16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Calidad biofarmacéutica e intercambiabilidad de medicamentos Translated title: Biopharmaceutical quality and interchange of drugs

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Resumen Introducción: La industria farmacéutica que busca la aprobación para comercializar un medicamento genérico debe presentar datos que demuestren que la formulación genérica proporciona la misma calidad, eficacia y seguridad que el medicamento innovador. Por lo tanto, la mayoría de los medicamentos genéricos administrados por vía oral están aprobados en función de los resultados de uno o más estudios fisicoquímicos y biofarmacéuticos para demostrar bioequivalencia y posterior intercambiabilidad. Objetivo: Identificar en los artículos de investigación las posibles diferencias entre las pruebas fisicoquímicas y biofarmacéuticas de bioequivalencia de medicamentos genéricos con la de sus homólogos ya comercializados. Método: Se realizó la revisión de estudios de investigación originales, publicados desde enero del año 2003 hasta diciembre del 2019. Se consultaron 4 bases de datos Pubmed, ScienceDirect, Lilacs, Scielo. En inglés y español. Los descriptores utilizados fueron medicamento genérico, bioequivalencia, equivalencia terapéutica e intercambialidad, así mismo solo se seleccionaron aquellos artículos donde su forma farmacéutica de estudio fuese comprimidos. Resultados: Se seleccionaron en total 40 artículos para su evaluación, de los cuales 19 llegaron a la conclusión de bioequivalencia, otros 19 determinaron no bioequivalencia, para 1 no existía una conclusión definitiva, mientras que en 1 estudio que evaluaba a 3 medicamentos, la conclusión fue no bioequivalencia para 2 de ellos y para el tercero sí la había. Conclusión: La revisión revela que los estudios son insuficientes para indicar bioequivalencia entre los fármacos multifuentes (genéricos) y los innovadores, por lo que se necesita ampliar los estudios de bioequivalencia.

          Translated abstract

          Abstract Introduction: The pharmaceutical industry seeking approval to market a generic drug must submit data demonstrating that the generic formulation provides the same quality, efficacy, and safety of the innovative drug. Therefore, most orally administered generic drugs are approved based on the results of one or more physicochemical and biopharmaceutical studies to demonstrate bioequivalence and subsequent interchangeability. Objective: Identify in research articles the possible differences between the physicochemical and biopharmaceutical tests of bioequivalence of generic drugs with that of their corresponding innovative equivalents. Method: The original research studies, published from January 2003 to December 2019, were reviewed. 4 databases were consulted Pubmed, ScienceDirect, Lilacs, Scielo. In English and Spanish. The descriptors used were generic medicine, bioequivalence, therapeutic equivalence and interchangeability, likewise only those articles where their study pharmaceutical form was tablets were selected. Results: A total of 40 articles were selected for evaluation, of which 19 reached the conclusion of bioequivalence, another 19 determined non-bioequivalence, for 1 there was no definitive conclusion, while in a study that evaluated 3 drugs, the conclusion was no bioequivalence for 2 of them and bioequivalence for one. Conclusions: The review reveals that the studies are insufficient to indicate bioequivalence between multi-source (generic) and innovative drugs, so that bioequivalence studies need to be expanded.

          Related collections

          Most cited references53

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Bioequivalence and other unresolved issues in generic drug substitution.

          Substitution of generic drugs for brand-name products is highly controversial and often is met with suspicion by health care providers and patients. Historically, the debate has focused on the issue of bioequivalence, and clinical practice has identified a number of drug classes for which generic substitution should be approached with caution. Current bioequivalence requirements are based on a measure of average bioequivalence; however, there are fears that use of this measure may be inappropriate in the case of a drug with a narrow or wide therapeutic range or high intrasubject or intersubject variability. Under these circumstances, measures of individual and population bioequivalence are proposed to be more accurate than measures of average bioequivalence. This paper addresses issues of bioequivalence and other concerns with generic drug substitution. I conducted a MEDLINE search of the English-language literature containing the key terms generic, multisource, quality, and brand and published between 1973 and 2003. The names of branded pharmaceuticals whose patents had recently expired (eg, Ventolin HFA, Adalat, Capoten, Tagamet HB 200, and Valium) also were used to search for articles on generic substitution. Reference lists of relevant articles also were searched. Bioequivalence issues are presented together with more general concerns over generic drug substitution, such as consumer perception of risk, differences in product and packaging appearance, and differences in excipients. The literature reviewed act to highlight a number of different drug categories and patient subpopulations for which generic substitution can still prove to be problematic. I recommend that health care providers continue to exercise caution in the consideration of generic drug substitution under certain circumstances.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Encouraging the use of generic medicines: implications for transition economies.

            Generic drugs have a key role to play in the efficient allocation of financial resources for pharmaceutical medicines. Policies implemented in the countries with a high rate of generic drug use, such as Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States, are reviewed, with consideration of the market structures that facilitate strong competition. Savings in these countries are realized through increases in the volume of generic drugs used and the frequently significant differences in the price between generic medicines and branded originator medicines. Their policy tools include the mix of supply-side measures and demand-side measures that are relevant for generic promotion and higher generic use. On the supply-side, key policy measures include generic drug marketing regulation that facilitates market entry soon after patent expiration, reference pricing, the pricing of branded originator products, and the degree of price competition in pharmaceutical markets. On the demand-side, measures typically encompass influencing prescribing and dispensing patterns as well as introducing a co-payment structure for consumers/patients that takes into consideration the difference in cost between branded and generic medicines. Quality of generic medicines is a pre-condition for all other measures discussed to take effect. The paper concludes by offering a list of policy options for decision-makers in Central and Eastern European economies in transition.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Pharmaceutical quality of seven generic Levodopa/Benserazide products compared with original Madopar® / Prolopa®

              Background By definition, a generic product is considered interchangeable with the innovator brand product. Controversy exists about interchangeability, and attention is predominantly directed to contaminants. In particular for chronic, degenerative conditions such as in Parkinson’s disease (PD) generic substitution remains debated among physicians, patients and pharmacists. The objective of this study was to compare the pharmaceutical quality of seven generic levodopa/benserazide hydrochloride combination products marketed in Germany with the original product (Madopar® / Prolopa® 125, Roche, Switzerland) in order to evaluate the potential impact of Madopar® generics versus branded products for PD patients and clinicians. Methods Madopar® / Prolopa® 125 tablets and capsules were used as reference material. The generic products tested (all 100 mg/25 mg formulations) included four tablet and three capsule formulations. Colour, appearance of powder (capsules), disintegration and dissolution, mass of tablets and fill mass of capsules, content, identity and amounts of impurities were assessed along with standard physical and chemical laboratory tests developed and routinely practiced at Roche facilities. Results were compared to the original “shelf-life” specifications in use by Roche. Results Each of the seven generic products had one or two parameters outside the specifications. Deviations for the active ingredients ranged from +8.4% (benserazide) to −7.6% (levodopa) in two tablet formulations. Degradation products were measured in marked excess (+26.5%) in one capsule formulation. Disintegration time and dissolution for levodopa and benserazide hydrochloride at 30 min were within specifications for all seven generic samples analysed, however with some outliers. Conclusions Deviations for the active ingredients may go unnoticed by a new user of the generic product, but may entail clinical consequences when switching from original to generic during a long-term therapy. Degradation products may pose a safety concern. Our results should prompt caution when prescribing a generic of Madopar®/Prolopa®, and also invite to further investigations in view of a more comprehensive approach, both pharmaceutical and clinical.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                ars
                Ars Pharmaceutica (Internet)
                Ars Pharm
                Universidad de Granada (Granada, Granada, Spain )
                2340-9894
                September 2021
                : 62
                : 3
                : 315-327
                Affiliations
                [2] Trujillo La Libertad orgnameUniversidad Nacional de Trujillo orgdiv1Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica orgdiv2Departamento de Farmacotecnia Peru
                [1] Lima Lima orgnameUniversidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos orgdiv1Facultad de Medicina Peru
                Article
                S2340-98942021000300315 S2340-9894(21)06200300315
                10.30827/ars.v62i3.15917
                984f59ce-8f1b-4328-913a-97d46efde2b9

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 21 March 2021
                : 15 September 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 55, Pages: 13
                Product

                SciELO Spain

                Categories
                Artículos de Revisión

                medicamento de referencia,Therapeutic equivalency,interchangeability of Drug,generic drug,reference drugs,Equivalencia terapéutica,intercambiabilidad de medicamentos,medicamento genérico

                Comments

                Comment on this article