: comparison of renal toxicity. Cancer Sci. 2011;102(1):162–165.
7. Niho S, Yamanaka T, Umemura S, et al. Renal toxicity caused by brand-name versus generic cisplatin: a comparative analysis. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013;43(4):390–395.
8. Hotta K, Takigawa N, Hisamoto-Sato A, et al. Reappraisal of short-term low-volume hydration in cisplatin-based chemotherapy: results of a prospective feasibility study in advanced lung cancer in the Okayama Lung Cancer Study Group Trial 1002. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013;43(11): 1115–1123.
9. Kefalas CH, Ciociola AA. The FDA's generic-drug approval process: similarities to and differences from brand-name drugs. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106(6):1018–1021.
10. van der Meersch A, Dechartres A, Ravaud P. Quality of reporting of bioequivalence trials comparing generic to brand name drugs: a methodological systematic review. PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e23611.
11. Kesselheim AS, Misono AS, Lee JL, et al. Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(21):2514–2526.
12. Dentali F, Donadini MP, Clark N, et al; Warfarin Associated Research Projects and Other Endeavors (WARPED) Consortium. Brand name versus generic warfarin: a systematic review of the literature. Pharmacotherapy. 2011;31(4):386–393.
13. Caldeira D, Fernandes RM, Costa J, David C, Sampaio C, Ferreira JJ. Branded versus generic Clopidogrel in cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2013;61(4):277–282.
14. Kesselheim AS, Stedman MR, Bubrick EJ, et al. Seizure outcomes following the use of generic versus brand-name antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drugs. 2010;70(5):605–621.
15. Yamada M, Welty TE. Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review of prospective and retrospective studies. Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45(11):1406–1415.
16. Emanuele E. Generic versus brand name drugs in psychopharmacology: a pharmacoeconomic perspective. South Med J. 2011;104(10): 715–716.
17. Talati R, Scholle JM, Phung OP, et al. Efficacy and safety of innovator versus generic drugs in patients with epilepsy: a systematic review. Pharmacotherapy. 2012;32(4):314–322.
18. Dong BJ, Hauck WW, Gambertoglio JG, et al. Bioequivalence of generic and brand-name levothyroxine products in the treatment of hypothyroidism. JAMA. 1997;277(15):1205–1213.
19. Kim SH, Park K, Hong SJ, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of a generic and a branded formulation of atorvastatin 20 mg/d in hypercholesterolemic Korean adults at high risk for cardiovascular disease: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial. Clin Ther. 2010;32(11):1896–1905.
20. Carswell JM, Gordon JH, Popovsky E, Hale A, Brown RS. Generic and brand-name L-thyroxine are not bioequivalent for children with severe congenital hypothyroidism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98(2): 610–617.
21. Olufolabi AJ, Gan TJ, Lacassie HJ, White WD, Habib AS. A randomized, prospective double-blind comparison of the efficacy of generic propofol (sulphite additive) with diprivan. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2006; 23(4):341–345.
22. Vial J, Cohen M, Sassiat P, Thiébaut D. Pharmaceutical quality of docetaxel generics versus originator drug product: a comparative analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24(7):2019–2033.
23. Leelarasamee A, Rongrungruang Y, Trakulsomboon S, Pongpech P, Thanawattanawanich P, Jithavech P. Bioequivalence, antibacterial activity and therapeutic outcome of a generic meropenem (Mapenem). J Med Assoc Thai. 2008;91(7):980–988.
24. Thamlikitkul V, Tiengrim S, Chalermsri C, Chinsawangwatanakul P, Suddhichupaiboon S. Microbiological equivalence of serum bacteriostatic and bactericidal activities of the sera from healthy volunteers receiving original meropenem (Meronem) and generic meropenem (Mero). J Med Assoc Thai. 2010;93 Suppl 1:S110–S116.
25. Nakamura I, Ichimura E, Kobayashi H, et al. Comparative study of peripheral neurotoxicity after injection of two different paclitaxel formulations in rats. Arzneimittelforschung. 2010;60(4):205–209.
26. Thamlikitkul V, Tiengrim S, Chalermsri C, Sae-Jong R, Suddhichupaiboon S. Microbiological equivalence of bacteriostatic and bactericidal activities of the sera from healthy volunteers receiving generic piperacillin/tazobactam (Pipertaz) and original piperacillin/tazobactam (Tazocin). J Med Assoc Thai. 2011;94 Suppl 1: S196–S202.
27. Oike T, Ohno T, Noda SE, et al. Comparison of hematological toxicities between innovator and generic cisplatin formulations in cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. J Radiat Res. 2013;54(3):474–478.
28. Tsukiyama I, Hotta K, Takeuchi M, et al. Evaluation of safety in clinical use of generic paclitaxel [NK] for injection. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2012;39(4):613–617.