Are Brand-Name and Generic Warfarin Interchangeable? Multiple N-of-1 Randomized,Crossover Trials

Abstract

Spanish

French

BACKGROUND

Warfarin is a commonly used anticoagulant in North America. Several generic formulations have been approved, raising concern over the safety and efficacy of these products compared with brand-name Coumadin.

OBJECTIVE

To ensure that generic warfarin products can be safely interchanged with Coumadin.

METHODS

Multiple n-of-1 randomized, double-blind, crossover trials switched outpatients (N = 7) between a generic warfarin formulation (Apo-warfarin) and Coumadin over 30 weeks. Study patients took each drug for five 3-week periods, with international normalized ratio (INR) measurements taken twice per period. Inter- and intrapatient differences between generic warfarin and Coumadin were compared, and overall study patient results were compared with those of a Coumadin control group.

RESULTS

There were no differences between warfarin products in terms of mean INR results or number of dosage adjustments required. There also was no difference in INR variation based on warfarin formulation (p > 0.69), nor was a patient and warfarin interaction found (p > 0.81). The INR results were not influenced by whether patients were maintained on Coumadin only (control group) or interchanged between Coumadin and generic warfarin (p = 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

It appears that patients can safely and effectively switch between generic warfarin and Coumadin.

Keywords

generic warfarin;bioequivalence interchangeability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Hirsh

, Dalen

, Anderson

, Poller

, Bussey

, Ansell

, Oral anticoagulants: mechanism of action, clinical effectiveness, and optimal therapeutic range. Chest 2001; 119 (suppl 1): 8S–21S.

2. Drug Program Branch Bulletin. DQTC drug reviews. 2001. www.gov.on.ca/health/english/program/drugs/odbf/bulletin/bul_0601.pdf.08-07-2002 (accessed 2005 May 16).

3. Midha

, Nagai

. Bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies: F.I.P. Bio-international '96: International conference of F.I.P. “Bio-International '96,” Tokyo, Japan, April 22–24, 1996. Tokyo: Business Center for Academic Studies, 1996.

4. Friesen

, Walker

. Are the current bioequivalence standards sufficient for the acceptance of narrow therapeutic index drugs? Utilization of a computer simulated warfarin bioequivalence model. J Pharm Pharm Sci 1999; 2: 15–22.

5. The United States pharmacopoeia 23: the national formulary 18. Taunton, MA: Rand McNally, 2003.

6. Prescribing information. Apo-warfarin. Apotex Canada, 2001. www.apotex.ca/En/Products/PrescribingInfo/WARFARIN-PR.pdf (accessed 2003 Mar 3).

7. GioQuinto

. Are all warfarin preparations alike? A comprehensive overview of current data, emerging opinions and perspectives. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2000; 9: 139–44.

8. Benson

, Vance-Bryan

. In favor of Coumadin over generic warfarin. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1998; 55: 727–9.

9. Wittkowsky

. Generic warfarin: implications for patient care—author's reply. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18: 887–9.

10.

10. Neutel

, Smith

DHG

. A randomized crossover study to compare the efficacy and tolerability of Barr warfarin sodium to the currently available Coumadin. Cardiovasc Res 1998; 19: 49–59.

11.

11. Handler

, Nguyen

, Rush

, Pham

. A blinded, randomized, crossover study comparing the efficacy and safety of generic warfarin sodium to Coumadin. Prev Cardiol 1998; 4: 13–20.

12.

12. Swenson

, Fundak

. Observational cohort study of switching warfarin sodium products in a managed care organization. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2000; 57: 452–5.

13.

13. Johannessen

. Controlled trials in single subjects. BMJ 1991; 303: 173–4.

14.

14. McAlister

, Straus

, Guyatt

, Haynes

. Users' guides to the medical literature: XX. Integrating research evidence with the care of the individual patient. JAMA 2000; 283: 2829–36.

15.

15. Sloan

, Novotny

, Loprinzi

, Ghosh

. Graphical and analytical tools for two-paired crossover clinical trials. SUGI Proc 1997; 22: 1312–7.

16.

16. Backman

, Harris

. Case studies, single subject research and n-of-1 randomized trials: comparisons and contrasts. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 78: 170–6.

17.

17. Kleinbaum

, Klein

. Logistic regression. 2nd ed. New York: Springer, 2002.

18.

18. Palylyk-Colwell

, Jamali

, Dryden

, Friesen

, Koven

, Mohamed

, Bioequivalence and interchangeability of narrow therapeutic range drugs. Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences discussion. J Pharm Pharm Sci 1998; 1: 2–7.

19.

19. Chow

, Liu

. Design and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2000.

20.

20. Meyer

, Chan

, Bolton

. Generic warfarin: implications for patient care—another view. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18: 884–6.

21.

21. Sackett

, Haynes

, Tugwell

, Guyatt

. Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. 2nd ed. New York: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 1991.

22.

22. Karnon

, Qizilbash

. Economic evaluation alongside n-of-1 trials: getting closer to the margin. Health Econ 2001; 10: 79–82.

23.

23. Mittman

, Oh

, Walker

, Bartle

. Warfarin in the secondary prevention of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation. Impact of bioavailability on costs and outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22: 671–83.