Comparing Generic and Innovator Drugs: A Review of 12 Years of Bioequivalence Data from the United States Food and Drug Administration
Open Access
- 23 September 2009
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Annals of Pharmacotherapy
- Vol. 43 (10), 1583-1597
- https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1m141
Abstract
Background: In the US, manufacturers seeking approval to market a generic drug product must submit data demonstrating that the generic formulation provides the same rate and extent of absorption as (ie, is bioequivalent to) the innovator drug product. Thus, most orally administered generic drug products in the US are approved based on results of one or more clinical bioequivalence studies. Objective: To evaluate how well the bioequivalence measures of generic drugs approved in the US over a 12-year period compare with those of their corresponding innovator counterparts. Methods: This retrospective analysis compared the generic and innovator bioequivalence measures from 2070 single-dose clinical bioequivalence studies of orally administered generic drug products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1996 to 2007 (12 y). Bioequivalence measures evaluated were drug peak plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma drug concentration versus time curve (AUC), representing drug rate and extent of absorption, respectively. The generic/innovator Cmax and AUC geometric mean ratios (GMRs) were determined from each of the bioequivalence studies, which used from 12 to 170 subjects. The GMRs from the 2070 studies were averaged. In addition, the distribution of differences between generic means and innovator means was determined for both Cmax and AUC. Results: The mean ± SD of the GMRs from the 2070 studies was 1.00 ± 0.06 for Cmax and 1.00 ± 0.04 for AUC. The average difference in Cmax and AUC between generic and innovator products was 4.35% and 3.56%, respectively. In addition, in nearly 98% of the bioequivalence studies conducted during this period, the generic product AUC differed from that of the innovator product by less than 10%. Conclusions: The criteria used to evaluate generic drug bioequivalence studies support the FDA's objective of approving generic drug formulations that are therapeutically equivalent to their innovator counterparts.Keywords
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- Generic substitution in the treatment of epilepsyNeurology, 2008
- What’s the problem with generic antiepileptic drugs?Neurology, 2007
- Position statement on the coverage of anticonvulsant drugs for the treatment of epilepsyNeurology, 2007
- Current methodology to assess bioequivalence of levothyroxine sodium products is inadequateThe AAPS Journal, 2005
- Bioequivalence and other unresolved issues in generic drug substitutionClinical Therapeutics, 2003
- Report of the American Society of Transplantation Conference on Immunosuppressive Drugs and the Use of Generic ImmunosuppressantsAmerican Journal of Transplantation, 2003
- Increased warfarin doses and decreased international normalized ratio response after nationwide generic switchingClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2003
- Understanding the Scientific Issues Embedded in the Generic Drug Approval ProcessJournal of the American Pharmaceutical Association, 2001
- Formulation substitution and other pharmacokinetic variability: underappreciated variables affecting antiarrhythmic efficacy and safety in clinical practiceThe American Journal of Cardiology, 2000
- Drug substitution in transplantation: A National Kidney Foundation white paperAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases, 1999