[Bioequivalence and generics of index drugs with narrow therapeutic margins].
The market share of generic drugs in France is quite low compared to that in other European countries. Because the scientific aspects of bioequivalence that govern the use of generics are sometimes described ambiguously in the literature, they are not always perceived clearly by health professionals. This lack of clarity may be an obstacle to their use. Two drugs are considered bioequivalent if the upper and lower limits of the 90% confidence interval (90% CI) of the generic-to-brand ratio for the area under the curve (AUC) and for the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) are included in the [-20%, +25%] interval. This interval applies to the 90% CI of the ratios of the AUC (or Cmax) and not directly to the ratio of their values. Hence, it is wrong to consider that there is a -20% to + 25% variation in the AUC (and thus in the bioavailability) between a generic and a brand-name drug. This mistake can sometimes be seen in the medical literature, however, with incorrect extrapolations. The bioequivalence is defined for a generic in relation to a brand-name drug. Consequently, two different generics of the same proprietary drug do not automatically meet the criteria for bioequivalence. Their interchangeability can present problems, especially for drugs with a narrow therapeutic index, that is, those that have a<2-fold difference between the minimum toxic concentration and minimum effective concentration in blood. More restrictive criteria have been proposed for narrow therapeutic index drugs, but there is currently no international consensus on the subject. Determining individual bioequivalence would require modified study protocols to guaranty the interchangeability of the brand-name and generic drugs so that a patient taking one formulation could change to another that would provide the same efficacy and safety. Some antiepileptic drugs have biopharmaceutical and pharmacokinetic properties inducing high levels of intraindividual variability, which can cause problems. According to the French drug agency (AFSSAPS), however, a link between epileptic attacks and treatment with generic drugs has not been established. The economic evaluation of generics should go beyond the simple comparison of the sales price, especially for drugs with a narrow therapeutic range for which therapeutic drug monitoring (plasma assays) can be used.
Le Corre
Pascal
P
Laboratoire de pharmacie galénique, biopharmacie et pharmacie clinique, Faculté de pharmacie, Université de Rennes 1, F-35043 Rennes Cedex, France; Pôle Pharmaceutique, CHRU de Rennes, F-35033 Rennes, France. pascal.le-corre@univ-rennes1.fr
D000927:Anticonvulsants / Q000097:blood / Q000191:economics / Q000493:pharmacokinetics / Q000600:supply & distribution; D019540:Area Under Curve; D002985:Clinical Protocols; D016903:Drug Monitoring; D011307:Drug Prescriptions; D016568:Drugs, Generic / Q000191:economics / Q000493:pharmacokinetics* / Q000600:supply & distribution; D017850:Economics, Pharmaceutical; D005602:France; D006801:Humans; D008508:Medication Errors / Q000517:prevention & control; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D012449:Safety; D013810:Therapeutic Equivalency
D000927:Anticonvulsants; D016568:Drugs, Generic