CNS Drugs

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 353–365 | Cite as

Rational Use of Generic Psychotropic Drugs

  • Maren Carbon
  • Christoph U. CorrellEmail author
Review Article


For economic reasons, the generic substitution of branded medications is common and welcome. These replacements are based on the concept of bioequivalence, which is considered equal to therapeutic equivalence. Regulatory standards for bioequivalence require the 90 % confidence intervals of group averages of pharmacokinetic measures of a generic and the original drug to overlap within ±20 %. However, therapeutic equivalence has been challenged for several psychotropic agents by retrospective studies and case reports. To evaluate the degree of bioequivalence and therapeutic equivalence of branded and generic psychotropic drugs, we performed an electronic search (from database inception until 24 May 2012 and without language restrictions) in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Search terms were “(generic) AND (psychotropic OR psychoactive OR antipsychotic OR antiepileptic OR antidepressant OR stimulant OR benzodiazepine)” or the respective individual substances. We included clinical studies, regardless of design, comparing branded with generic psychotropic drug formulations, identifying 35 such studies. We also included case reports/series reporting on outcomes after a switch between brand and generic psychotropics, identifying 145 clinical cases. Bioequivalence studies in healthy controls or animals, in-vitro studies, and health economics studies without medical information were excluded. An overview of the few randomized controlled studies supports that US FDA regulations assure clinically adequate drug delivery in the majority of patients switched from brand to generic. However, with a growing number of competing generic products for one substance, and growing economic pressure to substitute with the currently cheapest generic, frequent generic-generic switches, often unbeknownst to prescribing clinicians, raise concerns, particularly for antiepileptics/mood stabilizers. Generic-generic switches may vary by more than ±20 % from each other in individual patients since the pharmacokinetic properties of each generic may differ from the innovator drug in opposing directions. Ideally, therapeutic equivalence studies in addition to pharmacokinetic equivalence studies would be performed for each generic, reflecting the full variability of clinical responses due to changes of pharmacokinetic properties related to age, sex, ethnicity, genetic factors, and body mass index. This is particularly relevant, as bioequivalence studies are based on single-dose studies in healthy controls who are likely not representative of the patients who are prescribed the psychotropic medications. Additionally, individual case reports suggest potential clinical effects during brand-generic switches. Knowledge and consideration of intra-individual variations can help guide the clinical management during brand-generic or generic-generic switch periods. To optimize outcomes, clinicians need to consider that when using generic psychotropic medications, a change in the patient’s clinical status can be related to psychological, interactional, physiological, and pharmacological factors that may or may not be related to the change to a generic drug. In addition, throughout all treatment periods, clinicians need to be aware of the currently dispensed product (i.e., branded or exact generic formulation), particularly when evaluating clinical changes in efficacy, tolerability, and adherence. If clinical problems occur, the first response should be an assessment of adherence and a careful dose adjustments of the generic drug rather than an immediate switch back to the originator.


Clozapine Risperidone Olanzapine Bupropion Generic Drug 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank Dr. Michael Borenstein (; Arlington, VA, USA) for helpful advice on statistical aspects of bioequivalence assessment. Dr. Carbon has the same conflicts as Dr. Correll because of a family relationship. Dr. Correll has been a consultant and/or advisor to or has received honoraria from: Actelion, Alexza; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Gerson Lehrman Group, IntraCellular Therapies, Medavante, Medscape, Janssen/J&J, Otsuka, Pfizer, ProPhase, Roche, and Sunovion. He has been a lecturer for BMS, Otsuka and Pfizer, and he has been a member of the Speaker Board for Merck. He has been a member of a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Cephalon, Lundbeck, Janssen, Takeda, and Teva. He has received grant support from BMS, Janssen/J&J, and Otsuka. There were no funding resources for this manuscript.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Treur M, Heeg B, Möller HJ, et al. A pharmaco-economic analysis of patients with schizophrenia switching to generic risperidone involving a possible compliance loss. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;18(9):32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Cancer Institute. Levels of Evidence for Adult and Pediatric Cancer Treatment (PDQ®). Accessed 5 Sept 2012.
  4. 4.
    Food and Drug Administration. Facts About Generic Drugs. Accessed 5 Sept 2012.
  5. 5.
    Food and Drug Administration. Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations. 32th ed. 2012. Accessed 06 Sept 2012.
  6. 6.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) January 2001 BP. Guidance for Industry. Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence. Accessed 06 Sept 2012.
  7. 7.
    Yim DS. Simulation of the AUC changes after generic substitution in patients. J Korean Med Sci. 2009;24(1):7–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krauss GL, Caffo B, Chang YT, et al. Assessing bioequivalence of generic antiepilepsy drugs. Ann Neurol. 2011;70(2):221–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Summary Minutes of the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology. July 26, 2011. Accessed 05 Sept 2012.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Ursino MG, Poluzzi E, Caramella C, De Ponti F. Excipients in medicinal products used in gastroenterology as a possible cause of side effects. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011;60:93–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walton RG, Hudak R, Green-Waite RJ. Adverse reactions to aspartame: double-blind challenge in patients from a vulnerable population. Biol Psychiatry. 1993;34:13–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Velligan DI, Weiden PJ, Sajatovic M, the Expert Consensus Panel on Adherence Problems in Serious and Persistent Mental Illness. The expert consensus guideline series: adherence problems in patients with serious and persistent mental illness. J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;70(Suppl. 4):1–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roman B. Patients’ attitudes towards generic substitution of oral atypical antipsychotics: a questionnaire-based survey in a hypothetical pharmacy setting. CNS Drugs. 2009;23(8):693–701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu X, Chen Y, Faries DE. Adherence and persistence with branded antidepressants and generic SSRIs among managed care patients with major depressive disorder. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;3:63–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nuss P, Taylor D, De Hert M, et al. The generic alternative in schizophrenia: opportunity or threat? CNS Drugs. 2004;18(12):769–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jumao-as A, Bella I, Craig B, et al. Comparison of steady-state blood levels of two carbamazepine formulations. Epilepsia. 1989;30(1):67–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hartley R, Aleksandrowicz J, Ng PC, et al. Breakthrough seizures with generic carbamazepine: a consequence of poorer bioavailability? Br J Clin Pract. 1990;44(7):270–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oles KS, Penry JK, Smith LD, et al. Therapeutic bioequivalency study of brand name versus generic carbamazepine. Neurology. 1992;42(6):1147–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Silpakit O, Amornpichetkoon M, Kaojarern S. Comparative study of bioavailability and clinical efficacy of carbamazepine in epileptic patients. Ann Pharmacother. 1997;31(5):548–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wolf P, May T, Tiska G, et al. Steady state concentrations and diurnal fluctuations of carbamazepine in patients after different slow release formulations. Arzneimittelforschung. 1992;42(3):284–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aldenkamp AP, Rentmeester T, Hulsman J, et al. Pharmacokinetics and cognitive effects of carbamazepine formulations with different dissolution rates. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;54(2):185–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Andermann F, Duh MS, Gosselin A, et al. Compulsory generic switching of antiepileptic drugs: high switchback rates to branded compounds compared with other drug classes. Epilepsia. 2007;48(3):464–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    LeLorier J, Duh MS, Paradis PE, Lefebvre P, Weiner J, Manjunath R, Sheehy O. Clinical consequences of generic substitution of lamotrigine for patients with epilepsy. Neurology. 2008;70(22 Pt 2):2179–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hartung DM, Middleton L, Svoboda L, et al. Generic substitution of lamotrigine among medicaid patients with diverse indications: a cohort-crossover study. CNS Drugs. 2012;26(8):707–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kishore K, Jailakhani BL, Sharma JN, et al. Serum phenytoin levels with different brands. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 1986;30(2):171–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen SS, Allen J, Oxley J, et al. Comparative bioavailability of phenytoin from generic formulations in the United Kingdom. Epilepsia. 1982;23(2):149–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kinikar SA, Delate T, Menaker-Wiener CM, et al. Clinical outcomes associated with brand-to-generic phenytoin interchange. Ann Pharmacother. 2012;46(5):650–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Duh MS, Paradis PE, Latrémouille-Viau D, et al. The risks and costs of multiple-generic substitution of topiramate. Neurology. 2009;72(24):2122–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Elger CE, Gaudig M. Risks and costs of generic substitution of topiramate for the german health care system. Akt Neurol. 2010;37:18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vadney VJ, Kraushaar KW. Effects of switching from Depakene to generic valproic acid on individuals with mental retardation. Ment Retard. 1997;35(6):468–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Labiner DM, Paradis PE, Manjunath R, et al. Generic antiepileptic drugs and associated medical resource utilization in the United States. Neurology. 2010;74(20):1566–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rascati KL, Richards KM, Johnsrud MT, et al. Effects of antiepileptic drug substitutions on epileptic events requiring acute care. Pharmacotherapy. 2009;29(7):769–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zachry WM 3rd, Doan QD, Clewell JD, et al. Case-control analysis of ambulance, emergency room, or inpatient hospital events for epilepsy and antiepileptic drug formulation changes. Epilepsia. 2009;50(3):493–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gagne JJ, Avorn J, Shrank WH, et al. Refilling and switching of antiepileptic drugs and seizure-related events. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;88(3):347–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Erickson SC, Le L, Ramsey SD, Solow BK, Zakharyan A, Stockl KM, Harada AS, Curtis B. Clinical and pharmacy utilization outcomes with brand to generic antiepileptic switches in patients with epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2011;52(7):1365–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chien CP, Labrie R, Park CG, et al. Generic and trade-name antipsychotic drugs: clinical equivalence. Am J Psychiatry. 1976;133(12):1377–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kluznik JC, Walbek NH, Farnsworth MG, et al. Clinical effects of a randomized switch of patients from clozaril to generic clozapine. J Clin Psychiatry. 2001;62(Suppl 5):14–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Oluboka O, Stewart S, Landry S, et al. Does therapeutic equivalence follow bioequivalence? A randomized trial to assess clinical effects after switching from Clozaril to generic clozapine (gen-clozapine). J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;50(5):531–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bellnier TJ, Singh RP, Karki SD et al. Evaluation of the interchangeability of generic clozapine with brand name Clozaril (abstract). In: Proceedings of the 152nd Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, 1999 May 20, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sajbel TA, Carter GW, Wiley RB. Converting patients from brand-name clozapine to generic clozapine. Ann Pharmacother. 2001;35(3):281–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Krishnan PM, Fiero W, Goldberg SM. Switching Middletown State Hospital from brand name to generic clozapine. American Psychiatric Association 2002, Institute on Psychiatric Services; 2002 October, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stoner SC, Lea JW, Dubisar B, et al. A program to convert patients from trade-name to generic clozapine. Pharmacotherapy. 2003;23(6):806–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Makela EH, Cutlip WD, Stevenson JM, et al. Branded versus generic clozapine for treatment of schizophrenia. Ann Pharmacother. 2003;37(3):350–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Miozzo RA, Stovall JG, Tisminetzky M. Brand name to generic clozapine switch: Pharmacokinetic and clinical effects (abstract). In: Proceedings of the 156th Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, 2003 May, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Paton C. Generic clozapine: outcomes after switching formulations. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;189:184–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sonnenberg J, Reinstein M, Mohan S. A comparison of clozapine blood serum levels and clinical global assessments of 200 subjects pre- and post-switch from Novartis brand Clozaril to a generic (IVAX) brand clozapine. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2004;(7 Suppl):S230 [Abstract].Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Healy DJ, Taylor S, Goldman M, et al. Clinical equivalence of generic clozapine. Community Ment Health J. 2005;41(4):393–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Alessi-Severini S, Honcharik PL, Simpson KD, et al. Evaluation of an interchangeability switch in patients treated with clozapine: A retrospective review. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67:1047–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lam YW, Ereshefsky L, Toney GB, et al. Branded versus generic clozapine: bioavailability comparison and interchangeability issues. J Clin Psychiatry. 2001;62(Suppl 5):18–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bakish D, Miller C, Hooper C, et al. A double-blind, crossover study comparing generic and brand Fluoxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2000;3(Suppl 1):S234–5. (abstract P.03.200).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Desmarais JE, Beauclair L, Margolese HC. Switching from brand-name to generic psychotropic medications: a literature review. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2011;17(6):750–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Schennach-Wolff R, Stübner S, Riedel M, et al. Extensive elevation of creatine kinase with generic clozapine, but not with Leponex. Psychiatry Res. 2010;176(1):93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Goldberg JF. A Case of Akathisia after Switching from Branded to Generic High-Dose Olanzapine. J Clin Psychiatry. 2012;73(4):497.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Yamada M, Welty TE. Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review of prospective and retrospective studies. Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45(11):1406–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Savica R, Beghi E, Mazzaglia G, Innocenti F, Brignoli O, Cricelli C, Caputi AP, Musolino R, Spina E, Trifirò G. Prescribing patterns of antiepileptic drugs in Italy: a nationwide population-based study in the years 2000-2005. Eur J Neurol. 2007;14(12):1317–21. Epub 2007 Sep 26. Erratum in: Eur J Neurol. 2008;15(3):313.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    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):605–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    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):314–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Devine ST, Weisbart E, Barron J, et al. Acute epilepsy exacerbations in patients switched between A-rated anti-epileptic drugs. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(2):455–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Privitera M. Is antiepileptic drug generic substitution always safe? Slow progress toward definitive answers. Ann Neurol. 2011;70(2):192–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Maliepaard M, Banishki N, Gispen-de Wied CC, et al. Interchangeability of generic anti-epileptic drugs: a quantitative analysis of topiramate and gabapentin. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67(10):1007–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bobo WV, Stovall JA, Knostman M, et al. Converting from brand-name to generic clozapine: a review of effectiveness and tolerability data. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2010;67(1):27–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Food and Drug Administration. Guidance on Clozapine. Accessed 7 Sept 2012.
  64. 64.
    van Os S, Relleke M, Piniella PM. Lack of bioequivalence between generic risperidone oral solution and originator risperidone tablets. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;45(5):293–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hardan AY, Fung LK, Amin H. Risperidone: switching from brand name to generic. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2010;20(5):457–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ruzić K, Medved P, Dadić-Hero E, et al. Side-effects of generic. Psychiatr Danub. 2010;22(1):99–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Araszkiewicz AA, Szabert K, Godman B, et al. Generic olanzapine: health authority opportunity or nightmare? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8(6):549–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Food and Drug Administration. Review of Therapeutic Equivalence Generic Bupropion XL 300 mg and Wellbutrin XL 300 mg. Accessed 7 Sept 2012.
  69. 69.
  70. 70.
    Woodcock J, Khan M, Yu LX. Withdrawal of generic budeprion for nonbioequivalence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2463–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Chavez B, Sopko MA Jr, Ehret MJ, et al. An update on central nervous system stimulant formulations in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43(6):1084–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Schütz H, Fischer R, Grossmann M, et al. Lack of bioequivalence between two methylphenidate extended modified release formulations in healthy volunteers. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;47(12):761–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Haessler F, Tracik F, Dietrich H, et al. A pharmacokinetic study of two modified-release methylphenidate formulations under different food conditions in healthy volunteers. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;46(9):466–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
  75. 75.
    Bhosle MJ, Balkrishnan R. Drug reimportation practices in the United States. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2007;3(1):41–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Manolakis PG. Prescription drug product substitution decision support. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2007; 47(3):328–38.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Thomas K. Generic Drugs Proving Resistant to Damage Suits, New York Times, 03.20.2012. Accessed 7 Sept 2012.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Division of Psychiatry ResearchNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Hofstra North Shore - Long Island Jewish School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Albert Einstein College of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Feinstein Institute for Medical ResearchNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations