Generics are favoured by healthcare providers due to a variety pf reasons, according to author Roy G Beran [1].
Generics are favoured by those responsible for healthcare costs [2]. The argument is that the generic compound is identical to the originator medicine, based on bioequivalence studies [3]. This implies that the generic compound will give identical efficacy and tolerability to the originator compound, upon which it is based. However, this may not be the case, especially with illnesses, such as epilepsy. This is due to the fact that the drugs used to treat epilepsy have a narrow therapeutic index [1].
Drugs with a narrow therapeutic index (NTI) are defined by a narrow distance between the dosage that induces a desired effect and that dosage which already has a toxic effect [4].
Generics substitution has become common place, within healthcare delivery, because of the anticipated financial benefits [5]. While the proponents of generic prescribing claim equivalence [5], this may not prove valid as the salt, adopted for the generic drug modification, as part of the formulation of the active ingredient contained within the originator medication, may exert altered characteristics [6]. The excipient, which carries the active compound, within the new formulation, and which is considered inactive, may alter its bioavailability and efficacy [7].
It follows that the economic consideration is not always realized, due to other considerations, such as efficacy or adverse events which may result in increased use of healthcare resources [5, 8]. When reviewing 30 articles related to the use of generics, most reported side effects were related to neurological diseases, especially epilepsy [5]. The authors identified the potential impacts of generics substitution which may include three main categories: patient attitudes and adherence; clinical and safety outcomes; and cost and resource utilization [5]. While generics substitution may represent an appropriate alternative to a brand-name originator product, in the management of some conditions, this may not always be the case [5].
This has clear implications for illnesses which have a NTI, where there is a restricted therapeutic range for efficacy, resulting in either too low a dose or unwanted adverse effects, should the blood levels exceed the narrow therapeutic range [4, 9]. This has particular relevance when considering anti-seizure medications (ASMs) because it may result in there being either too much or little ASM available. This in turn may result in altered seizure control, which may lead to break through seizures, which may affect driving for employment and trigger a domino effect with social consequences [10, 11].
While generics substitution may result in cost savings with respect to medication expenses, it could also result in increases in the total cost of health care, due to increased physician visits or hospitalizations [7]. It may also cause significant socio-economic consequences for those in whom the generics substitute caused breakthrough seizures which resulted in such unforeseen consequences as road traffic accidents [12, 13].
The author therefore concludes that it follows that the mandated use of generics prescriptions of active ingredients, especially when adopting electronic prescribing, may not achieve its desired goal. It is imperative to be aware of the potential downside of carte blanche acceptance of generics prescribing, and substitution of brand-name drugs, as a means of cost containment within the wider healthcare system.
Conflict of interest
The author of the research paper [1] declared that there was no conflict of interest.
Abstracted by Professor Roy G Beran, Neurology Department, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, Australia.
GaBI Journal Citation Impact
1.9 – CiteScore 2020 (calculated on 5 May 2021)
2.2 – CiteScoreTracker 2021 (Last updated on 6 April 2022)
Submit a manuscript to GaBI Journal
Related articles
What is the meaning of a narrow therapeutic index?
The cost of developing drugs and use of generics
Re-evaluation of the use of generics, especially when treating conditions such as epilepsy
What is meant by a generic medication and generic equivalence?
| LATIN AMERICAN FORUM The new section of the ‘Latin American Forum’ on GaBI has been launched. The objective of this new section is to provide you with all the latest news and updates on developments of generic and biosimilar medicines in Latin America in Spanish. View last week’s headline article: Nomenclature of biologicals and biosimilars in Peru Browse the news in the Latin American Forum! Register to receive the GaBI Latin American Forum newsletter. Inform colleagues and friends of this new initiative. LATIN AMERICAN FORUM Se ha lanzado la nueva sección del ‘Foro Latinoamericano’ sobre GaBI. El objetivo de esta nueva sección es brindarle las últimas noticias y actualizaciones sobre desarrollos de medicamentos genéricos y biosimilares en América Latina en español. Vea el artículo principal de la semana pasada: Nomenclature of biologicals and biosimilars in Peru !Explore las noticias en el Foro Latinoamericano! Regístrese para recibir el boletín informativo GaBI Foro Latinoamericano. Informe a colegas y amigos sobre esta nueva iniciativa.
|
References
1. Beran RG. Generic substitution in patients whose illness has a narrow therapeutic index, such as epilepsy. APHE. 2020;1(2):1-5.
2. Grabowski H, Mullens CD. Pharmacy benefit management, cost-effectiveness analysis and drug formulary decisions. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(4):535-44.
3. Birkett DJ. Generics - equal or not? Aust Prescr. 2003;26(4):85-7.
4. Godman B, Baumgärtel C. Bioequivalence of narrow therapeutic index drugs and immunosuppressives. Generics and Biosimilars Initiative Journal (GaBI Journal). 2015;4(4):159-60. doi:10.5639/gabij.2015.0404.035
5. Straka RJ, Keohane DJ, Liu LZ. Potential clinical and economic impact of switching branded medications to generics. Am J Ther. 2017;24(3):e278 89.
6. Verbeek R, Kanfer I, Walker RB. Generic substitution: the use of medicinal products containing different salts and implications for safety and efficacy. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2006;28(1-2):1-6.
7. Panakanti R, Narang AS. Impact of excipient interactions on drug bioavailability from solid dosage forms. Pharm Res. 2012;29(10):2639-59.
8. Dunne S, Shannon B, Dunne C, et al. 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. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2013;14:1.
9. Tamargo J, Le Heuzey J-Y, Mabo P. Narrow therapeutic index drugs: a clinical pharmacological consideration to flecainide. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71(5):549-67.
10. Beran RG. Generic substitution when similar may not mean the same. Med Law. 2016;35:73-86.
11. Manser D, Beran RG. Clinical letter: brand substitution with generics – a potential minefield. Seizure. 2020;83:232-3.
12. Beran RG. Generic substitution and advice to patients – potential legal medicine consequences – from A (Australia) to U (United Kingdom or United States of America). Seizure. 2021;91;515-9.
13. Kramer G Steinhoff BJ. The times they are a-changin – don’t panic with a generic! Seizure. 2021;91:513-4. doi/1016/j.seizure.2021.05.011
Permission granted to reproduce for personal and non-commercial use only. All other reproduction, copy or reprinting of all or part of any ‘Content’ found on this website is strictly prohibited without the prior consent of the publisher. Contact the publisher to obtain permission before redistributing.
Copyright – Unless otherwise stated all contents of this website are © 2022 Pro Pharma Communications International. All Rights Reserved.
0
