Comparing Generic and Innovator Drugs: A Review of 12 Years of Bioequivalence Data from the United States Food and Drug Administration

Abstract

Spanish

French

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

bioequivalence Food and Drug Administration generic drugs pharmacoeconomies

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984. Public Law 98-417, 98 Stat. 1585-1605, September 1984.

Approved products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations. 29th ed. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Office of Generic Drugs, 2009. www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/ucm079068.htm (accessed 2009 Aug 2).

Generic Pharmaceutical Association. Facts at a glance. www.gphaonline.org/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutGenerics/Statistics/default.htm (accessed 2009 Aug 2).

Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals. Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations. Part 211. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Revised as of April 1, 2008.

Welange

, Kirking

, Ascione

, Gaither

. Understanding the scientific issues embedded in the generic drug approval process. J Am Pharm Assoc 2001; 41:856–67.

Sabatini

, Ferguson

, Helderman

, Hull

, Kirkpatrick

, Barr

. Drug substitution in transplantation: a national kidney foundation white paper. Am J Kidney Dis 1999; 33:389–97. DOI 10.1016/S0272-6386(99)70318-5

Reiffel

. Formulation substitution and other pharmacokinetic variability: underappreciated variables affecting antiarrhythmic efficacy and safety in clinical practice. Am J Cardiol 2000; 85:46D–52D. DOI 10.1016/S0002-9149(00)00906-1

Meredith

. Bioequivalence and other unresolved issues in generic drug substitution. Clin Ther 2003; 25:2875–90. DOI 10.1016/S0149-2918(03)80340-5

Blakesly

. Current methodology to assess bioequivalence of levothyroxine sodium products is inadequate. AAPS J 2005; 7:E42–6. DOI 10.1208/aapsj070105

10.

Berg

. What's the problem with generic antiepileptic drugs? A call to action. Neurology 2007; 68:1245–6. DOI 10.1212/01.wnl.0000262876.37269.8b

11.

Berg

, Gross

, Tomaszewski

, Zinaro

, Haskins

. Generic substitution in treatment of epilepsy: case evidence of breakthrough seizures. Neurology 2008; 71:525–30. DOI 10.1212/01.wnl.0000319958.37502.8e

12.

Halkin

, Shapiro

, Kurnik

, Loebstein

, Shaley

, Kokia

. Increased warfarin doses and decreased international response ratio after nationwide generic switching. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2003; 74:215–21. DOI 10.1016/S0009-9236(03)00166-8

13.

Liow

, Barkley

, Pollard

, Harden

, Bazil

. Position statement on the coverage of anticonvulsant drugs for the treatment of epilepsy. Neurology 2007; 68:1249–50. DOI 10.1212/01.wnl.000025940030539.cc

14.

Alloway

, Isaacs

, Lake

. Report of the American Society of Transplantation Conference on Immunosuppressive Drugs and the Use of Generic Immunosuppressants. Am J Transplant 2002; 3:1211–5. DOI 10.1046/j.1600-6143.2003.00212.x

15.

Bialer

. Generic products of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs): is it an issue? Epilepsia 2007; 48:1825–32. DOI 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2007.01272.x

16.

Gidal

, Tomson

. Debate: substitution of generic drugs in epilepsy: is there cause for concern? Epilepsia 2008; 49(suppl 9):56–62. DOI 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01927.x

17.

Shaw

, Krauss

. Generic antiepileptic drugs. Curr Treat Options Neurol 2008; 10:260–8. DOI 10.1007/s11940-008-0029-6

18.

Henderson

, Esham

. Generic substitution: issues for problematic drugs. South Med J 2001; 94:16–21.

19.

Draft CDER guidance for industry: individual product bioequivalence recommendations. Imatinib mesylate, March 2009. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm118261.pdf (accessed 2009 Aug 2).

20.

CDER guidance for industry: bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products—general considerations, March 2003. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm070124.pdf (accessed 2009 Aug 2).

21.

Chen

, Shah

, Patnaik

. Bioavailability and bioequivalence: an FDA regulatory overview. Pharm Res 2001; 18:1645–50. DOI 10.1023/A:1013319408893

22.

Malinowski

, Johnson

. Bioavailability and bioequivalency testing. In: Troy

, ed. Remington: the science and practice of pharmacy. 21st ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006: 1037–46.

23.

CDER guidance for industry: statistical approaches for establishing bioequivalence, January 2001. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm070244.pdf (accessed 2009 Aug 2).

24.

Blume

, McGilveray

, Midha

. BIO-International '94 Conference on Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Studies and Pre-Conference Satellite on “In Vivo/In Vitro Correlation.” Munich, Germany, June 14–17, 1994. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 1995; 2:3–13.

25.

El-Tahtawy

, Jackson

, Ludden

. Evaluation of bioequivalence of highly-variable drugs using Monte Carlo simulations. I. Estimation of rate of absorption for single and multiple-dose trials using C_max. Pharm Res 1995; 12:1634–41.DOI 10.1023/A:1016288916410

26.

El-Tahtawy

, Jackson

, Ludden

. Comparison of single and multiple dose pharmacokinetics using clinical bioequivalence data and Monte Carlo simulations. Pharm Res 1996; 11:1330–6. DOI 10.1023/A:1018906931100

27.

El-Tahtawy

, Tozer

, Harrison

, Lesko

, Williams

. Evaluation of bioequivalence of highly variable drugs using clinical trial simulations. II. Comparison of single- and multiple-dose trials using AUC and C_max. Pharm Res 1998; 15:98–104. DOI 10.1023/A:1011961006297

28.

CDER guidance for industry, clozapine tablets: in vivo bioequivalence and in vitro dissolution testing, June 2005. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm070232.pdf (accessed 2009 Aug 2).

29.

Davit

. Bioequivalence of highly variable drugs case studies. Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Meeting transcript, April 14, 2004. www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/transcripts/4034T2.htm (accessed 2009 May 20).

30.

CDER guidance for industry: exposure-response relationships—study design, data analysis, and regulatory applications, April 2003. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm072109.pdf (accessed 2009 Aug 2).

31.

Wagner

. Nonlinear pharmacokinetics: examples of anticancer agents and implications in bioavailability. In: Sharma

, Sharma

, Sen

, eds. Generic drugs, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetics. New Delhi, India: University College of Medical Sciences, 1990: 111–8.

32.

Report C: report on bioavailability of oral dosage formulations, not in modified-release form, of drugs used for systemic effects, having complicated or variable pharmacokinetics. Expert Advisory Committee, Health Protection Branch, Health Canada, December 1992. www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic-demande/guide-Id/bio/biorepc_biorapc-eng.php (accessed 2009 Aug 2).

33.

CDER guidance for industry, individual product bioequivalence recommendations, phenytoin sodium, May 2008. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm089473.pdf (accessed 2009 Aug 2).

34.

Clinical pharmacology biopharmaceutics review(s), September 28, 2000. Mifepristone. Drugs@FDA. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2000/20687_mifepristone.cfm (accessed 2009 Aug 2).

35.

Proceedings of the September 26, 1991, meeting of the Generic Drugs Advisory Committee. Rockville, MD: Division of Dockets Management, Food and Drug Administration.

36.

Bolton

. Statistical considerations for establishing bioequivalence. In: Shargel

, Kanfer

, eds. Generic drug product development—solid oral dosage forms. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 2005: 257–79.

37.

Schuirmann

. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the bioequivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1987; 15:657–80. DOI 10.1007/BP01068419

38.

Westlake

. Bioequivalence testing: a need to rethink. Biometrics 1981; 37:589–94. DOI 102307/2530573

39.

Schuirmann

. Statistical evaluation of bioequivalence studies. In: Sharma

, Sharma

, Sen

, eds. Generic drugs, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetics. New Delhi, India: University College of Medical Sciences, 1990: 119–25.

40.

Endrenyi

, Fritsch

, Yan

. C_max/AUC is a clearer measure than C_max for absorption rates in investigations of bioequivalence. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1991; 29:394–9.

41.

Duquesnoy

, Lacey

, Keene

, Bye

. Evaluation of partial AUCs as indirect measures of rate of drug absorption in comparative pharmacokinetic studies. Eur J Pharm Sci 1998; 6:259–63. DOI 10.1016/S0928-0987(97)10023-9

42.

Tozer

, Bois

, Hauck

, Chen

, Williams

. Absorption rate vs. exposure: which is more useful for bioequivalence testing? Pharm Res 1996; 13:453–6. DOI 10.1023/A:1016061013606

43.

Basson

, Ghosh

, Cerimele

, DeSante

, Howey

. Why rate of absorption inferences in single dose bioequivalence studies are often inappropriate. Pharm Res 1998; 15:276–9. DOI 10.1023/A:1011974803996

44.

FDA response to Docket No. 01P-0546/PSAI&SUP1, November 21, 2003. www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/dec03/121003/01p-0546-pdn0001-vol1.pdf (accessed 2009 Aug 2).

45.

US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Fed Regist 2009; 74:2849–62.

46.

Patnaik

. Bioequivalence assessment: approaches, designs, and statistical considerations. In: Sahajwalla

, ed. New drug development: regulatory paradigms for clinical pharmacology and biopharmaceutics. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 2004: 561–86.

47.

Nightingale

, Morrison

, Generic drugs and the prescribing physician. JAMA 1987; 258:1200–4. DOI 10.1001/jama.258.9.1200

48.

Henney

. Review of generic bioequivalence studies (letter from the Food and Drug Administration (letter). JAMA 1999; 282:1995. DOI 10.1001/jama28221.1995-a

49.

Roland

, Tozer

. Assessment of AUC. In: Balando

, ed. Clinical pharmacokinetics: concepts and applications. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1995: 469–72.

50.

Chen

, Straughn

, Sadrieh

. A modern view of excipient effects on bioequivalence: case study of sorbitol. Pharm Res 2007; 24:73–80. DOI 10.1007/s1095-006-9120-4

51.

Dannenfelser

, Handan

, Joshi

, Bateman

, Serajuddin

ATM

. Development of clinical dosage forms for a poorly water soluble drug I: application of a polyethylene glycol-polysorbate 80 solid dispersion carrier system. J Pharm Sci 2004; 93:1165–75. DOI 10.1002/jps.20044

52.

Carrier

, Miller

, Ahmed

. The utility of cyclodextrins for enhancing oral bioavailability. J Control Release 2007; 123:78–99. DOI 10.1016/j.jconrel.2007.07.018

53.

Davit

, Conner

, Fabian-Fritsch

. Highly variable drugs: observations from bioequivalence data submitted to the FDA for new generic drug applications. AAPS J 2008; 10:148–56. Epub Mar 2008. DOI 10.1208/s12248-008-9015-x

54.

Benet

. Therapeutic considerations of highly variable drugs. Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences Meeting Transcript, October 6, 2006. www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4241t2-01.pdf (accessed 2009 Aug 2).

55.

Conner

. Failed bioequivalence studies. Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences Meeting Transcript, November 16, 2000. www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/00/transcripts/3657t2.pdf (accessed 2009 Aug 2).

56.

Milligan

, Banet

, Waterman

, Gatchel

, Gage

. Substitution of generic warfarin for Coumadin in an HMO setting. Ann Pharmacother 2002; 36:764–8. DOI 10.1345/aph.1A327

57.

Lee

, Kan

, Yang

. Efficacy and tolerability of a switch from a branded to a generic warfarin sodium product: an observer-blinded, randomized, crossover study. Clin Ther 2005; 27:309–19. DOI 10.1016/j.clinthera.2005.03.004

58.

Ahrens

, Hagemeir

, Muhlbauer

. Hospitalization rates of generic metoprolol compared with the original beta-blocker in an epidemiological database study. Pharmacoepidem Drug Saf 2007; 16:1298–307. DOI 10.1002/pds.1494

59.

Kesselheim

, Misono

, Lee

. Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2008; 300:2514–26. DOI 10.1001/jama.2008.758

60.

Leppik

. Variability of phenytoin, carbamazepine and valproate concentrations in a clinic population. Epilepsy Res Suppl 1988; 1:85–90.

61.

Birnbaum

, Hardie

, Leppik

. Variability of total phenytoin serum concentrations within elderly nursing home residents. Neurology 2003; 60:555–9.

62.

Applications for FDA Approval to Market a New Drug. Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations. Part 314. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Revised as of April 1, 2008.

63.

Meeting transcript, joint meeting of the Endocrinologie and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences. October 4, 2006. www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4228T1.pdf (accessed 2009 Aug 2).

64.

Levothyroxine sodium tablets. In: United States Pharmacopeia 32/National Formulary 27. Rockville, MD: The United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 2009: 2779–80.

65.

Notes on cyclosporine drugs, June 11, 2000. www.chfpatients.com/tx/txcyclosporine.htm (accessed 2009 Aug 2).

66.

Economic analysis of generic pharmaceuticals 1999–2008: $734 billion in health care savings. Arlington, VA: Generic Pharmaceutical Association, May 2009.

67.

Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. Undermining generic substitution: the cost of generic carve-out legislation, October 2008. www.pcmanet.org/undermining-generic-drug-substitution-the-cost-of-generic-carve-out-legislation (accessed 2009 Aug 2).

68.

Wadman

. Bills target biosimilar drugs: House of Representatives divided over regulating generics. Nature 2009; 458:394–5. DOI 10.1038/458394b

69.

Kingham

, Lietzan

. Current regulatory and legal considerations for follow-on biologics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008; 84:633–5. DOI 10.1038/clpt.2008.159