Generic antiepileptic drugs: current controversies and future directions

Correlation between prescription volumes of generic antiepileptic drugs and the number of clinical epileptologists across prefectural regions in Japan: A descriptive study using a national claims database

PURPOSE

Although generic drugs are essential in reducing medical costs, their use in epilepsy therapy remains a subject of ongoing debate. In this study, we analysed prescription trends of generic drugs using data from the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups (NDB) Open Data Japan.

METHODS

The number of generic drug prescriptions from 2017-2021 was extracted from the NDB Open Data Japan, with data for each medication stratified by prefectural region, sex, and age, allowing for the analysis of the impact of each factor. We analysed the correlation between the prescription volumes of generic antiseizure medications (ASMs) and the number of clinical epileptologists registered with the Japan Epilepsy Society per 100,000 population.

RESULTS

In 2021, the prescription volume of generic ASMs was 49 %, whereas that for other pharmacological agents was between 70-80 %. Notably, for children < 15 years of age, generics made up approximately 20 % of prescriptions, which was significantly less than that in other age groups. Analysis by prefecture revealed a negative correlation between prescription volumes of ASMs and the number of clinical epileptologists across prefectural regions in Japan (R = -0.47, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that the higher the proportion of clinical epileptologists in each prefecture, the lower the number of prescribed generic ASMs. Clinical epileptologists in Japan therefore prescribe antiseizure agents in accordance with the Japanese epilepsy treatment guidelines that do not recommend the use of generic agents.

Effects of Valproic Acid Supply Shortage on Pharmacy Operations in a Region of Japan

Introduction Valproic Acid (VPA) is an essential drug in epilepsy treatment, yet it has faced supply instability in Japan. The extent of the VPA shortage and the associated increase in pharmacists' workload and collaboration with healthcare organizations remains unclear. This study investigates the potential effects of these disruptions on the roles of pharmacists. Methods A questionnaire was administered to pharmacies in Hachioji City, Japan. The survey addressed inventory management, patient complaints, and the potential effects on pharmacy operations during VPA supply instability. A chi-squared test of independence was conducted to compare the most unstable VPA supply period with the current supply situation. Supply stability according to pharmacy characteristics such as the number of prescriptions received per day and primary patient age group was also evaluated. Results Of the 42 pharmacies surveyed, 76.2% reported changes in prescription processing due to VPA supply issues. The main challenges were increased workload in inventory management and patient concerns regarding medication availability and quality. Pharmacies primarily serving clinical prescriptions and pediatric patients were the most affected by the supply instability. Discussion This study highlighted the potential effects of VPA supply instability on pharmacy operations. Pharmacists are expected to provide continuous treatment to patients through effective counseling and medication guidance to alleviate anxiety and concerns related to supply shortages.

The impact of the Sri Lankan economic crisis on medication adherence: An online cross-sectional survey

Background

The economic crisis in Sri Lanka has disarrayed the country's healthcare services, posing a challenge to people with chronic diseases on routine care. This study investigated the changes in medication adherence during the economic crisis.

Methods

A web-based cross-sectional survey was undertaken in July-August 2022. It assessed socio-demographics, diseases, medication adherence, and reasons for changes in compliance of respondents and their family members during the economic crisis. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used.

Findings

A total of 1214 respondents, aged ≥18 years were included in the survey. The majority were females (60%). The main finding was that 39%, 41%, and 37% of participants, their family members, or children respectively have changed medication use during the crisis. Among those who changed their medication practices, the most significant change was the change in the brand, reported by 44.7% of the respondents. A similar pattern was observed among other family members, with 61.3% of adults and 53.8% of children switching brands. Respondents who lived outside the Colombo district had a significantly increased risk of changing medication (OR = 1.425, 95% CI = 1.020-1.992, P = 0.038). Respondents with monthly incomes of less than 100,000 LKR had a twofold greater risk of medication nonadherence compared to participants who earned more than 100,000 LKR per month (OR = 2.278, 95% CI = 1.37-3.78, P = 0.001). The most stated reason for changing medication among adults was the high cost of drugs, whereas among, children, the lack of access to drugs in the public or private sector was the leading cause of non-compliance.

Interpretation

The population's adherence to medication is negatively impacted by the economic crisis in Sri Lanka.

Effects of generic exchange of solid oral dosage forms in neurological disorders: a systematic review

Background Generic drug exchange is common practice in most healthcare systems. While generics certainly contribute to economic savings, the altered drug formulation might be associated with potential therapeutic problems. Given the narrow therapeutic windows in neurologic indications, any detrimental effect on the therapy can lead to significant consequences. Aim of the review This review aims to investigate potential problems related to a switch from brand-name to generic or from generic to generic drug products in patients with neurologic diseases. Method The review was conducted following the PICO framework and the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched for articles published in English and German language between January 1, 1995 and October 17, 2018. Studies included in this review were randomized controlled studies, reviews, systematic reviews, overviews, cohort studies and case-control studies. Studies excluded were letters, comments, authors view, congress or seminar papers and studies with a focus on economic impact or costs. Results were synthesized qualitatively. The primary outcomes were pharmacokinetic parameters such as the area under the curve (AUC), the peak serum concentration (c_max) or the time at which c_max is observed (t_max). Results The search identified 67 studies with a great variety of endpoints and study designs. The leading indication was epilepsy. Two small RCTs were found on lamotrigine switch. Analysis of the other studies found no significant differences in pharmacokinetic parameters when switching to generic drugs. A more heterogeneous picture was revealed regarding hospitalizations, breakthrough seizures, failure of therapy, adherence and patient concerns. Conclusion While most reports were of poor quality, lamotrigine was the drug with the best available data. Summarizing the results of the available studies, pharmacokinetic parameters of antiepileptic drugs show low deviation. In contrast, data on clinical parameters are less consistent. Some studies found increased seizure frequencies and adverse-drug events, while others showed no complications. Adherence and patient satisfaction seemed to be impaired. In daily practice, generic exchange in epilepsy should be a carefully balanced decision, conducted with great caution. Further research is needed, especially regarding neurologic indications other than epilepsy.

[In vitro equivalence evaluation of betahistine generic medicinal products as a tool potentially determining the efficacy of pharmacotherapy]

AIM

To compare release parameters of various betahistine drugs in vitro using a comparative dissolution kinetics test.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Objects of research are solid dosage forms (tablets) containing betahistine in a dose of 24 mg permitted for medical use in the Russian Federation. A method of comparative dissolution kinetics test was carried out as follows. The study was performed on a paddle stirrer at a speed of 50 rpm in three different pH dissolution media (pH 1.2, 4.5, 6.8), simulating the main sections of the digestive tract in which the active ingredient was decomposed, released and absorbed. This was performed in a quality controlled environment using a citrate buffer solution with pH 6.8. The time points for sampling the medium were 10 min, 15 min, 20 min and 30 min.

RESULTS

The results of betahistine release were significant (RSD<10%) for all time points, except the first time point (RSD<20%). Regardless of pH, there was a complete release (≥85% over 15 minutes, <10%) of betahistine from betaserc, 24 mg, tablets (manufactured by Mylan Laboratories SAS). The dissolution profiles of betahistine in other investigational drugs did not show complete drug release (parameter <85% in 15 minutes, <10%) in different pH media. Therefore, dissolution profiles of the studied drugs were not comparable to the reference profile.

CONCLUSION

Starting from 10 minutes, the reference drug of betahistine (betaserc, 24 mg) has a consistently higher release at different pH levels (representing the various stages of gastric digestion), vs. other studied generic analogues showing significantly lower levels of betahistine release. None of the studied drugs were found to be equivalent in vitro.

Nonbioequivalent prescription drug interchangeability, concerns on patient safety and drug market dynamics in Brazil

Since the enforcement of Generics Act (1999), three types of pharmaceutically equivalent products are marketed in Brazil: innovative reference (REF), "similar" (S) and generic (G) drugs. The S (brand name) and G (generic name) borrow from REF (brand name) clinical data on safety and efficacy and dosage regimen. G (but not S) is bioequivalent to and interchangeable with REF. Starting in 2003, Brazilian Sanitary Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) has required data on relative bioavailability tests (with REF) to approve (or renew registration of) S drugs. In 2014, Anvisa extended interchangeability notion to similar drugs with a "comparable" bioavailability, i.e., an "equivalent" similar drug (EQ). Drugs for chronic diseases and "critical dose medicines" are listed among the EQ drugs approved. Interchangeability of nonbioequivalent medicines raises deep concerns regarding therapeutic failures and adverse events. Concerns are even more worrisome if patients switch from one drug to another during an ongoing treatment for illnesses such as epilepsy, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes and/or substitutable drugs have a narrow therapeutic index.

Comparison of brand versus generic antiepileptic drug adverse event reporting rates in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS)

OBJECTIVE

Despite the cost saving role of generic anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs), debate exists as to whether generic substitution of branded AEDs may lead to therapeutic failure and increased toxicity. This study compared adverse event (AE) reporting rates for brand vs. authorized generic (AG) vs. generic AEDs. Since AGs are pharmaceutically identical to brand but perceived as generics, the generic vs. AG comparison minimized potential bias against generics.

METHODS

Events reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System between January 2004 to March 2015 with lamotrigine, carbamazepine, and oxcarbazepine listed as primary or secondary suspect were classified as brand, generic, or AG based on the manufacturer. Disproportionality analyses using the reporting odds ratio (ROR) assessed the relative rate of reporting of labeled AEs compared to reporting these events with all other drugs. The Breslow-Day statistic compared RORs across brand, AG, and other generics using a Bonferroni-corrected P<0.01.

RESULTS

A total of 27,150 events with lamotrigine, 13,950 events with carbamazepine, and 5077 events with oxcarbazepine were reported, with generics accounting for 27%, 41%, and 32% of reports, respectively. Although RORs for the majority of known AEs were different between brand and generics for all three drugs of interest (Breslow-Day P<0.001), RORs generally were similar for AG and generic comparisons. Generic lamotrigine and carbamazepine were more commonly involved in reports of suicide or suicidal ideation compared with the respective AGs based on a multiple comparison-adjusted P<0.01.

SIGNIFICANCE

Similar AED reporting rates were observed for the AG and generic comparisons for most outcomes and drugs, suggesting that brands and generics have similar reporting rates after accounting for generic perception biases. Disproportional suicide reporting was observed for generics compared with AGs and brand, although this finding needs further study.

On assessing bioequivalence and interchangeability between generics based on indirect comparisons

As more and more generics become available in the market place, the safety/efficacy concerns may arise as the result of interchangeably use of approved generics. However, bioequivalence assessment for regulatory approval among generics of the innovative drug product is not required. In practice, approved generics are often used interchangeably without any mechanism of safety monitoring. In this article, based on indirect comparisons, we proposed several methods to assessing bioequivalence and interchangeability between generics. The applicability of the methods and the similarity assumptions were discussed, as well as the inappropriateness of directly adopting adjusted indirect comparison to the field of generics' comparison. Besides, some extensions were given to take into consideration the important topics in clinical trials for bioequivalence assessments, for example, multiple comparisons and simultaneously testing bioequivalence among three generics. Extensive simulation studies were conducted to investigate the performances of the proposed methods. The studies of malaria generics and HIV/AIDS generics prequalified by the WHO were used as real examples to demonstrate the use of the methods. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Generic-to-generic lamotrigine switches in people with epilepsy: the randomised controlled EQUIGEN trial

BACKGROUND

Patients and clinicians share concerns that generic drug substitution might lead to loss of efficacy or emergence of adverse events. In this trial, we assessed US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bioequivalence standards by studying the effects of switching between two disparate generic immediate-release lamotrigine products in patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

The Equivalence among Generic Antiepileptic Drugs (EQUIGEN) chronic-dose study was a randomised, double-blind, crossover study that enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with epilepsy from six epilepsy centres at academic institutions across the USA who were receiving immediate-release lamotrigine dosed at 100 mg, 200 mg, 300 mg, or 400 mg twice daily. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to one of two treatment sequences (sequence 1 or sequence 2), comprising four study periods of 14 days each. During each 14-day treatment period, patients received balanced doses of an oral generic lamotrigine product every 12 h (200-800 mg total, identical to lamotrigine dose prior to study enrolment); after each 14-day period, patients were crossed over to receive the other generic product. Computer-based randomisation was done using random permuted blocks of size two or four for each site to prevent sequence predictability. Both patients and study personnel were masked to the generic products selected, their predicted exposure (ie, "high" vs "low"), and their group allocation. The primary outcome of this trial was bioequivalence between the generic products, which was assessed at the end of the study through a comparison of maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) for each product in the analysis population (all patients who completed all four treatment periods). Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CIs of the ratios of these two parameters for the two products were within equivalence limits (80-125%) in the analysis population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov\, number NCT01713777.

FINDINGS

Between April 25, 2013, and Aug 12, 2014, 35 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment sequence 1 (n=15) or treatment sequence 2 (n=20). 33 patients completed all four treatment periods and were included in the primary outcome analysis. The 90% CIs of the ratios of both Cmax and AUC were within equivalence limits (AUC 90% CI 98-103, Cmax 90% CI 99-105), showing that lamotrigine exposures were equivalent between the generic products. No significant changes in seizure frequency or adverse events were recorded. No deaths, study-related serious adverse events, or changes in clinical laboratory values or vital signs occurred during this study.

INTERPRETATION

Disparate generic lamotrigine products in patients with epilepsy showed bioequivalence with no detectable difference in clinical effects, confirming that US Food and Drug Administration bioequivalence standards are appropriate.

FUNDING

American Epilepsy Society, Epilepsy Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration.

Generic products of antiepileptic drugs: a perspective on bioequivalence, bioavailability, and formulation switches using Monte Carlo simulations

INTRODUCTION

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.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to provide enlightenment on issues of bioequivalence (BE) and interchangeability of AED products.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

DISCUSSION

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Safety and efficacy of generic drugs with respect to brand formulation

Generic drugs are equivalent to the brand formulation if they have the same active substance, the same pharmaceutical form and the same therapeutic indications and a similar bioequivalence respect to the reference medicinal product. The use of generic drugs is indicated from many countries in order to reduce medication price. However some points, such as bioequivalence and the role of excipients, may be clarified regarding the clinical efficacy and safety during the switch from brand to generic formulations. In conclusion, the use of generic drugs could be related with an increased days of disease (time to relapse) or might lead to a therapeutic failure; on the other hand, a higher drug concentration might expose patients to an increased risk of dose-dependent side-effects.

Is switching from brand name to generic formulations of phenobarbital associated with loss of antiepileptic efficacy?: a pharmacokinetic study with two oral formulations (Luminal(®) vet, Phenoleptil(®)) in dogs

Background

In human medicine, adverse outcomes associated with switching between bioequivalent brand name and generic antiepileptic drug products is a subject of concern among clinicians. In veterinary medicine, epilepsy in dogs is usually treated with phenobarbital, either with the standard brand name formulation Luminal® or the veterinary products Luminal® vet and the generic formulation Phenoleptil®. Luminal® and Luminal® vet are identical 100 mg tablet formulations, while Phenoleptil® is available in the form of 12.5 and 50 mg tablets. Following approval of Phenoleptil® for treatment of canine epilepsy, it was repeatedly reported by clinicians and dog owners that switching from Luminal® (human tablets) to Phenoleptil® in epileptic dogs, which were controlled by treatment with Luminal®, induced recurrence of seizures. In the present study, we compared bioavailability of phenobarbital after single dose administration of Luminal® vet vs. Phenoleptil® with a crossover design in 8 healthy Beagle dogs. Both drugs were administered at a dose of 100 mg/dog, resulting in 8 mg/kg phenobarbital on average.

Results

Peak plasma concentrations (C_max) following Luminal® vet vs. Phenoleptil® were about the same in most dogs (10.9 ± 0.92 vs. 10.5 ± 0.77 μg/ml), and only one dog showed noticeable lower concentrations after Phenoleptil® vs. Luminal® vet. Elimination half-life was about 50 h (50.3 ± 3.1 vs. 52.9 ± 2.8 h) without differences between the formulations. The relative bioavailability of the two products (Phenoleptil® vs. Luminal® vet.) was 0.98 ± 0.031, indicating that both formulations resulted in about the same bioavailability.

Conclusions

Overall, the two formulations did not differ significantly with respect to pharmacokinetic parameters when mean group parameters were compared. Thus, the reasons for the anecdotal reports, if true, that switching from the brand to the generic formulation of phenobarbital may lead to recurrence of seizures are obviously not related to a generally lower bioavailability of the generic formulation, although single dogs may exhibit lower plasma levels after the generic formulation that could be clinically meaningful.

Comparative plasma exposure and lung distribution of two human use commercial azithromycin formulations assessed in murine model: a preclinical study

Azithromycin (AZM) therapeutic failure and relapses of patients treated with generic formulations have been observed in clinical practice. The main goal of this research was to compare in a preclinical study the serum exposure and lung tissue concentration of two commercial formulations AZM-based in murine model. The current study involved 264 healthy Balb-C. Mice were divided into two groups (n = 44): animals of Group A (reference formulation -R-) were orally treated with AZM suspension at 10 mg/kg of b.w. Experimental animals of Group B (generic formulation -G-) received identical treatment than Group A with a generic formulation AZM-based. The study was repeated twice as Phase II and III. Serum and lung tissue samples were taken 24 h post treatment. Validated microbiological assay was used to determine the serum pharmacokinetic and lung distribution of AZM. After the pharmacokinetic analysis was observed, a similar serum exposure for both formulations of AZM assayed. In contrast, statistical differences (P < 0.001) were obtained after comparing the concentrations of both formulations in lung tissue, being the values obtained for AUC and Cmax (AZM-R-) +1586 and 122%, respectively, than those obtained for AZM-G- in lung. These differences may indicate large differences on the distribution process of both formulations, which may explain the lack of efficacy/therapeutic failure observed on clinical practice.

Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs: What's a clinician to do?

Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs remains a controversial area without a clear consensus to guide clinicians. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires rigorous testing of generic products and states that all approved products are interchangeable. FDA studies involve single doses in normal subjects so may not represent the performance of generic products in people with epilepsy. Physician surveys, case reports, and retrospective pharmacy database analyses suggest that antiepileptic drug generic substitution is associated with more health problems and high switchback rates, but these studies have insufficient detail on seizure control and blood levels. Several ongoing prospective randomized trials with rigorous pharmacokinetic methods aim to provide more data for decision-making.

A review of the differences and similarities between generic drugs and their originator counterparts, including economic benefits associated with usage of generic medicines, using Ireland as a case study

Generic medicines are those where patent protection has expired, and which may be produced by manufacturers other than the innovator company. Use of generic medicines has been increasing in recent years, primarily as a cost saving measure in healthcare provision. Generic medicines are typically 20 to 90% cheaper than originator equivalents. Our objective is to provide a high-level description of what generic medicines are and how they differ, at a regulatory and legislative level, from originator medicines. We describe the current and historical regulation of medicines in the world's two main pharmaceutical markets, in addition to the similarities, as well as the differences, between generics and their originator equivalents including the reasons for the cost differences seen between originator and generic medicines. Ireland is currently poised to introduce generic substitution and reference pricing. This article refers to this situation as an exemplar of a national system on the cusp of significant health policy change, and specifically details Ireland's history with usage of generic medicines and how the proposed changes could affect healthcare provision.

Generic substitution of lamotrigine among medicaid patients with diverse indications: a cohort-crossover study

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists about the safety of substituting generic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Lamotrigine, the prototypical newer AED, is often used for psychiatric and neurological conditions other than epilepsy. The safety of generic substitution of lamotrigine in diverse populations of AED users is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate potential associations between generic substitution of lamotrigine and adverse consequences in a population of diverse users of this drug.

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a retrospective cohort-crossover design using state Medicaid claims data from July 2006 through June 2009.

METHODS

Subjects were included in the cohort if they converted from brand to generic lamotrigine and had 2 years of lamotrigine use prior to conversion. The frequency of emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations and condition-specific ED visits or hospitalizations were recorded in the 60 days immediately following the conversion to generic lamotrigine, then compared with the incidence of the same events during a randomly selected time period indexed to one of the patient's past refills of branded lamotrigine. Multivariate conditional logistic regression was used to quantify the association between generic conversion and health services utilization while controlling for changes in lamotrigine dose and concurrent drug use.

RESULTS

Of the 616 unique subjects included in this analysis, epilepsy was the most common diagnosis (41%), followed by bipolar disorder (32%), pain (30%) and migraine (18%). Conversion to generic lamotrigine was not associated with a statistically significant increase in the odds of an ED visit (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92, 1.97), hospitalization (AOR = 1.21; 95% CI 0.60, 2.50) or condition-specific encounter (AOR 1.75; 95 CI 0.87, 3.51).

CONCLUSIONS

A statistically significant increase in ED visits, hospitalizations or condition-specific encounters was not observed following the switch from brand to generic lamotrigine, although a type II error cannot be ruled out.

The economic pressures for biosimilar drug use in cancer medicine

The main rationale for using biosimilar drugs is for cost saving. The market development for biosimilar drugs will therefore depend on the degree to which cost saving measures are required by nations, medical insurers and individuals and the absolute savings that could be gained by switching from original drugs. This paper is designed to discover the degree to which financial constraints will drive future health spending and to discover if legal or safety issues could impact on any trend. A structured literature search was performed for papers and documents to 27 August 2011. Where multiple sources of data were available on a topic, data from papers and reports by multinational or national bodies were used in preference to data from regions or individual hospitals. Almost all health systems face current significant cost pressures. The twin driver of increasing cancer prevalence as populations age and cancer medicine costs rising faster than inflation places oncology as the most significant single cost problem. For some countries, this is predicted to make medicine unaffordable within a decade. Most developed countries have planned to embrace biosimilar use as a cost-control measure. Biosimilar introduction into the EU has already forced prices down, both the price of biosimilar drugs and competitive price reductions in originator drugs. Compound annual growth rates of use have been predicted at 65.8% per year. Most developed countries have planned to embrace biosimilar use as a major cost-control measure. Only legal blocks and safety concerns are likely to act against this trend. For centralised healthcare systems, and those with a strong tradition of generic medicine use, biosimilar use will clearly rise with predictions of more than 80% of prescriptions of some biologic drugs within 1 year of market entry in the USA. Delaying the implementation of such programmes however risks a real crisis in healthcare delivery for many countries and hospitals that few can now afford.

Economic burden associated with the use of generic antiepileptic drugs in the United States

This study quantifies the economic burden associated with generic-versus-branded use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the United States. Adult patients with epilepsy receiving carbamazepine, gabapentin, phenytoin, primidone, or zonisamide were selected from the PharMetrics database. By use of an open-cohort design, patients were classified into mutually exclusive periods of generic-versus-branded AED use. Annualized cost differences (CDs) between periods were estimated using multivariate regressions. Results were stratified into stable versus unstable epilepsy and newer-generation versus older-generation AEDs. A total of 33,625 patients (52% male, mean age=51 years) were observed. Periods of generic AED treatment were associated with higher medical service costs (adjusted CD [95% CI]=$3186 [$2359; $4012]), stable pharmacy costs ($69 [$-34; $171]), and greater total costs ($3254 [$2403; $4105]) versus brand use. Epilepsy-related costs represented 30% of incremental costs. Similar findings were observed for patients with stable and unstable epilepsy and users of newer-generation and older-generation AEDs. Significantly higher health care costs were observed during generic AED use across seizure control and AED subgroups.

Generic products of antiepileptic drugs: a perspective on bioequivalence and interchangeability

Most antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are currently available as generic products, yet neurologists and patients are reluctant to switch to generics. Generic AEDs are regarded as bioequivalent to brand AEDs after meeting the average bioequivalence criteria; consequently, they are considered to be interchangeable with their respective brands without loss of efficacy and safety. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the present bioequivalence requirements are already so rigorous and constrained that there is little possibility that generics that meet regulatory bioequivalence criteria could lead to therapeutic problems. So is there a scientific rationale for the concerns about switching patients with epilepsy to bioequivalent generics? Herein we discuss the assessment of bioequivalence and propose a scaled-average bioequivalence approach where scaling of bioequivalence is carried out based on brand lot-to-lot variance as an alternative to the conventional bioequivalence test as a means to determine whether switching patients to generic formulations, or vice versa, is a safe and effective therapeutic option. Meeting the proposed scaled-average bioequivalence requirements will ensure that when an individual patient is switched, he or she has fluctuations in plasma levels similar to those from lot-to-lot of the brand reference levels and thus should make these generic products safely switchable without change in efficacy and safety outcomes.

Generic substitution for psychotropic drugs

Most antidepressants and other psychotropics in clinical use are available as generic formulations (Table). The availability of lower-priced, generic drugs can benefit patients and third-party payers, but it should not be assumed that all generic drugs are equally beneficial. There are numerous reports in the literature of unexpected and untoward consequences that occur when a generic drug is substituted for the original brand-name drug. A previously stable clinical response may suddenly deteriorate, or the patient may experience new or more severe adverse events (AEs). The United States Food and Drug Administration requires that manufacturers of generic drugs demonstrate that their formulation has pharmacokinetic properties similar (or bioequivalent) to the brand-name drug. Bioequivalency studies are conducted in healthy volunteers, not in patients who would be treated with that drug. Moreover, bioequivalency studies are conducted on a current lot of the branded drug and do not account for variability between lots of the generic formulation. The manufacturer is only required to submit bioequivalency data that support the Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA); the FDA does not require disclosure of failed bioequivalence studies. Unlike brand-name drugs, lengthy and costly clinical studies are not required to show that the generic drug is effective and safe.

Although the FDA has taken the position that bioequivalence and therapeutic equivalence are equal, many questions related to the use of generic drugs remain unanswered. The following question-and-answer session is an excerpt of an interview with Pierre Blier, MD, PhD, conducted by Diane Sloan, PharmD, which addresses the issue of generic substitution of psychotropic drugs.

Understanding patients' perspective in the use of generic antiepileptic drugs: compelling lessons for physicians to improve physician/patient communication

Background

Epilepsy is a condition in which consistency of treatment is paramount to successful management and for most patients, effective seizure control can be achieved. Given the severe consequences of even a single breakthrough seizure, patients should be afforded every opportunity to succeed on their given regimens.

Discussion

Some experts argue that global policy on generic antiepileptic drug substitution in epilepsy should be limited – occurring at the discretion of and with careful monitoring by the physician. While the debate continues, physicians still have daily responsibilities to their patients to help them best manage their epilepsy within the context of the current environment – the reality of which may involve switching to a generic antiepileptic drug or navigating various formulations between generics.

Summary

To provide context, this paper first reviews the main "hot button" issues fueling the ongoing generic debate, including a broad overview of the current state of the literature. The main goal however is to provide physicians with a patient perspective on generic antiepileptic drug use in epilepsy as a source of clinically useful, everyday advice to improve communication and increase patient self-advocacy, both of which are necessary for optimal patient outcome.