Seed Media Group

Search this blog

Profile

cc-head-41px.jpg


Corpus Callosum is written by a psychiatrist at a small community hospital somewhere in midwestern USA. Email to cc.scienceblogger at gmail dot com.


Banner images from CNS Forums. Banner font: Ringbearer.
Wikio - Top Blogs - Sciences


Subscribe with Bloglines
Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!
Feedburner Feed


Quick Add-Feed Links...

add to My YahooSubscribe in NewsGator Online
Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader Add to My AOL
Add to PageflakesAdd to Netvibes
 Add to GoogleSubscribe in Rojo


Widgetize!
Change Congress



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial -Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll


The main blogroll has been moved to its own page, so as not to delay the opening of the main page.

Carnivals



synapsebutton.jpg

th_elogo1.jpg

Evilutionists!

tbbadge.gif

Skeptics Circle

Other Stuff


Daily Toon Click to enlarge
ANDERTOONS.COM PSYCHIATRY CARTOONSPsychiatry Cartoonsby Andertoons



Science Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory




« Encyclopedia of Life | Main | 75th Anniversary of the CCC...Something To Think About »

Are Generics Really Just As Good?

Category: MedicineScience in the Media
Posted on: March 17, 2008 8:47 AM, by Joseph j7uy5

When generic drugs started to become popular, many people were skeptical.  Many people got switched from brand name to generic products, and complained that the generic did not work as well.

These complaints often were treated with skepticism.  After all, generic drugs contain the same active ingredient(s) as the brand-name product, but cost less.  Plus, the FDA assured us that they were bioequivalent.

Over the past decade or so, public acceptance of generics has increased.  Many people want to get the generic equivalent.  But now there are questions about the validity of the testing done to ensure bioequivalence.  As reported in the LA Times:

FDA standards for generics are questioned
By Melissa Healy, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 17, 2008

In carrying out its mission to ensure that generic drugs are "the same medicine" with "the same results" as the pioneer drugs they follow, the Food and Drug Administration rigidly applies a standard of what is called "bioequivalence." Measured in laboratories and in simple, small-scale human trials, a generic must deliver the same active ingredient to the bloodstream of patients in virtually the same amount at virtually the same rate as the pioneer drug.

The FDA considers "bioequivalence" a good surrogate for "therapeutic equivalence" -- the equal ability of two drug formulations to ease symptoms or cure disease. Physicians and pharmacologists say that for some copycat drugs, showing bioequivalence to the original is not proof enough that the "same medicine" will yield "the same results."...

The authors point out that the testing done to ensure bioequivalence tends to be very limited: only a small population of persons are studied, and that population tends to be composed of young, healthy persons.  Plus, a drug is considered to be satisfactorily bioequivalent if the absorption of the drug is within 80 to 125% of the original.  

The article is pretty good, as far as it goes.  But there are some points that they fail to mention.

Often, the main differences between brand name and generic medications are matters of convenience.  The brand name product may be film-coated, making it easier to swallow, or less bitter.  They may dissolve in the mouth, making it unnecessary to swallow.  They may be slow-release preparations, allowing for fewer doses during the course of a day.  They may be enteric-coated, causing less stomach irritation.  They may have more distinctive markings, making it easier to identify, harder to mix up with another drug.  

All of those things are nice.  Some people might think the niceties are worth a higher price, while others might prefer to dispense with the niceties in favor of a lower price.  

The real controversies, though, is whether the things work, and whether they pose any safety problems.

The article quotes a researcher, Giuseppe Borgheini MD, PhD, mentioning that he wrote an article in the journal "Clinical Therapy" in 2004.  (Actually, it was published in Clinical Therapeutics, in 2003; there is no journal called "Clinical Therapy")

Specifically, l study found that plasma levels of phenytoin were 31% lower after a switch from a brand-name to a generic product. Several controlled studies of carbamazepine showed a recurrence of convulsions after the shift to a generic formulation. After a sudden recurrence of seizures when generic valproic acid was substituted for the brand-name product, an investigation by the US Food and Drug Administration found a difference in bioavailability between the 2 formulations.

For many drugs, the exact blood level is not important in most situations.  In other cases, the drug is titrated to effect, so the bioequivalence is not an issue -- assuming that the patient stays on the same formulation that was used during the titration.  

In actual usage, though, there can be a problem.  What if a person is stabilized on a formulation that happens to be absorbed to 125% of the extent of the original drug, but then switches to a different generic that is absorbed to only 80% of the original extent?  That is a pretty big difference.  It could make the difference between doing well, and relapsing.  If the switch is made the other way, a person may suddenly develop adverse effects, or outright toxicity.

Pharmacies may switch suppliers at any time.  Sometimes this is obvious, if the pills are different colors.  But if they are both, say, little round whit things, it may not be obvious.  

The take-home message for patients is that generics usually are fine, but it is good to check each time a prescription is filled, to see if the new supply is made by a different manufacturer.  If so, ask you doctor if the change might be significant.  This is true especially if the drug is one that is monitored with periodic blood levels.  Lithium is a good example.  

The other situation where it might be important is with those drugs that are not monitored with blood levels, but are monitored for their biological effects.  Thyroid medication, diabetes medication, and anticoagulants are obvious examples.  

Comments

I have encountered problems with generic meds before. Having been on antidepressants long term and having found a drug which works well with no side effects, I was given a script filled with a generic 'equivalent'. Side effects were noticeable within 24 hours and were far from pleasant. After arguing the case with my doctor and eventually getting the pharmacist to replace the script with the original brand, the side effects disappeared within a few days.

Needless to say I will only accept non-generic drugs now.

Posted by: M Gordon | March 17, 2008 9:55 AM

I've had similar experiences, and as a chemist, I'm also not buying the 'generics are automatically as good' line. Maybe so, maybe not. I have a low body weight and I tend to be sensitive to many compounds in food and drugs, and I'm convinced that the quality and type of binders/fillers can have a major effect on absorption as well as side effects, especially gastrointestinal.

Posted by: metoo | March 17, 2008 1:14 PM

Indeed my endocrinologist told me to stop taking generic thyroid hormone for all the reasons you mentioned. More people should be made aware of this.

Posted by: Gizmo | March 17, 2008 9:26 PM

It's been known for decades that for certain drugs, those for which precise levels are required for positive effects, it is dangerous to switch brands - that it is equally dangerous to switch from and to so-called 'generics'. It has also been known for decades that some individuals will suffer significant sde effects form some formulations of particular drug, and that these can be greatly reduced by switching formulations. Again, this applies whether you switch from, or to, 'generics'.

Generics permit a range of choices to physicians and their patients, and in many cases, vey significant cost savings.

Posted by: Anthony Staines | March 18, 2008 8:28 AM

Thank you for presenting this information. This is very helpful and a good thing to make people aware of.


~David D.G.

Posted by: David D.G. | March 18, 2008 2:44 PM

Maybe so, maybe not. I have a low body weight and I tend to be sensitive to many compounds in food and drugs, and I'm convinced that the quality and type of binders/fillers can have a major effect on absorption as well as side effects, especially gastrointestinal.

Posted by: youtube | March 26, 2008 11:47 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.)





Having problems commenting? (UPDATED)

Blogs in the Network

Advertisement

Top Five: Most Active

Search All Blogs

Top Science Stories

powered by SEED - seedmagazine.com