Search

The article defines the original drug (OD) and examines the history of the appearance of generic drugs (GD), as well as the evolution of views to prove their bioequivalence to OD. The question is considered to what extent pharmacokinetic equivalence can guarantee the clinical equivalence of OD and GD. The data on the rules of registration of GD in different countries are provided. A brief overview of various types of studies comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of OD and GD (meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, description of clinical cases) and their main results is given. The results of a number of observational studies on the replacement of OD with GD and its consequences are presented. The existing system of current quality control of GD is described, numerous cases of recall of GD due to detected violations during their production are given. It is mentioned about individual cases of clinical inefficiency of GD and their side effects identified by the practical physicians. It is concluded that a qualitatively produced GD with proven pharmacokinetic equivalence to OD is able to provide therapy of the same quality as OD. However, numerous cases of the appearance of GD on the pharmaceutical market, which does not correspond to the quality of OD, make us somewhat wary of therapy based on VP. Both the practitioner and the patient should know which of the drugs prescribed by the international nonproprietary name is OD and which is GD.

Lamivudine is one of the most prescribed drugs in the world, and is used to treat human immunodeficiency and hepatitis B. This study aimed to evaluate the quality attributes and compare the dissolution profiles of two batches (A and B) of generic lamivudine 150 mg tablets with the innovator drug Epivir 150 mg tablets. We conducted an analytical, experimental, cross-sectional study, and used a spectrophotometric method at a wavelength of maximum absorption (λ) corresponding to 270 nm, to measure the percentage of dissolved drug. The study evaluated identification, content, dissolution and mass uniformity. Apparatus 2 USP (Paddle) 75 rpm, 900 mL of dissolution medium (37 ± 0.5 °C) was used in three dissolution media: pH 1.2; 4.5 and 6.8. Samples of 5 mL were obtained at 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 min. Both batches of generic lamivudine (A and B) were found to have the same dissolution kinetic profile as the innovator drug. Both formulations met the criteria of very fast dissolving (85% dissolved in 15 min), and fast dissolving (85% dissolved in 30 min) drugs. Therefore, it was not necessary to calculate the similarity factor. We concluded that generic drugs A and B are in vitro equivalents to the innovator drug Epivir. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent advances in synthetic drug manufacturing have introduced a new dynamic to the European regulatory system, with chemically synthesized polypeptide products using biological originator products as their reference medicine. Whereas biosimilars are subject to a dedicated regulatory framework in the EU, synthetically produced follow-on products are not eligible for assessment through this pathway, requiring approval via the traditional generic pathway under Article 10 (1), or via the hybrid pathway under Article 10 (3). This review presents an overview of recent developments in the field of synthetic peptides referencing biological originators in the EU. The use of different regulatory procedures can have potential implications for regulatory assessments, clinical practice and pharmacovigilance. As more complex synthetic products referencing recombinant originator products are expected in the coming years, this study promotes more transparency as well as global alignment about regulatory procedures for chemically synthesised products referencing biological originator products to ensure approval of safe and high-quality generics.

ABSTRACT: Background: A new oral paracetamol formulation with the same paracetamol quantity (24 mg/mL) as a marketed formulation but with finer active ingredient particle size and lower amounts of maltitol (5.85 g/dose in the test formulation vs 7.25 g/dose in the reference formulation) and sorbitol (2.4 g/dose vs 2.83 g/dose) was developed. Objective: Establish the bioequivalence of the new pediatric formulation (test treatment) compared with the marketed formulation (reference treatment). Methods: This Phase I, open-label trial assigned healthy adult volunteers to a single 42-mL (1 g para-cetamol) dose of test or reference treatment. Participants received both treatments in a randomized order separated by a 72-hour washout period. The primary endpoints were AUC0–tlast (AUC vs time curve from time 0 to last measurable sampling timepoint), Cmax, and tmax. Safety assessments included adverse event, clinical laboratory, and physical examination data. Results: Thirty-five participants were randomized and treated. The study population was 42.9% women (57.1% men) with a median age of 30 years; most participants were non-Hispanic White. Mean Cmax values were comparable between test and reference products, with a median tmax of 1.00 hour for both. The test/reference ratios (%) (90% CI) for AUC0–tlast and Cmax were 98.69% (96.46, 100.97) and 100.73% (95.63, 106.10), respectively. There were no adverse events or deaths. Conclusions: The new paracetamol formulation is bioequivalent to the marketed formulation.

The regulatory agencies all over the world have defined the pathway and the regulations for approval of simple small-molecule generics. In addition, the agencies are striving to form perspicuous regulatory frameworks for approval of biosimilar. According to this viewpoint, the approval of complex generics, also known as non-biological complex pharmaceuticals, is not subject to any clearly defined regulations (NBCDs). Although they differ from biologic products, complex medicines are constructed of huge, extremely complex, and synthetic components. The regulatory frameworks that are currently being used for complicated generics are opaque and uncertain. The market for complex generics is huge and there are fewer generic competitors in this area. In addition, the cost of bringing such generics into the market is high. Thus, there is a need for a well-defined pathway and guidance documents for the authorization of generic versions of complex drug products. The paper focus on the regulatory frameworks that the USA, EU, and Latin America have developed at this time to allow for the introduction of complicated generics to the market. In order to analyse regulatory policies in the USA, Europe, and Latin America for the marketing of NBCD copies, a case study of a product with an approved generic version is used. It also describes on the regulatory disparities existing among the three agencies in the light of complex generics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The medicines’ interchangeability represents a necessity in developing countries, because it offers the possibility of accessing lower cost products, it allows to ensure efficacy and safety in pharmacotherapeutic treatments. The study gather researches carried out in the Peruvian state published in high-impact databases such as Scielo, Sciencedirect, Scopus and Pubmed. Of the 553 researches found, only 10 articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, drugs such as diazepam, prednisone, amoxicillin, doxycycline, fluconazole, phenytoin sodium, alprazolam, amlodipine, carbamazepine sodium, glibenclamide, moxifloxacin and acetylsalicylic acid were identified. All the articles analyzed the dissolution profile by calculating the similarity factor f2, while, in other cases, they estimated parameters such as weight variation, friability, hardness, quantification, content uniformity, and dissolution profile. The results show that 9 drugs included in the study were analyzed by in vitro studies at different pH (1.2; 4.5 and 6.8), and complied with presenting a similarity factor f2 greater than 50. It is concluded that, the interchangeability of medicines in the Peruvian state is still in process, and that, through strategic alliances with the private sector, a greater number of pharmaceutical alternatives could be had in the patient's recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The brand interchangeability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is a topic of debate, especially regarding their therapeutic equivalence. This study evaluates the efficacy and tolerability of generic levetiracetam compared to the brand-name equivalent in a routine clinical setting. We conducted a retrospective study, examining patients with stable seizure frequency who received generic levetiracetam after the brand-name drug. During the six-month substitution period, changes in seizure frequency, hospitalization due to seizure exacerbation, adverse events, composite outcomes related to adjusting the AED dosage, and switching back to original levetiracetam were analyzed. Seventy-five patients were enrolled; the majority (85.3%) had focal onset seizures, and almost half (49.3%) had refractory epilepsy. Six months after the substitution, the mean seizure frequency per month was not significantly different (3.15 ± 14.47 vs. 2.77 ± 11.41; p = 0.970). In patients with controlled seizures before the change, the seizure frequency increased significantly (0.56 ± 1.83 vs. 0.03 ± 0.16; p = 0.012). Adverse events occurred in six patients. We have observed recurrent seizures or adverse events from 14 days after the transition. The original drug return rates due to recurrent seizures and adverse events were 5.3% and 1.3%, respectively. Generic levetiracetam might not show therapeutic equivalence to the original molecule, especially in patients adequately controlled by the brand-name drug.

The review discusses the interchangeability of medications, approaches to the registration of original and generic drugs, and types of their equivalence, as well as problems with generics in clinical practice. Results of pharmacoepidemiological studies, which have been widely carried out recently, speak of insufficient understanding of the impact of generics on remote outcomes of chronic diseases, including mortality. The longterm economic prospects of generic drug administration continue to remain unclear. Among the primary differences between generics and brandname drugs are the differences in active ingredient synthesis methods and the composition of adjuvants and additives. Comparative studies on the therapeutic equivalence of generics with their originals or between themselves are rarely conducted. They are often affected by methodological flaws, which cannot ensure their comparable efficacy and safety. In this regard, automatic replacement of drugs containing the same active ingredient should be avoided without the participation of the attending physician.

Evolution of knowledge about pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of locally acting products, and an increase in the number of generics and medicines under development have laid the ground for the development of new scientific approaches to planning and conducting of therapeutic equivalence studies of medicinal products acting locally in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. To date, many international guidelines on planning and conducting of bioequivalence (BE) studies of locally acting GI products have been updated, however, there are still no such guidelines in the Russian Federation and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Therefore, elaboration of common methodological approaches to the planning of clinical studies of these products is of particular relevance for the EAEU. The aim of the study was to analyse foreign approaches to planning, conducting, and evaluation of therapeutic equivalence studies of locally acting GI products. The paper analyses the guidelines of the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration on the planning, conduct, and evaluation of BE studies of locally acting GI products. The analysis demonstrated that BE clinical trials are giving way to in vitro studies providing a sensitive and accurate assessment of the differences between a locally acting GI product and the reference product, based on careful consideration of the medicine’s mechanism of action, dosage form, and site of action. The paper gives examples of test methods applied to medicinal products with a complex biopharmaceutical profile whose bioequivalence assessment is challenging, with a special focus on mesalazine products. The results of the analysis may be used for elaboration of a harmonised methodological approach to planning and conducting therapeutic equivalence studies of locally acting GI products in the Russian Federation and EAEU.

Abstract Background Erythropoietin stimulating agent (ESA) has been standard of care in treating renal anaemia for the past 20 years. Many patients have limited access to ESA in view of long-term costs leading to suboptimal ESA dosage. Biosimilar epoetin is a potential cost-effective alternative to originator for optimal renal anaemia management. Objective To determine efficacy and safety of PDA10 in treating renal anaemia in haemodialysis patients, in comparison to the originator epoetin-α, Eprex®. Methods A phase 3, multicentre, multi-national, double-blind, randomised, active-controlled and parallel group study conducted over 40 weeks in Malaysia and Korea. End stage kidney disease patients undergoing regular haemodialysis who were on erythropoietin treatment were recruited. The study has 3 phases, which included a 12-week titration phase, followed by 28-week double-blind treatment phase and 24-week open-label extension phase. Results The PDA10 and Eprex® were shown to be therapeutically equivalent (p

Background : Once-daily tacrolimus reduces non-compliance relative to twice-daily tacrolimus. However, little is known about the safety and efficacy of conversion from twice-daily tacrolimus to generic once-daily tacrolimus in liver transplantation (LT). Herein, we investigated the efficacy and safety of a switch from twice-daily tacrolimus to generic once-daily tacrolimus in patients with stable liver graft function. Methods : This prospective, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study was conducted in 17 medical centers for 1 year from July 2019 to July 2020 (NCT04069065). Primary endpoint was the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) for 24 weeks after conversion. Secondary endpoints were graft failure, patient death, and adverse events (AEs). Results : Of 151 screened LT patients, 144 patients were enrolled. BPAR, graft failure, and patient death did not occur in this patient population. There were no statistical differences in blood tests, liver function tests, or biochemical tests between visits in any of the patients. Median tacrolimus trough level decreased abruptly from 4.7 ng/mL to 3.2 ng/mL after generic once-daily tacrolimus conversion, but median tacrolimus dose increased due to low tacrolimus trough level. Ninety-two adverse events occurred in 54 patients. Liver enzyme levels increased in seven patients (4.9%) after the switch to generic once-daily tacrolimus, but the liver function tests of these patients normalized thereafter. There were three cases of severe AEs not related to investigational drug. Conclusions: Present study suggests that conversion from twice-daily tacrolimus to generic once-daily tacrolimus is effective and safe in stable LT patients.

Introduction: Pegfilgrastim is indicated in patients receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs to reduce the Duration of Severe Neutropenia (DSN) and incidence of Febrile Neutropenia (FN). The efficacy and safety of a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar should be compared with an approved biologic drug to establish therapeutic equivalence. Aim: To compare the efficacy of Lupin’s biosimilar Pegfilgrastim versus Neulastim® (Amgen Inc.) as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with non-myeloid malignancies. Materials and Methods: The present prospective, open-label, randomised phase lll clinical study was conducted on a total of 170 patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed non-myeloid malignancies eligible to receive a myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimen. The participants were administered Lupin’s Pegfilgrastim (n=86) or Neulastim® (n=84) 6 mg by subcutaneous injection, once in each chemotherapy cycle for a maximum of three cycles. Patients were chemotherapy naive or had not received myelosuppressive chemotherapy within last 12 months of screening. The primary efficacy endpoint was DSN (number of days on which absolute neutrophil count <0.5×109 /L) in cycle 1 of chemotherapy. Equivalence was confirmed if 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were within the equivalence margin of ±1 day. Safety evaluation included assessment of Adverse Events (AEs), rate of discontinuation due to AEs, vital signs, and laboratory parameters. Statistical analysis were done using SAS Enterprise guide 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, 2000). Results: Of the 170 patients balanced for demographic characteristics, 161 patients completed cycle 1, 151 patients completed cycle 2, and 142 patients completed cycle 3. The mean±Standard Deviation (SD) DSN in cycle 1 was 0.127±0.5533 days with Pegfilgrastim (n=63) and 0.197±0.6615 days with Neulastim® (n=66) in the Per Protocol (PP) assessment; and 0.174±0.636 days with Pegfilgrastim and 0.193±0.671 days with Neulastim® in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) assessment. The mean DSN between the groups did not differ significantly (PP: p=0.5167, mITT: p=0.8554). The 95% CI of difference in mean DSN in PP (-0.2796 to 0.1481) and mITT (-0.2103 to 0.1889) assessments was contained within the predefined equivalence margin of ±1 day. Secondary outcomes and safety profiles were also comparable between the two groups. Conclusion: The present study establishes Lupin’s Pegfilgrastim as a therapeutically equivalent biosimilar alternative to Neulastim® in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Pegfilgrastim is indicated in patients receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs to reduce the Duration of Severe Neutropenia (DSN) and incidence of Febrile Neutropenia (FN). The efficacy and safety of a proposed Pegfilgrastim biosimilar should be compared with an approved biologic drug to establish therapeutic equivalence. Aim: To compare the efficacy of Lupin’s biosimilar Pegfilgrastim versus Neulastim® (Amgen Inc.) as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with non-myeloid malignancies. Materials and Methods: The present prospective, open-label, randomised phase lll clinical study was conducted on a total of 170 patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed non-myeloid malignancies eligible to receive a myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimen. The participants were administered Lupin’s Pegfilgrastim (n=86) or Neulastim® (n=84) 6 mg by subcutaneous injection, once in each chemotherapy cycle for a maximum of three cycles. Patients were chemotherapy naive or had not received myelosuppressive chemotherapy within last 12 months of screening. The primary efficacy endpoint was DSN (number of days on which absolute neutrophil count

Abstract This work aims to ascertain the comprehensiveness of dissolution tests for oral suspensions registered in Brazil and the USA. After consulting literature since 1994, a paucity of information about dissolution methods for suspensions was detected. It makes it difficult to establish the most appropriate test parameters. In January, 2019, there were 46 drugs registered in Anvisa (Brazil) as oral suspension, being 47 reference, 173 generic and 114 interchangeable similar (IS) medicines; while in the USA, 90 drugs were registered as oral suspension by FDA, 235 Abreviatted New Drug Application and 111 New Drug Application medicines. Out of 46 and 90, only six and 15 drugs as oral suspension had a pharmacopeial dissolution test, corresponding to 70 (20.9%) and 82 (23.7%) products in Brazil and the USA, respectively. Dissolution studies were found for 17 drugs as oral suspension in the non-compendial literature. Dissolution test conditions were established to few marketable oral suspension drugs, most of which are BCS class II or IV. Thus, investing in dissolution studies could subsidize the registration of these products by regulators, especially for generic and IS drugs, by comparing dissolution profiles, and predicting their in vivo behavior to avoid exposure of healthy individuals to clinical research.

The brand interchangeability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is a topic of debate, especially regarding their therapeutic equivalence. This study evaluates the efficacy and tolerability of generic levetiracetam compared to the brand-name equivalent in a routine clinical setting. We conducted a retrospective study, examining patients with stable seizure frequency who received generic levetiracetam after the brand-name drug. During the six-month substitution period, changes in seizure frequency, hospitalization due to seizure exacerbation, adverse events, composite outcomes related to adjusting the AED dosage, and switching back to original levetiracetam were analyzed. Seventy-five patients were enrolled; the majority (85.3%) had focal onset seizures, and almost half (49.3%) had refractory epilepsy. Six months after the substitution, the mean seizure frequency per month was not significantly different (3.15 ± 14.47 vs. 2.77 ± 11.41; p = 0.970). In patients with controlled seizures before the change, the seizure frequency increased significantly (0.56 ± 1.83 vs. 0.03 ± 0.16; p = 0.012). Adverse events occurred in six patients. We have observed recurrent seizures or adverse events from 14 days after the transition. The original drug return rates due to recurrent seizures and adverse events were 5.3% and 1.3%, respectively. Generic levetiracetam might not show therapeutic equivalence to the original molecule, especially in patients adequately controlled by the brand-name drug. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Economic benefits associated with usage of generic drugs have been suggested to increase patients’ adherence to their medications and to improve patients’ health outcomes. However, the therapeutic equivalence of certain generic products to their branded counterparts has been questioned. Our study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of generic and branded ivabradine in adult patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (≤40%) (HFrEF). This was a randomized, open label, crossover, two period comparative study. A total of 32 patients with HFrEF were randomized into two groups. Group A received brand ivabradine® for 12 weeks followed by generic ivabradine for the next 12 weeks. Group B received generic ivabradine for 12 weeks followed by brand ivabradine for the next 12 weeks with no washout period. The efficacy outcomes included resting heart rate (HR), New York Heart Association Functional Classification (NYHA FC), Quality of life (QoL) using Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLWHF) and ejection fraction (EF). After taking the drugs for the first 12 weeks, no statistically significant difference was detected in all efficacy outcomes between Group A and Group B. After crossover and taking drugs for further 12 weeks, similar results were obtained. Only minor side effects, mainly phosphenes were observed in both products. No mortality was demonstrated in both groups. This study showed no statistically significant difference between the generic and brand ivabradine in terms of efficacy and safety. The results suggest that generic ivabradine can be a safe substitute for branded ivabradine for economic reasons.

Episodes of rapid increase in blood pressure due to uncontrolled arterial hypertension, previously known as a hypertensive urgency, is common clinical condition which many of practicing physicians are encountered daily. As a rule, these conditions are not life-threatening, however they could lead to target-organs damage if not promptly relieved. Therefore, clear evidence-based recommendations of optimal antihypertensive drug administration in these situations would provide more safe and effective therapy. Despite that, definite expert consensus regarding optimal choice of antihypertensive drugs to manage these patients have not been reached so far. The aim of the current review was to assess the results obtained from clinical trials regarding the safety and efficacy of moxonidine for urgent hypertensive therapy in patients with uncontrolled arterial hypertension admitted to emergency healthcare units as well as in those at the prehospital stage. Performed literature-based analysis revealed enough evidences proving that moxonidine can be administered in a single dose of 0.4 mg as a drug of choice in situations where prompt and stable hypotensive effect is desired. Results of comparative studies designed to closely match real clinical settings indicate that more adequate and sustainable therapeutic effect is achieved after moxonidine administration in comparison to other frequently used antihypertensive drugs.

Resumen: Objetivo: Evaluar la equivalencia terapéutica de dos marcas comerciales de bisoprolol -hidroclorotiazida como terapia antihipertensiva. Método: Estudio prospectivo, doble ciego, doble falso, aleatorizado, de grupos paralelos, en el que se evaluó el efecto antihipertensivo de la combinación de bisoprolol-hidroclorotiazida 2,5-6,25 y 5-6,25 mg (comprimidos BHL, formulación test) y bisoprolol-hidroclorotiazida 2,5-6,25 y 5-6,25 mg tabletas (BHM, formulación de referencia), administrados en pacientes con hipertensión arterial.Variables de efectividad: Presiones arteriales medidas mediante mediante esfigmomanómetro de mercurio al inicio y después del período placebo, a las 4 y 8 semanas del inicio del tratamiento; cambios horarios de la presión arterial durante 24 horas, mediante monitorización ambulatoria de la presión arterial. Resultados: El control de los valores de presión arterial se logró en ambas formulaciones, principalmente a partir de la cuarta semana de tratamiento. Los pacientes del grupo test ingresaron con presiones arteriales sistólicas más elevadas. Después del tratamiento no hubo diferencias entre los grupos, a ninguno de los tiempos. La relación V/P del grupo test fue 0,5-1. Los índices de suavidad de ambos fueron mayores a 1,75. Conclusiones: La formulación test de la combinación de bisoprolol-hidroclotiazida demostró acción antihipertensiva similar al compararla con la formulación de referencia. Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the therapeutic equivalence of two commercial brands of bisoprolol –hydrochlorothiazide as antihypertensive therapy. Method: A prospective, double blind, double placebo, randomised, parallel group study was conducted, in which the antihypertensive effect of the bisoprolol –hydrochlorothiazide 2.5 - 6.25 mg and 5 - 6.25 mg (tablets BHL, test formula) and bisoprolol -hydrochlorothiazide 2.5 - 6.25 mg and 5 - 6.25 mg tablets (BHM, reference formula), was compared by administering it to patients with arterial hypertension given to patients with arterial hypertension.Effectivity variables: blood pressures measured using a mercury sphygmomanometer at the beginning and after the placebo period, at 4 weeks and 8 weeks from the start of the treatment; blood pressure hours change during 24 hours using an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring device. Results: Control of the blood pressure values was achieved with both formulas, mainly from the fourth week of treatment. The patients of the test group were admitted with higher systolic blood pressures. After the treatment, there were no differences between the groups at any of the times. The V/P ratio of the test group was 0.5 – 1. The smoothness index in both groups was greater than 1.75 of fit of both was greater than 1.75. Conclusions: The test formula of the bisoprolol-hydrochlorothiazide demonstrated an antihypertensive action similar to that achieved with the reference formula.

The article describes the basic rules for the selection of a systemic antifungal drug from the fluconazole-based preparations available on the Russian pharmaceutical market. Questions of interchangeability of generic and original drugs, research of equivalence (pharmaceutical, pharmacokinetic), possible methodological difficulties of its estimation are discussed. Data on comparative analysis of original and generic fluconazole drugs are presented. The algorithm of rational choice of a drug on an example of fluconazole is formulated, property of a drug to suppress selectively activity of fungi of genus Candida, not showing hepatotoxic drugs, and also questions of correlation between reference and generic drugs on the basis of fluconazole is considered. The Federal Law “On Amendments to the Federal Law “On Circulation of Medicines“ No. 429-FZ (adopted on December 22, 2014 and entered into force on July 1, 2015) regarding the establishment of the procedure for determining the interchangeability of drugs, states: “Information on the interchangeability of drugs shall be included in the State Register of Medicines from January 1, 2018“. The law discloses the notion of interchangeable drugs, which “means a drug with proven therapeutic equivalence or bioequivalence regarding reference drugs, having equivalent qualitative formula and quantitative composition of active substances, formula and method of administration“. However, some definitions used so far in the law have been changed. Thus, instead of the term “original medicine“ the term “reference drug“ is used from July 1, 2015, which is defined as a medicine first registered in the Russian Federation, the quality, efficacy and safety of which has been proved based on the results of preclinical and clinical studies, and which is used to assess the bioequivalence or therapeutic equivalence, quality, efficacy and safety of generic or bioanalogue medicine. However, this article still uses the terms “original“ and “generic“ drugs, which are familiar to our medical community.

Background: Erythropoietin stimulating agent (ESA) has been standard of care in treating renal anaemia for the past 20 years. Many patients have limited access to ESA in view of long-term costs leading to suboptimal ESA dosage. Biosimilar epoetin is a potential cost-effective alternative to originator for optimal renal anaemia management.Objective: To determine efficacy and safety of PDA10 in treating renal anaemia in haemodialysis patients, in comparison to the originator epoetin-α, Eprex®.Methods: A phase 3, multicentre, multi-national, double-blind, randomised, active-controlled and parallel group study conducted over 40 weeks in Malaysia and Korea. End stage kidney disease patients undergoing regular haemodialysis who were on erythropoietin treatment were recruited. The study has 3 phases, which included a 12-week titration phase, followed by 28-week double-blind treatment phase and 24-week open-label extension phase.Results: The PDA10 and Eprex® were shown to be therapeutically equivalent (p < 0.0001) with mean absolute change in haemoglobin from baseline of - 0.176 (± 0.91) g/dl and - 0.118 (± 1.114) g/dl, respectively. Weekly dose change was 10.01 IU/kg/week in PDA10 group and 10.30 IU/kg/week in Eprex® group, which has no significant difference. There were no significant differences in the safety profile between PDA10 and Eprex® groups.Conclusion: This study has confirmed the therapeutic equivalence between PDA10 and Eprex® in terms of efficacy, dosage requirement and safety profile in haemodialysis patients with renal anaemia.Trial Registration: The study was registered with the National Medical Research Register ( NMRR-13-400-16313 ). This study has been registered retrospectively with Clinical Research Information Service ( CRiS ), Republic of Korea on 25 March 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Locally produced generic drugs offer a cost–effective alternative to imported drugs to treat patients in Ethiopia. However, due to a lack of bioequivalence testing, additional assurance tests are needed to build trust in cheaper, locally made drugs. By testing bioequivalence of local drugs to gold standard, N-of-1 tests have the potential to promote patient centred quality use of medicines. Method We sought to assess the acceptability of, and explore barriers to, conducting N-of-1 tests to evaluate local medicines in a resource limited clinical setting. We conducted a descriptive qualitative study, analysing four focus group discussions and five key informant interviews. Participants were senior drug regulatory authority members, institutional review board members, physicians and patients. All interviews were audio taped and transcribed verbatim. Patient interviews were conducted in Amharic and translated to English prior to analysis. Data analysis used an inductive, thematic process. Results Five major themes were identified; (1) Appropriateness of N-of-1 tests to determine the therapeutic equivalence of local drugs, (2) N-of-1 therapeutic equivalence tests: clinical care or research? (3) Ethical and regulatory requirements (IRB), (4) Potential barriers to implementing N-of-1 tests and (5) Possible solutions to identified challenges. The study demonstrated considerable support for using N-of-1 tests for clinical equivalence studies between local and imported medicines, but important impediments were very likely to impact the feasibility of conducting N-of-1 tests in Ethiopia. Key informants from the regulatory authority did not support additional tests of local drugs. There were also mixed opinions regarding ethical requirements for conducting N-of-1 tests. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) members believed that IRB approval was sufficient to conduct N-of-1 tests, however, the regulatory authority members considered that N-of-1 tests constituted a clinical trial, and required approval at the regulatory level. Conclusion This study showed that there were key uncertainties that could impact the feasiblity of using N-of-1 testing local drugs in Ethiopia. Therefore, a number of protocol amendments to address contextual threats and regulatory challenges, would be needed before progressing to conducting these tests.

Presently, an active search for modern drugs for the treatment of multiple sclerosis is ongoing. Since the treatment with original drugs is expensive, therefore, the development of local biosimilars is underway, which at a lower cost should be effective and safe as original ones. The aim of the study is to compare the safety of foreign preparations of interferon beta-1b (Betaferon and Ekstavia) with Russian biosimilars (Ronbetal®, Infibeta®) in the treatment of multiple sclerosis to ensure the possibility of import substitution. In the present study the safety of domestic interferon beta-1b biosimilars in the treatment of multiple sclerosis was studied using a meta-analysis method. There were 3 studies included in the meta-analysis. A total of 778 people participated in the study. The average age of the subjects was 35.92 ± 9.57 years. The main inclusion criteria were a reliable diagnosis of remittent or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis with exacerbations, an EDSS score less than 5.5. The subjects were divided into 2 groups: the first group received therapy with the Russian biosimilars of interferon beta-1b (Ronbetal®, Infibeta®), the second — the foreign ones (Betaferon, Extavia) in therapeutic doses. The duration of therapy was at least 6 weeks. Results. A meta-analysis of three studies showed the following data: the difference in the frequency of local complications such as hyperemia in patients who received Russian and foreign interferon beta-1b analogues statistically insignificant, the relative risk is 1.243 (p > 0.05). No statistically significant differences in the frequency of influenza-like syndrome were also detected: the relative risk is 1.459 (p > 0.05). Conclusion. This study has increased the power of the evidence base in the application of Russian biosimilars. The conducted meta-analysis showed the absence of a statistically significant difference in the incidence of such side effects as the injection site hyperemia and the influenza-like syndrome in domestic biosimilars of interferon beta-1b compared with foreign ones.

This article looks into interchangeability and therapeutic equivalence of innovator and generic anticonvulsants — the first-generation and new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). The results of a number of clinical trials assessing therapeutic equivalence of generic AEDs support the opinion that these medicines could only be substituted provided an ultra-cautious approach is used, even if the case involves only one International Nonproprietary Name, including, but not limited to different dosage forms of one and the same product. The aim of the study was to analyse factors leading to incorrect assessment of therapeutic equivalence of new and generic anticonvulsant drugs, and to improve methodological approaches to conducting clinical trials of these products. The paper cites data from Russian and foreign sources which state that the substitution of AEDs in some patients in full remission may result in adverse reactions or relapse of seizures. The analysis of the experience of scientific, expert, and regulatory institutions made it possible to develop a course of actions to be used when substituting AEDs and conducting clinical trials that assess therapeutic equivalence of new and generic anticonvulsants. The proposed methodology will help minimise potential health risks brought about by various factors that result in incorrect assessment of AEDs therapeutic equivalence and interchangeability.

The introduction of the «therapeutic equivalence» concept into the Russian legislation is critical for evaluation of medicines interchangeability and for recognising them as generics. It is stipulated by the legislation that therapeutic equivalence has to be evaluated using a special instrument — «therapeutic equivalence study». The aim of this work was to analyse the validity of considering a therapeutic equivalence study as the only study that allows for confirmation of therapeutic equivalence of medicines. The term «therapeutic equivalence» has been adopted by the leading world regulators, but there is no clear concept of what is a therapeutic equivalence clinical study. The key distinctive features of the foreign approach, as compared to the Russian one, are comparison of medicines with one active pharmaceutical ingredient, and additional conditions for the establishment of therapeutic equivalence. The clinical trial methodology, which is based on the use of statistical analysis methods, also imposes constraints on evaluation of «similarity» of properties, efficacy and safety of medicines in a single study. Hence, there are several reasons why the results of comparative clinical trials can not be used as a sole basis for the establishment of therapeutic equivalence. These results have to be substantiated by confirmation of comparable composition and pharmacokinetic parameters of medicines in order for them to be considered therapeutically equivalent. This does not contradict the existing regulatory framework and is consistent with the current scientific methodology for conducting clinical trials.

• The safety and efficacy of generic drugs have recently been questioned by some healthcare providers in Saudi Arabia. • Several health policy researchers have called for the establishment of a national reference or guidelines for generic drug substitution in the Kingdom. • The Saudi Food and Drug Authority is working on establishing a reference for generic drug substitution. The recent incidents of generic drug recalls have shaken the public confidence in the quality of generic drugs in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, many clinicians and health policymakers are calling for the establishment of a national reference or formulary that rates different generic drugs based on their therapeutic equivalence to the listed reference drugs, such as the Orange Book of the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). To explore the prospects of establishing a Saudi version of the USFDA Orange Book, the Saudi discussion group of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) called for a group meeting to discuss the issue with stakeholders representing different sectors (regulatory, industry, purchasing and supply chain, and patient safety). The meeting was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thereafter, the text was reviewed and analyzed. The participants agreed that there is no national guide or reference that can be used in generic substitution. Moreover, it was indicated that the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) is working on establishing a Saudi version of the USFDA Orange Book, which will help in choosing the right generic drugs whenever medication substitution is performed to ensure patient safety. The establishment of a Saudi version of the USFDA Orange Book would help healthcare providers in choosing the right generic drug for their patients, which will hopefully improve health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent advances in synthetic drug manufacturing have introduced a new dynamic to the European regulatory system, with chemically synthesized polypeptide products using biological originator products as their reference medicine. Whereas biosimilars are subject to a dedicated regulatory framework in the EU, synthetically produced follow-on products are not eligible for assessment through this pathway, requiring approval via the traditional generic pathway under Article 10 (1), or via the hybrid pathway under Article 10 (3). This review presents an overview of recent developments in the field of synthetic peptides referencing biological originators in the EU. The use of different regulatory procedures can have potential implications for regulatory assessments, clinical practice and pharmacovigilance. As more complex synthetic products referencing recombinant originator products are expected in the coming years, this study promotes more transparency as well as global alignment about regulatory procedures for chemically synthesised products referencing biological originator products to ensure approval of safe and high-quality generics., Competing Interests: KK and PS were employed by Exon Consultancy. JH was employed by Novo Nordisk. The authors declare that this study received funding from Novo Nordisk. The funder had the following involvement in the study: reviewing the manuscript and the decision to submit., (Copyright © 2024 Klein, Heisterberg and Stolk.)

Non-Biological Complex Drugs (NBCDs) are complex non-biological drugs comprised of large high molecular weight molecules and, often, nanoparticular structures (including liposomes and block-copolymer micelles). In the case of NBCDs, the entire complex is the active pharmaceutical ingredient and its properties cannot be fully characterized by physicochemical analysis. Moreover, the manufacturing process is fundamental in creating the correct originator product. The same is true for generic versions of the product. A recent appraisal of approval procedures for NBCDs “follow-on products” approved in Europe shows a diversity of regulatory pathways. In fact, three different abridged application procedures, under European legislation, were used: the generic application procedure of Article 10(1), the hybrid application procedure of Article 10(3), and the biosimilar application procedure of Article 10(4). Three informed consent applications via Article 10(c) from innovator companies of glatiramer acetate and sevelamer carbonate were submitted shortly after the approval of the first follow-on products. Furthermore, a number of “well-established use” applications [via Article 10(a)] were approved for iron sucrose and iron dextran complexes. In order to protect patients from the increased risks of NBCD products and NBCD follow-on products, two complementary approaches should be considered: (i) improving the regulatory procedures and their guidance documents within the pre-registration phase, and (ii) not considering interchangeability whenever clinical data is not available. With regards to the latter, the need for adequate safety and efficacy data might also include risk management programmes within post-approval pharmacovigilance actions. This, however, would depend on a risk appraisal that must be considered for individual medicinal products, based on the nature of the submitted relevant set of safety/efficacy data.

Every two years, the World Health Organization (WHO) updates its Model List of Essential Medicines, intended as a guide for countries to adopt or adapt in accordance with local priorities and treatment guidelines, for the development of national essential medicines lists. When more than one therapeutic option is available for a given indication, the WHO Model List often includes a single medicine as representative of a group of equivalent and interchangeable medicines. The representative medicine of that group is listed with an accompanying ‘square box’ symbol. The intended purpose of the square box is to highlight pharmacological classes or groups of medicines for which countries, institutions and health professionals can assume homogeneous therapeutic efficacy and safety and select the most appropriate single medicine based on price, local availability, and acceptability. Though this concept of therapeutic equivalence within a therapeutic class has been endorsed by most authoritative textbooks of pharmacology since Goodman & Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics and evidence-based guidelines, marketing forces have often made claims on individual drugs to distinguish them beyond relevant differences shown by reliable evidence: this has generated the concept of “me-too drugs” with its double meaning—i.e., market latecomers differing minimally from products preceding them and whose marketing budgets have significant opportunity costs, or medicines which may be useful to substitute for equivalent products in the event of shortages. The square box concept is applied in the context of a comprehensive list: therapeutic equivalence or interchangeability cannot always be easily established. Different interpretations have been applied to different groups of medicines over the 40+ year history of the Model List. This paper presents the concept of the square box, provides key examples and guidance on how square box listings should be practically interpreted in the development and implementation of national essential medicine lists, considers the applicability of a square box listing concept to biologic medicines and proposes that an updated review of the square box concept and listings is warranted.

The adequacy of the interchangeability of original and generic drugs is an important economic and social problem in healthcare. In this article we look at the problem of the replacement of antiepileptic drugs. Sometimes when their bioequivalence is proved they still can be not equivalent therapeutically. The results of the therapy for these kinds of drugs can differ. As well as the individual characteristics of the metabolism that can affect the results of the treatment, there are other possible factors - the diet of the patient or the time of day,when patient takes medication. The cases when for the replacement of one drug for another it was necessary to have both biological and therapeutic equivalence are described in this article. The research data of interchangeability of neurotropic drugs in different countries are presented. The article provides a classification of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to estimate the possibility of replacement of drugs with recommendations to minimize the risk of adverse reactions for use in clinical practice.

The article analyses the problem of interchangeability of glibenclamide-containing drugs that sometimes lack therapeutic equivalence even though their bioequivalence has been proven. The authors formulated the key factors affecting interchangeability of glibenclamide drugs and highlighted conditions that compromise interchangeability. Special attention was given to clinical pharmacology of glibenclamide and adverse reactions associated with sulfonylurea products. The article offers a summary of the main groups of glibenclamide drugs. It also substantiates the need for better coordination of production and clinical use of glibenclamide drugs which will help to ensure the comparability of generic and reference glibenclamide drugs in the long run.

The authors developed and presented recommendations on the procedure for determining the interchangeability of medicinal products. Interchangeability of drugs determined at the state registration of the medicinal product or when amendments to the documents contained in the registration dossier for already medicinal product. Recommended by the authors of the sequence of procedures for determining the interchangeability of drugs includes four successive stages. The conformity assessment of generic medicinal product reference drug proposed by six parameters specified in the Federal Law N 429-FZ, in sequence («Аlgorithm for the assessment of interchangeability»).

The article reviews scientific literature and regulatory documents on safe and efficacious use of levothyroxine medicines. Levothyroxine has less than a twofold difference between the minimal toxic concentration and minimal effective concentration. The article discusses the issue of switching between levothyroxine medicines that can be therapeutically nonequivalent while having proven bioequivalence. The article reviews results of levothyroxine medicines interchangeability studies in different countries. The authors assert the need for improving the coordination of manufacturing and the clinical use of levothyroxine medicines, which will help achieve the equivalence of generic and innovator medicines in the future.

The article analyses regulatory documents containing requirements for clinical (trials) documentation for orally inhaled products, including requirements for the demonstration of therapeutic equivalence of medicinal products for the treatment of bronchial asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adults and children. The article summarises the main approaches to the assessment of inhalers equivalence. It also systematizes and describes dosage forms and inhalation devices, as well as the necessary stages of inhaler evaluation, looks into the methodology of conducting therapeutic equivalence studies with due regard to the therapeutic class of the drug, duration of its action and proposed nosology. The methodology includes requirements for the selection of the study population, study design and conditions, and recommendations for the selection of drug dose, study duration, primary and secondary efficacy and safety endpoints in the context of orally inhaled products.

nema

Summary: Whereas generic drugs offer a cost‐effective alternative to brand name drugs, regulators need a method to assess therapeutic equivalence in a post‐market setting. We develop such a method in the context of assessing the therapeutic equivalence of immediate release venlafaxine, based on a large insurance claims data set provided by OptumLabs\circledR. To address this question properly, our methodology must deal with issues of non‐adherence, secular trends in health outcomes and lack of treatment overlap due to sharp uptake of the generic drug once it becomes available. We define, identify (under assumptions) and estimate (using G‐computation) a causal effect for a time‐to‐event outcome by extending regression discontinuity to survival curves. We do not find evidence for a lack of therapeutic equivalence of brand and generic immediate release venlafaxine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Every two years, the World Health Organization (WHO) updates its Model List of Essential Medicines, intended as a guide for countries to adopt or adapt in accordance with local priorities and treatment guidelines, for the development of national essential medicines lists. When more than one therapeutic option is available for a given indication, the WHO Model List often includes a single medicine as representative of a group of equivalent and interchangeable medicines. The representative medicine of that group is listed with an accompanying 'square box' symbol. The intended purpose of the square box is to highlight pharmacological classes or groups of medicines for which countries, institutions and health professionals can assume homogeneous therapeutic efficacy and safety and select the most appropriate single medicine based on price, local availability, and acceptability. Though this concept of therapeutic equivalence within a therapeutic class has been endorsed by most authoritative textbooks of pharmacology since Goodman & Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics and evidence-based guidelines, marketing forces have often made claims on individual drugs to distinguish them beyond relevant differences shown by reliable evidence: this has generated the concept of "me-too drugs" with its double meaning— i.e. , market latecomers differing minimally from products preceding them and whose marketing budgets have significant opportunity costs, or medicines which may be useful to substitute for equivalent products in the event of shortages. The square box concept is applied in the context of a comprehensive list: therapeutic equivalence or interchangeability cannot always be easily established. Different interpretations have been applied to different groups of medicines over the 40+ year history of the Model List. This paper presents the concept of the square box, provides key examples and guidance on how square box listings should be practically interpreted in the development and implementation of national essential medicine lists, considers the applicability of a square box listing concept to biologic medicines and proposes that an updated review of the square box concept and listings is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We compared results of in vitro performance testing with results of therapeutic equivalence study for calcipotriol/betamethasone ointment, to evaluate their sensitivity and in vivo relevance. Methods: Different in vitro methods were used to evaluate drug release and permeation from the test and reference ointment. Moreover, 444 psoriasis patients were randomized in the therapeutic equivalence study and the parameters of efficacy and safety were compared with in vitro results. Results: In vitro release and permeation rate of calcipotriol and betamethasone from the test formulation was higher than from the reference product for all methods used (p ≤ 0.05 for calcipotriol and p < 0.01 for betamethasone). Observed batch-to-batch variability of reference product confirmed high sensitivity and discriminatory power of in vitro methods. Higher release and permeation rate of calcipotriol and betamethasone from test product was reflected in the efficacy assessment (mean response difference 4.78 mPASI percentage points), but the observed difference was within the equivalence margins. Systemic exposure to calcipotriol and betamethasone was similar in both treatment groups. Conclusion: The results of in vitro experiments rank orderly correlated with the results of clinical study. In vitro methods are more sensitive and highly discriminatory when compared to in vivo performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In developing countries, brand-generic substitution is not based on validated scientific evidence that confirm the therapeutic equivalence of the generic to the originator. Rather, decisions are made based on the availability of generic medications. Substitution by inappropriate preparations applies to antibiotics, which may increase the risk of resistance in case of underdosing. This analytical study aims to dose and assess for the accuracy of labeling three oral antibiotic preparations, namely ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, amoxicillin trihydrate and amoxicillin trihydrate-clavulanate potassium, the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) found in brand and generic tablets available on the Lebanese market. Methods: One brand and 4 generics of ciprofloxacin tablets, 3 generic amoxicillin tablets, and 1 brand and 4 generics of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid medications, were quantified, taking 2 batches of each. According to the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) guidelines, ultra-high pressure liquid chromatography was used to measure the APIs content within tablets. The USP required assay limit of the API was taken as the main comparison criteria. Results: Out of the 5 ciprofloxacin medications tested, all 5 were out of the 2% required range, thus being substandard. For amoxicillin, all 3 medications were within the 20% range. As for amoxicillin-clavulanic acid medications, 4 out of 5 medications met the 30% required range of clavulanic acid and one exceeded the claimed amount of clavulanic acid, while all 5 met the assay limit for amoxicillin. Conclusion: These findings raise safety and efficacy concerns, providing solid grounds for potential correlations of antibiotic resistance/substandard antibiotics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Asthma is widely treated using inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonist (LABA) combinations, for example, fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FPS) dry powder inhaler, marketed as Advair® Diskus®. Some regulators require generics to demonstrate local (lung) therapeutic equivalence (LTE) for each component of the FPS reference, ideally with a dose-response within the approved FPS dose range. We sought to develop a methacholine challenge (MeCh) LTE methodology for assessing the LABA (salmeterol) component of FPS. Methods: Forty-six patients with asthma received single doses of albuterol (active control; 90 or 180 μg), FPS (100/50 or 200/100 μg), and placebo on 5 separate study days. Spirometry and MeCh were performed 1, 6, and 10 hours after study drug inhalation. Primary endpoint was provocative concentration of methacholine producing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (PC20). Study entry required screening PC20 ≤8 mg/mL, with a greater than fourfold increase (and PC20 ≤128 mg/mL) after 180 μg albuterol. Results: Both albuterol (90 and 180 μg) and FPS (100/50 and 200/100 μg) significantly increased PC20 compared with placebo (sustained 6 and 10 hours postdose with FPS but not albuterol). The dose-response slopes (95% confidence interval) estimated 1 hour after treatment were 0.374 (−0.068 to 0.815) and 0.310 (−0.135 to 0.754) between low and high doses of albuterol and FPS, respectively, both nonsignificant. Slopes were shallower than those available in the literature for albuterol and formoterol, but similar to those for salmeterol. Conclusions: These data confirm that the bronchoprotective effect of FPS lasts longer than that of albuterol. The shallow dose-response slope we observed for albuterol is contrary to previous reports, probably due to the measurement of PC20 beginning at 1 hour postdose. The results suggest that use of MeCh to assess LTE for salmeterol formulations may be more difficult to accomplish than it is for albuterol and formoterol products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new oral paracetamol formulation with the same paracetamol quantity (24 mg/mL) as a marketed formulation but with finer active ingredient particle size and lower amounts of maltitol (5.85 g/dose in the test formulation vs 7.25 g/dose in the reference formulation) and sorbitol (2.4 g/dose vs 2.83 g/dose) was developed. Establish the bioequivalence of the new pediatric formulation (test treatment) compared with the marketed formulation (reference treatment). This Phase I, open-label trial assigned healthy adult volunteers to a single 42-mL (1 g para-cetamol) dose of test or reference treatment. Participants received both treatments in a randomized order separated by a 72-hour washout period. The primary endpoints were AUC 0–tlast (AUC vs time curve from time 0 to last measurable sampling timepoint), C max , and t max. Safety assessments included adverse event, clinical laboratory, and physical examination data. Thirty-five participants were randomized and treated. The study population was 42.9% women (57.1% men) with a median age of 30 years; most participants were non-Hispanic White. Mean C max values were comparable between test and reference products, with a median t max of 1.00 hour for both. The test/reference ratios (%) (90% CI) for AUC 0–tlast and C max were 98.69% (96.46, 100.97) and 100.73% (95.63, 106.10), respectively. There were no adverse events or deaths. The new paracetamol formulation is bioequivalent to the marketed formulation. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abdel Naser Zaid,1 Nihal Zohud,1 Bushra E’layan,1 Tasneem Aburadi,1 Nidal Jaradat,1 Iyad Ali,2 Fatima Hussein,1 Mashhour Ghanem,3 Aiman Qaddomi,3 Yara Abu Zaaror4 1Department of Pharmacy, 2Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University, Nablus, 3Department of Regulatory, Pharmacare PLC, 4Department of Research and Development Pharmacare PLC, Ramallah, Palestine Background: Orlistat is an irreversible inhibitor of the lipase enzyme that prevents trigylcerides from being digested, thereby inhibiting triglyceride hydrolysis and absorption. The resultant reduced calorie uptake enables a positive effect on weight control. Systemic absorption of the drug is, therefore, not necessary for its mode of action. An alternative in vitro study (pharmacodynamic) has been introduced for this drug, as in vivo bioavailability studies are irrelevant with regard to the achievement of the product’s intended purposes.Objectives: To develop a new validated high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method for the analysis of orlistat and to assess the potency and equivalence of three orlistat formulations using the pharmacodynamic method as a surrogate indicator of pharmaceutical interchangeability.Methods: A new HPLC method was developed for the analysis and for the dissolution studies of orlistat in capsules. Pancreatic lipase activity was measured for three different capsule products: Orlislim®, Slimcare®, and Xenical®, G1, G2, and the brand, respectively. Porcine pancreatic lipase and p-nitrophenyl butyrate (PNPB) were placed in a pH 7.4 reaction buffer at 37°C, and substrate hydrolysis was monitored by measuring absorbance changes at 410 nm; this was repeated on six capsules of each product. The inhibition was expressed by the concentration of product, which inhibited 50% of the activity of pancreatic lipase (IC50).Results: The new analytical method was suitable for orlistat analysis. Values of IC50 from regression lines and equations were 6.14, 8.43, and 7.80 µg/mL for Orlislim®, Xenical®, and Slimcare®, respectively.Conclusion: Pharmacodynamic studies of lipase inhibition could be used to support in vitro dissolution, which demonstrates interchangeability between generic and branded orlistat capsules. Moreover, it could be suggested as an alternative tool to bioequivalence studies for orlistat oral products. Keywords: Orlistat, therapeutic equivalence, validation, pancreatic lipase

Abstract Background Hypertension is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in Ethiopia. Treatment usually involves lifelong medication use. Enalapril is a common drug for the treatment of hypertension in Ethiopia. However, the drug is expensive and, therefore, there is limited capacity for people to afford the treatment. Locally produced Enalapril is a cost-effective solution to treat the disease. However, as local medicines regulation does not include bioequivalence tests on locally produced drugs, physicians and patients need assurance about the effectiveness and safety of local generics. Evidence on therapeutic equivalence is needed on these untested local drugs. Methods This is a hospital-based, randomized, partially blinded, three-cycle crossover trial in single patients, comparing a locally produced version of enalapril with enalapril imported from Europe. Patients involved in this trial are not blinded, as there is no local facility to produce relatively small numbers of placebos or encapsulated drugs. To ensure blinding of study investigators and data analysts, study medications are prepared by an independent pharmacy unit using opaque medication packaging. The importance of maintaining blinding is also part of patient pre-trial education. Each N-of-1 trial will consist of three successive 14-day treatment pairs, each pair comprising 7 days of 5–20 mg local and 7 days of 5–20 mg imported enalapril taken once daily in the morning. The primary outcome will be the average difference in systolic blood pressure as measured by home blood pressure measurements. Discussion The number of locally produced products, such as enalapril, being approved without proof of bioequivalence is dramatically increasing. By bridging the information gap on bioequivalence, the trial will give rigorous evidence on therapeutic equivalence of locally produced enalapril in the treatment of hypertension. If there is no difference, the hypothesized result, then patients can take the local medicine with confidence. This trial will also will determine whether aggregated N-of-1 studies are feasible to evaluate untested generic drugs in resource-limited countries where bioequivalence testing centers are unavailable. Trial registration number Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ID: ACTRN12616001088437p . Registered on 12 August 2016.

The paper deals with the problem of the interchangeability of brand-name and generic drugs. Touching upon official terminology and the normative documents that govern the registration of generics in Russia and foreign countries, the authors state that there is no concerted approach to estimating drug interchangeability, indicate that there are some disadvantages of using a method for proving the bioequivalence of the compared drugs as evidence for their therapeutic equivalence, and point out that Russia’s legal regulation of drug circulation lacks attention to the proper use of generics. The problem of interchangeability is particularly acute when prescribing narrow therapeutic range drugs, including anticonvulsant drugs. The results of the investigations discussed in the article demonstrate the need for a very cautious approach to using generic drugs in the therapy of epilepsy due to the fact that the disease may worsen. The authors come to the conclusion that treatment with less expensive generic drugs is far from always more economical. The change from a brand-name for a generic drug should be carefully approached, basing on the data of properly designed and conducted studies of therapeutic equivalence.

Angiotensin receptor blocker telmisartan is a modern and effective antihypertensive drug which has advantages in comparison with other drugs of the group of angiotensin receptor blockers. Long half-life retains its effect is significant more than 24 hours, which is especially important for blood pressure control in the dangerous morning hours. Telmisartan is excreted by the kidneys less than 2%, making its use safe in patients with renal pathology. High antihypertensive efficacy combined with its excellent tolerability. Telmisartan has the greatest affinity to PPARg-receptors, which is especially important when selecting antihypertensive therapy in patients with arterial hypertension and metabolic disorders, insulin resistance, metabolic disorders. A considerable number of studies showing the effectiveness of treatment with telmisartan in patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, nephropathy. The article presents the results of a study of therapeutic equivalence of generic drug is telmisartan, which showed a high bioequivalence to original brand-name formulation and was according to the indications: hypertension and decrease cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients aged 55 years and older with a high risk of cardiovascular disease. The results of our observations show comparable antihypertensive efficacy of the original and generic products and well tolerated by the results of questioning of patients.