Comparison of effects of two different formulations of clopidogrel bisulfate tablets on platelet aggregation and bleeding time in healthy Korean volunteers: A single-dose, randomized, open-label, 1-week, two-period, phase IV crossover study

Can Generic Medications Be a Safe and Effective Alternative to Brand-Name Drugs for Cardiovascular Disease Treatment? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in most of the world. Previous meta-analyses of generic drugs for the treatment of cardiovascular disease have not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the true efficacy and safety of the drugs. Subsequently, concern exists regarding whether the use of generic drugs can fully substitute brand-name drugs in clinical treatment. To enhance the evidence for generic drugs, this meta-analysis compares the actual effectiveness of generic drugs with brand-name drugs in preventing and treating cardiovascular diseases. This study aimed to resolve the controversy over whether generic drugs in cardiovascular disease can replace brand-name drugs, fully evaluating the best evidence on the clinical equivalence of generic drugs.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched. The search period included articles published before December 2023. Studies on generic and branded cardiovascular drugs were collected, and two independent reviewers screened eligibility, extracted study data, and assessed the risk of bias. Safety outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events and other adverse events. Efficacy outcomes included relevant vital signs (e.g., blood pressure, heart rate, urine volume) and laboratory measures (e.g., international normalized ratio, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, platelet aggregation inhibition). A meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted using the Rev Man software.

Results

A total of 4238 studies were retrieved, and 87 studies (n = 2,303,818) were included in the qualitative analysis. There were 57 quantitatively assessed studies (n = 560,553), including angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, antithrombotic drugs (anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents), diuretics, statins, and other classes of cardiovascular medications. Regarding clinical safety, 19 studies assessed the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (n = 384,640), and 35 reported secondary adverse events (n = 580,125). In addition to the MACEs for statins (risk ratio (RR) 1.13 [1.05, 1.21]) and adverse events (AEs) for calcium channel blockers (RR 0.90 [0.88, 0.91]), there were no significant differences in the overall risk of MACEs (RR = 1.02 [0.90, 1.15]) and minor adverse events (RR = 0.98 [0.91, 1.05]) between generic and brand-name cardiovascular drugs. In terms of effectiveness, there were no significant differences observed between the two groups in blood pressure (BP), platelet aggregation inhibition (PAI), international normalized ratio (INR), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and urinary sodium levels. Subgroup analyses for the region, study design, duration of follow-up, and grant funding revealed no significant differences in the risk of MACEs. However, the risk of AE was significantly higher in the Asian region for brand-name cardiovascular drugs than for generics. There was no statistically significant difference in risk between generic and brand-name drugs in the remaining subgroup analyses.

Conclusions

Cardiovascular drugs encompass many types; a minority of generic and brand-name drugs have discrepancies. Given the overall development trend of multi-manufacturer generic drugs in the future, this study provides a strong basis for the global application of generic drugs. The feasibility of generic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety in cardiovascular diseases is clarified. However, some drugs still need to be improved to replace the original drugs used in clinical practice completely. Therefore, large-sample, multicenter, high-quality studies are still required to guide the clinical use of cardiovascular drugs.

The PROSPERO registration

CRD42023481597, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023481597.

Salts of Clopidogrel: Investigation to Ensure Clinical Equivalence: A 12-Month Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

In the present clinical trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of the generic clopidogrel besylate (CB) with the innovator clopidogrel hydrogen sulfate (CHS) salt in patients eligible to receive clopidogrel.

METHODS

A prospective 2-arm, multicenter, open-label, phase 4 clinical trial. Consecutive patients (n = 1864) were screened and 1800 were enrolled in the trial and randomized to CHS or CB. Primary efficacy end point was the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from vascular causes, and primary safety end point was rate of bleeding events as defined by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria.

RESULTS

At 12-month follow-up, no differences were observed between CB (n = 759) and CHS (n = 798) in primary efficacy and safety end points (age, sex, history of percutaneous coronary intervention adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-1.21 and OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.51-1.29, respectively) between CHS and CB. Analyses of efficacy and safety in subgroups that were defined according to the qualifying diagnosis revealed that there was no difference between CHS and CB.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of CB administered for 12 months for the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events are similar to that of CHS. (Salts of Clopidogrel: Investigation to ENsure Clinical Equivalence, SCIENCE trial; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02126982).

Generic versus brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular diseases

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse events, either serious or mild/moderate, of all generic versus brand-name cardiovascular medicines. We searched randomized trials in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov (last update December 1, 2014). Attempts were made to contact the investigators of all potentially eligible trials. Two investigators independently extracted and analyzed soft (including systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and others) and hard efficacy outcomes (including major cardiovascular adverse events and death), minor/moderate and serious adverse events. We included 74 randomized trials; 53 reported ≥1 efficacy outcome (overall sample 3051), 32 measured mild/moderate adverse events (n = 2407), and 51 evaluated serious adverse events (n = 2892). We included trials assessing ACE inhibitors (n = 12), anticoagulants (n = 5), antiplatelet agents (n = 17), beta-blockers (n = 11), calcium channel blockers (n = 7); diuretics (n = 13); statins (n = 6); and others (n = 3). For both soft and hard efficacy outcomes, 100 % of the trials showed non-significant differences between generic and brand-name drugs. The aggregate effect size was 0.01 (95 % CI -0.05; 0.08) for soft outcomes; -0.06 (-0.71; 0.59) for hard outcomes. All but two trials showed non-significant differences in mild/moderate adverse events, and aggregate effect size was 0.07 (-0.06; 0.20). Comparable results were observed for each drug class and in each stratified meta-analysis. Overall, 8 serious possibly drug-related adverse events were reported: 5/2074 subjects on generics; 3/2076 subjects on brand-name drugs (OR 1.69; 95 % CI 0.40-7.20). This meta-analysis strengthens the evidence for clinical equivalence between brand-name and generic cardiovascular drugs. Physicians could be reassured about prescribing generic cardiovascular drugs, and health care organization about endorsing their wider use.

Point-of-care measurements of platelet inhibition after clopidogrel loading in patients with acute coronary syndrome: comparison of generic and branded clopidogrel bisulfate

PURPOSE

Platelet-function suppression with antiplatelet therapy is effective in preventing and treating cardiovascular disease. Clopidogrel is a thienopyridine derivative that blocks platelet activation by adenosine diphosphate receptor binding. This study demonstrates the effects of generic clopidogrel bisulfate in comparison to branded clopidogrel bisulfate in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

METHODS

This prospective, 2-arm, single-center, open-label trial used 1:1 randomization to assign patients to receive generic or branded clopidogrel bisulfate. Patients with unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and scheduled to undergo coronary angiography were enrolled. Platelet function was measured with a P2Y12 assay and reported in P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) and aspirin reaction units (ARU) after randomization. Platelet function was measured at 2, 4, 8, and 24 hours after 600-mg clopidogrel loading. The clinical outcome was checked at 1 month after coronary angiography.

FINDINGS

Ninety-five patients were enrolled and randomized to the generic or branded group. Ninety patients (62 men [69%], 28 women [31%]; mean age, 58 years) completed the study protocol. The clinical characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. The difference in the baseline PRU measurements between the generic and branded groups was not significant (274.8 [59.7] vs 285.4 [62.4], respectively; P = 0.414). There were significant differences in 2-hour PRU (231.1 [71.3] vs 266.9 [67.4]; P = 0.017) and 4-hour PRU (227.3 [80.4] vs 265.7 [71.0]; P = 0.020); however, 24-hour PRU (200.5 [82.1] vs 220.6 [75.8]; P = 0.253) was similar. No death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis, or Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction-defined major bleeding complications were reported during in-hospital stay or 1-month follow-up.

IMPLICATION

In patients with ACS, loading of generic clopidogrel bisulfate was associated with an antiplatelet effect comparable to that of branded clopidogrel bisulfate. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02060786.

Switching from generic to brand clopidogrel in male patients after ST-elevated myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE

To detect residual platelet aggregation following the switch from generic (GC) to brand clopidogrel (BC) in male patients after ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS

The study was designed as an open-label, prospective cohort trial. Thirty-three male STEMI patients were enrolled. All patients received dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin (100 mg/daily) and one of six GC at a daily dose of 75 mg. After 2 weeks, all patients were switched to BC. Adrenaline- and adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-induced platelet aggregation was assessed twice: on day 14 (before the switch) and on day 21 (after 1 week of BC therapy).

RESULTS

Adrenaline-induced platelet aggregation did not differ among clopidogrel formulations. In contrast, residual 5 µM ADP-induced platelet aggregation after BC differs from GC by 14% (28.0 ± 2.5 vs. 23.9 ± 2.1%; p = 0.03). When 20 µM ADP was used as agonist, the difference was smaller (36.2 ± 2.9 vs. 34.6 ± 2.8%) but still significant (p = 0.04) favoring BC.

CONCLUSIONS

After 2 weeks of therapy, switching from GC to BC was associated with a mild but significant reduction in ADP-induced platelet aggregation in male post-STEMI patients. The observed differences between GC and BC should be confirmed in a larger randomized study, but may represent a risk in underdeveloped countries, where GC therapy is mandatory for post-MI inpatients.

Comparison of a solid SMEDDS and solid dispersion for enhanced stability and bioavailability of clopidogrel napadisilate

The intention of this study was to compare the physicochemical properties, stability and bioavailability of a clopidogrel napadisilate (CN)-loaded solid dispersion (SD) and solid self-microemulsifying drug delivery system (solid SMEDDS). SD was prepared by a surface attached method using different ratios of Cremophor RH60 (surfactant) and HPMC (polymer), optimized based on their drug solubility. Liquid SMEDDS was composed of oil (peceol), a surfactant (Cremophor RH60) and a co-surfactant (Transcutol HP). A pseudo-ternary phase diagram was constructed to identify the emulsifying domain, and the optimized liquid SMEDDS was spray dried with an inert solid carrier (silicon dioxide), producing the solid SMEDDS. The physicochemical properties, solubility, dissolution, stability and pharmacokinetics were assessed and compared to clopidogrel napadisilate (CN) and bisulfate (CB) powders. In solid SMEDDS, liquid SMEDDS was absorbed or coated inside the pores of silicon dioxide. In SD, hydrophilic polymer and surfactants were adhered onto drug surface. The drug was in crystalline and molecularly dispersed form in SD and solid SMEDDS, respectively. Solid SMEDDS and SD greatly increased the solubility of CN but gave lower drug solubility compared to CB powder. These preparations significantly improved the dissolution of CN, but the latter more increased than the former. Stability under accelerated condition showed that they were more stable compared to CB powder, and SD was more stable than solid SMEDDS. They significantly increased the oral bioavailability of CN powder. Furthermore, SD showed significantly improved oral bioavailability compared to solid SMEDDS and CB powder. Thus, SD with excellent stability and bioavailability is recommended as an alternative for the clopidogrel-based oral formulation.

Update: Acute coronary syndromes (V). Personalized antiplatelet therapy

It is well established that high on-treatment platelet reactivity to adenosine diphosphate during clopidogrel therapy is an independent risk factor for ischemic event occurrences in a postpercutaneous coronary intervention patients. However, the precise role of platelet function testing remains debated. Platelet function testing to ensure optimal platelet inhibition has been recommended by some authorities to improve outcomes in patients treated with clopidogrel. Recent prospective, randomized trials of personalized antiplatelet therapy have failed to demonstrate a benefit of platelet function testing in improving outcomes. In this review article, we discuss the mechanisms responsible for clopidogrel nonreponsiveness, recent trials of platelet function testing, and other new developments in the field of personalized antiplatelet therapy.

Clustering of Acute and Subacute Stent Thrombosis Related to the Introduction of Generic Clopidogrel

Introduction:

Generic clopidogrel recently became available in the United States and was rapidly adopted as a cost-effective alternative to the brand name formulation. However, unlike other medications, subtle differences in clopidogrel bioavailability may lead to acute consequences including stent thrombosis (ST).

Materials and Methods:

We studied the incidence of acute and subacute ST during the initial period of generic clopidogrel use (June 18, 2012-September 6, 2012 [80 days]) at a single percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) center. There were 4 definite ST cases within 30 days of successful PCI in patients receiving generic clopidogrel, which were compared to historic control ST cases from 80 days prior to generic clopidogrel use and for 3 years from June 18, 2009 to June 17, 2012.

Results:

During generic clopidogrel administration, 1054 PCIs were performed, giving a definite 30-day ST incidence of 0.38% (4 of 1054) among these patients. By comparison, there were 2 episodes of definite 30-day ST during the 80 days immediately preceding generic clopidogrel use (2 of 1114), while 3-year historic data indicated a definite 30-day ST incidence of 0.14% (20 of 14 432), representing a 2.7-fold increase in definite 30-day ST with generic clopidogrel use ( P = .076). Exclusion of 3 historic controls with a defined reason for ST (noncompliance, marked thrombocytosis) gave a 3.2-fold increase in 30-day ST with generic clopidogrel ( P = .050). An ST-predictive algorithm revealed no difference in the likelihood of ST between patients receiving generic clopidogrel and historic controls.

Conclusions:

We observed an unexpected >2-fold increase in ST coincident with generic clopidogrel use. Although we cannot ascribe causality, this observation warrants increased vigilance and close monitoring of patients receiving generic clopidogrel.

Branded versus generic clopidogrel in cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review

In the United States, patent for branded Plavix has recently expired. Some studies have compared branded and generic clopidogrel in terms of pharmacokinetic parameters in healthy volunteers, but data on patients and clinical outcomes are scarce. We aimed to review efficacy and safety data from studies comparing Plavix with generic clopidogrel in patients with cardiovascular disease. Electronic databases were searched (from inception to May 2012) for prospective studies evaluating branded versus generic clopidogrel in patients with cardiovascular diseases. Studies' characteristics and data estimates were retrieved. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated through a random-effects model. Three studies evaluating 760 patients were included: 2 randomized controlled trials and 1 cohort study. The RR for major cardiovascular events was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.67-1.52). Incidence of adverse events was similar between Plavix and generic (RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.49-1.48). The risks of mortality, bleeding, and drug discontinuation were also not different between groups. There are a limited number of studies comparing Plavix and generic clopidogrel in patients with cardiovascular diseases and reporting hard clinical end points. The available evidence is therefore limited and does not support the existence of differences in efficacy or safety between branded and generic clopidogrel.

A randomized crossover study comparing the antiplatelet effect of plavix versus generic clopidogrel

BACKGROUND

Clopidogrel exists in different salt formulations. All published data that have demonstrated its beneficial effect are based entirely on the hydrogen sulphate salt contained in the branded product Plavix, which had US sales of $6.1 billion in 2010 alone. A number of cheaper generic versions of clopidogrel are increasingly being used in Europe as an alternative to Plavix, mainly for cost reasons. However, there is insufficient evidence to show that their pharmacodynamic effect is equivalent to Plavix.

METHODS

This prospective study investigated whether there is any significant difference in the antiplatelet effect of Plavix versus generic clopidogrel hydrochloride in healthy male volunteers. All participants received loading and maintenance doses of both drugs, in a crossover manner, separated by a 2-week washout period. Adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-induced platelet reactivity was measured using short thrombelastography at multiple timepoints.

RESULTS

The results showed interindividual heterogeneity in responses to clopidogrel but no significant difference in ADP-induced platelet reactivity between Plavix versus generic clopidogrel hydrochloride.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest comparable inhibition of ADP-induced platelet reactivity with Plavix and generic clopidogrel hydrochloride. This observation is particularly pertinent at a time when the patent for Plavix is expected to expire in the near future leading to the large-scale switch to cheaper generic preparations.