Search

Regulatory authorities authorize the clinical use of generic drugs (GD) based on bioequivalence studies, which consist of the evaluation of pharmacokinetics after a single dose in vitro or in healthy individuals. There are few data on clinical equivalence between generic and branded antibiotics. Our aim was to synthesize and analyze the available evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of generic antibiotics compared to their original formulations. A systematic review was performed on Medline (PubMed) and Embase and validated through Epistemonikos and Google Scholar. The last search was conducted on 30 June 2022. Meta-analyses of clinical cure and mortality outcomes were performed. One randomized clinical trial (RCT) and 10 non-randomized intervention studies were included. No differences in clinical cure were observed between groups in the meta-analysis (OR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.61–1.28]; I2 = 70%, p = 0.005). No difference was observed between groups when considering the use of carbapenems for overall mortality (OR = 0.99, 95% CI [0.63–1.55]; I2 = 78%) or death associated with infections (OR = 0.79, 95% CI [0.48–1.29], I2 = 67%). Most of the studies were observational, and the duration of follow-up, the characteristics of the participants, and the sites of infections were heterogeneous. Due to the uncertainty of the evidence, it is not possible to contraindicate the use of generics, which is an important strategy to expand access.

Background: The impact of antimicrobials generic entry (GE) is controversial. Their introduction could provide an economic benefit yet may also increase their consumption, leading to a higher risk of resistance. Our aim was to analyze the impact of GE on trends of antimicrobial consumption in an acute-care hospital. Methods: A retrospective quasi-experimental interrupted time series analysis was conducted at a 400-bed tertiary hospital in Barcelona, Spain. All antimicrobials for systemic use for which a generic product entered the hospital from January 2000 to December 2019 were included. Antimicrobial consumption was expressed as DDD/100 bed days. Results: After GE, the consumption of cefotaxime (0.09, p < 0.001), meropenem (0.54, p < 0.001), and piperacillin-tazobactam (0.13, p < 0.001) increased, whereas the use of clindamycin (−0.03, p < 0.001) and itraconazole (−0.02, p = 0.01) was reduced. An alarming rise in cefepime (0.004), daptomycin (1.02), and cloxacillin (0.05) prescriptions was observed, despite not achieving statistical significance. On the contrary, the use of amoxicillin (−0.07), ampicillin (−0.02), cefixime (−0.06), fluconazole (−0.13), imipenem–cilastatin (−0.50) and levofloxacin (−0.35) decreased. These effects were noticed beyond the first year post GE. Conclusions: GE led to an increase in the consumption of broad-spectrum molecules. The potential economic benefit of generic antibiotics could be diluted by an increase in resistance. Antimicrobial stewardship should continue to monitor these molecules despite GE.