Generic Products of Antiepileptic Drugs: A Perspective on Bioequivalence, Bioavailability, and Formulation Switches Using Monte Carlo Simulations
- 438 Downloads
Generic products of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are currently a controversial topic as neurologists and patients are reluctant to switch from brand products to generics and to switch between generics.
The aim of this study was to provide enlightenment on issues of bioequivalence (BE) and interchangeability of AED products.
Monte Carlo simulations of the classic 2 × 2 BE studies were performed to study the effect of sample size, within-subject variability, and the true difference in pharmacokinetic values of the products under comparison on BE acceptance of generic AED products. Simulations were extended to study the comparative performance of two generic AED products against the same innovative product. The simulated results are compared with literature data on AEDs.
The question with regard to bioavailability (BA) is whether two formulations are different, while for BE the question is whether two formulations are sufficiently similar in terms of extent and rate of absorption. Therefore, the criteria for BA and BE and the statistical analysis involved in their analysis are different. Two generic formulations that meet regulatory approval requirements for generics by being bioequivalent to the same innovative AED may not be bioequivalent to one another and therefore should not be regarded as equal or as therapeutically equivalent products. A switch from a standard or an immediate-release formulation to a modified-release product, which comprises extended-release or delayed-release formulations, should not be regarded as a switch between generics, but rather as a switch between different formulation types.
Switches between bioequivalent generic AED products could potentially lead to larger changes in plasma levels and exposure than the brand-to-generic switch. The simulation work verified the clinical findings that not all generic AED products bioequivalent to the same innovative product are bioequivalent to one another.
Two generic formulations that meet regulatory approval requirements for generics, by being bioequivalent to the innovative AED, may not be bioequivalent to one another. Additional BE criteria are needed for a formulation switch, particularly in epilepsy, where a breakthrough seizure may change a patient’s status from seizure-free to refractory.
KeywordsDrug Product Reference Product Geometric Mean Ratio Generic Drug Product Breakthrough Seizure
The authors confirm that they have read the Journal’s position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this report is consistent with those guidelines.
Conflict of interest
The study was not supported by any funding. Dr. Meir Bialer has received in the last 3 years speakers or consultancy fees from Bial, CTS Chemicals, Desitin, Janssen-Cilag, Rekah, UCB Pharma and Upsher-Smith and has been involved in the design and development of new antiepileptics and CNS drugs as well as new formulations of existing drugs. None of the other authors have any conflict of interest to disclose.
- 3.EMA (European Medicines Agency). Evaluation of medicines for human use, CHMP. Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence. London. 2010.Google Scholar
- 12.FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Report, Information regarding antiepileptic drugs. US Food and Drug Administration in response to request in Senate Report no. 111-39 and House Agriculture Committee Report No. 111-279. 2011.Google Scholar
- 14.EMA (European Medicines Agency). Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use, CPMP. Note for guidance on the investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence. London. 2001.Google Scholar
- 15.FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products, general considerations. Rockville, MD. 2003.Google Scholar
- 19.FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Process for approving generic drugs. October 29, 2002. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/ogd_10_BCBS_gjb. Accessed 28 Jan 2009.
- 22.FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Office of generic drugs, draft guidance for industry on bioequivalence recommendations for progesterone capsules. 2011.Google Scholar
- 23.FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Meeting of the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology. 2011 (Briefing information).Google Scholar
- 24.FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Draft guidance on warfarin sodium. 2012.Google Scholar
- 25.FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Draft guidance on tacrolimus capsule oral. 2012.Google Scholar
- 30.Maliepaard M, Banishki N, Gispen-de Wied CC, Teerenstra S, Elferink AJ. Interchangeability of generic anti-epileptic drugs: a quantitative analysis of topiramate and gabapentin. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67:1007–16.Google Scholar
- 31.Rowland M, Tozer T. N. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. 4th ed. Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia. 2011.Google Scholar
- 32.Hottinger M, Liang BA. Deficiencies of the FDA in evaluating generic formulations: addressing narrow therapeutic index dugs. Am J Law Med. 2012;38:667–89.Google Scholar
- 42.Henney J. Review of generic bioequivalence studies. JAMA. 1999;282:1995.Google Scholar
- 43.Nightingale S. Therapeutic equivalence of generic drugs: letter to health practitioners. 2001. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/nightentlett.htm. Accessed 1 May 2009.
- 45.Chen M-L, Shah V, Ganes D, Midha KK, Caro J, Nambiar P, Rocci M Jr, Avinash G, Abrahmsson B, Conner D, David B, Fackler P, Farrel C, Gupta S, Katz R, Metha M, Preskorn SH, Sanderink G, Stavchansky S, Temple R, Wang W, Winkle H, Yu L. Challenges and opportunities in establishing scientific and regulatory standards for determining therapeutic equivalence of modified-release products: workshop summary report. Clin Ther. 2010;32:1704–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 49.Wolf P. Political campaign in Denmark. In: Abstract book from the 27th International Epilepsy Congress in Singapore, 2007. 8th–12th July 2007, p. 8–9.Google Scholar
- 52.Patsalos PN, Berry DJ, Bourgeois BF, Cloyd JC, Glauser TA, Johannessen SI, Leppik IE, Tomson T, Perucca E. Antiepileptic drugs—best practice guidance for therapeutic drug monitoring: a position paper by the subcommission on therapeutic drug monitoring. ILAE Commission on Therapeutic Strategies. Epilepsia. 2008;49:1239–76.Google Scholar
- 54.Advagraf: Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). http://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/19814.
- 58.García-Arieta A. The failure to show bioequivalence is not evidence against generics. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;70:452–3.Google Scholar
- 59.Gwaza L, Gordon J, Welink J, Potthast H, Hansson H, Stahl M, García-Arieta A. Statistical approaches to indirectly compare bioequivalence between generics: a comparison of methodologies employing artemether/lumefantrine 20/120 mg tablets as prequalified by WHO. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;68:1611–8.Google Scholar
- 60.Herranz M, Morales-Alcelay S, Corredera-Hernández MT, de la Torre-Alvarado JM, Blázquez-Pérez A, Suárez-Gea ML, Alvarez C, García-Arieta A. Bioequivalence between generic tacrolimus products marketed in Spain by adjusted indirect comparison. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69:1157–62.Google Scholar