Peculiarities of approaches to assessing the interchangeability of antiepileptic drugs
Abstract
The adequacy of the interchangeability of original and generic drugs is an important economic and social problem in healthcare. In this article we look at the problem of the replacement of antiepileptic drugs. Sometimes when their bioequivalence is proved they still can be not equivalent therapeutically. The results of the therapy for these kinds of drugs can differ. As well as the individual characteristics of the metabolism that can affect the results of the treatment, there are other possible factors - the diet of the patient or the time of day,when patient takes medication. The cases when for the replacement of one drug for another it was necessary to have both biological and therapeutic equivalence are described in this article. The research data of interchangeability of neurotropic drugs in different countries are presented. The article provides a classification of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to estimate the possibility of replacement of drugs with recommendations to minimize the risk of adverse reactions for use in clinical practice.
About the Authors
E. O. Zhuravleva
Федеральное государственное бюджетное учреждение «Научный центр экспертизы средств медицинского применения» Министерства здравоохранения Российской Федерации
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
E. Yu. Pasternak
Федеральное государственное бюджетное учреждение «Научный центр экспертизы средств медицинского применения» Министерства здравоохранения Российской Федерации
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
K. E. Zatolochina
Федеральное государственное бюджетное учреждение «Научный центр экспертизы средств медицинского применения» Министерства здравоохранения Российской Федерации
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Layton S, Barbeau M. Generic replacement of clozapine: a simple decision model from a Can adian perspective. Current Medical Research & Opinion 2004; 20 (4): 453- 459.
2. RIA NOVOSTI [Electronic resource]: http://ria.ru/society/20131121/978646631.html.
3. Brodie MJ, Johnson FN. Carbamazepin in the treatment of seizure disorders: efficacy, pharmacokinetics and adverse event profile, Rev Contemp Pharmacother 1997;8: 87-122.
4. On the changes made in ‘Federal Law’ from 22.12.2014 # 429 ‘On the circulations of the medications’ [Electronic resource]: http://www.rg.ru/2014/12/26/lekarstva-dok.html.
5. Belousov YB, Hecht AB, Milchakova LE. Clinical and economic evaluation of the effectiveness of treatment of patients with epilepsy. Good clinical practice 2002; 3: 54-59.
6. Evaluation of bioequivalence of drugs: guidelines. Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicin al Products 2008.
7. Lepakhin VK, Romanov BK, Toropova IA. An alysis of reports of adverse reactions to drugs. Scientific centre for expert evaluation of medical products bulletin 2012; 1: 22-25.
8. Kukes VG. Clinical pharmacology: textbook for Universities. 4th edition, rev. and enl. 2009.
9. Lepakhin VK, Romanov BK., Nikitin a TN, Snegireva II. Expertise assess the relationshi p between the expected benefit and possible risk from the use of medicines. Scientific centre for expert evaluation of medical products bulletin2012; 2: 19-21
10. Romanov B.K. Kal'tsievaya regulyatsiya aktivnosti lizosomal'nykh fermentov miokarda. Dissertatsiya n a soiskanie uchenoj stepeni doktora meditsinskikh n auk / Gosudarstvennoe obrazovatel'noe uchrezhdenie vysshego profession al'nogo obrazovaniya "Ryazanskij gosudarstvennyj meditsinskij universitet". Ryazan', 2004.
11. Rudakova AV. Pharmacokinetics as a basis for evidence-based pharmacotherapy. FARMindeks Practitioner 2006;10, 60-647.
12. Majkowskis Y, Ladson V Daniel V. The origin al and generic drugs in the treatment of epilepsy. Intern ation al Journ al of Neurological 2006; 6(10).
13. Zeev E, Behr D, Mirimsky A, Tsvetkov I, Danon A. Multi ple-dose studies can be a more sensitive assessment for bioequivalence than single-dose studies. Clin Drug Invest 2002; 22(9).
14. Drobizhev MY What prevents wide distribution of generic drugs in clinical practice? Psychiatry and pharmacotherapy 2006; 2 (11).
15. Berg MJ, Gross RA, Tomaszewski KJ, Zingaro WM, Haskins LS. Generic substitution in the treatment of epilepsy: case evidence of breakthrough seizures. Neurology 2008; 71 (7): 525–530.
16. LeLorier J, Duh MS, Paradis PE, Lefebvre P, Weiner J, Manjun ath R et al. Clinical consequences of generic substitution of lamotrigine for patients with epilepsy. Neurology 2008; 70 (22 Pt 2): 2179–2186.
17. Kramer G, Steinhoff BJ, Feucht M, Pfafflin M, May TW. Experience with generic drugs in epilepsy patients: an electronic survey of members of the German, Austrian and Swiss branches of the ILAE. Epilepsia 2007; 48 (3): 609 – 611.
18. Desmarais JE, Beauclair L, Margolese HC. Switching from brand-n ame to generic psychotropic medications: a literature review. CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics 2011; 17: 750–760.
19. The use of generic anti-epileptics drugs in patients with epilepsy [Электронный ресурс]: http://www.epilepsysociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/The%20Use%20of%20Generic%20Ant i%20Epileptics%20Drugs%20in%20Patients%20with%20Epilepsy.pdf (дата обращения: 19.05.2015).
20. Duerden M, Hughes D. Generic and therapeutic substitutions in the UK: are they a good thing? British Journ al of Clinical Pharmacology 2010; 337-338.
21. Aldenkamp AP, Rentmeester T, Hulsman J, Majoie M, Doelman J, Diepman L et al. Pharmacokinetics and cognitive effects of carbamazepine formulations with different dissolution rates. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 54: 185 – 192.
22. Olling M, Mensinga TT, Barends DM, Groen C, Lake OA, Meulenbelt J. Bioavailability of carbamazepine from four different products and the occurrence of side effects. Biopharmaceutics and Drug Disposition 1999; 20: 19–28.
23. Kotsopoulos IA, Evers SM, Ament AJ, Krom MC. Estimating the costs of epilepsy: an intern ation al comparison of epilepsy cost studies. Epilepsia 2001; 42: 634-640.
24. Belousov YB, Belousov DY, Beketov AS, Chikin ES, Mednikov OI. A study of medical and social problems of epilepsy in Russia. Good clinical practice. Special Issue. Epilepsy. 2004:4.
25. Vas'kova LB, Mussin a NC. Methods and techniques of pharmacoeconomic studies: a tutorial 2007: chapter 1.
26. European Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association [Electronic resource]: http://www.egagenerics.com/index.php/press-room/press-releases/94-2015/437-1-4-billion-euros-per-year-inpotential-savings-for-patients-from-the-use-of-generic-medicines-in-italy.
27. Layton S, Barbeau M. Generic replacement of clozapine: a simple decision model from a Can adian perspective. Current Medical Research & Opinion 2004; 20 (4): 453- 459.
28. Brodie MJ, Johnson FN. Carbamazepin in the treatment of seizure disorders: efficacy, pharmacokinetics and adverse event profile, Rev Contemp Pharmacother 1997;8: 87-122.
29. Belousov YB, Hecht AB, Milchakova LE. Clinical and economic evaluation of the effectiveness of treatment of patients with epilepsy. Good clinical practice 2002; 3: 54-59.
30. Lepakhin VK, Romanov BK, Toropova IA. An alysis of reports of adverse reactions to drugs. Scientific centre for expert evaluation of medical products bulletin 2012; 1: 22-25.
31. Lepakhin VK, Romanov BK., Nikitin a TN, Snegireva II. Expertise assess the relationshi p between the expected benefit and possible risk from the use of medicines. Scientific centre for expert evaluation of medical products bulletin2012; 2: 19-21
Review
For citations:
Zhuravleva E.O., Pasternak E.Yu., Zatolochina K.E. Peculiarities of approaches to assessing the interchangeability of antiepileptic drugs. Safety and Risk of Pharmacotherapy. 2015;(3):13-21. (In Russ.)
Views:
969
Email this article 