RECENT FINDINGS: The quality of multiple generic DAAs has been shown to be bioequivalent to innovator formulations, with generic versions achieving high cure rates in real-world settings. Although published materials are limited, there is expanding experience with local pilot and national treatment programs which are largely being funded by national governments and other institutions.
SUMMARY: Countries and other public health stakeholders are recognizing the need to scale up HCV diagnosis and treatment programs using generic DAAs. However, local pilot or national treatment programs need to be massively expanded to eliminate HCV in high-burden areas.
SIGNIFICANCE: The LC/ESI-MS/MS prazosin method was highly sensitive and selective. Bedside sampling reduced the orthostatic hypotension incidence and subject dropout rate.
METHODS: After sample preparation, prazosin and terazosin (IS) were detected on mass spectrometer operating in multiple reaction monitoring mode using positive ionization. Mobile phase flow rate was set at 0.40 mL/min with sample run time of 1.75 min. The bioanalytical method was validated as per EMEA and FDA guidelines. Bedside sampling was performed in bioequivalence study for the first 4 h after dosing. The three primary pharmacokinetic parameters, Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ and 90% confidence interval were determined.
RESULTS: The small injection volume of 1 μL minimized instrumentation contamination and prolonged the analytical column lifespan. Linearity was obtained between 0.5 and 30.0 ng/mL, with coefficient of determination, r2 ≥ 0.99. The mean extraction recovery of prazosin and IS was >92%, with precision value (CV, %) ≤ 10.3%. Only two orthostatic hypotension adverse events were reported. The two prazosin formulations were found to be bioequivalent.
CONCLUSION: The LC/ESI-MS/MS method has shown robustness and reliability exemplified by the incurred sample re-analysis result. Bedside sampling should be proposed for bioequivalence or pharmacokinetic studies of drugs demonstrating adverse event of orthostatic hypotension.
METHODS: Xenical 120 mg capsules (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) were used as reference material. Generic products were from India, Malaysia, Argentina, Philippines, Uruguay, and Taiwan. Colour, melting temperature, crystalline form, particle size, capsule fill mass, active pharmaceutical ingredient content, amount of impurities, and dissolution were compared. Standard physical and chemical laboratory tests were those developed by Roche for Xenical.
RESULTS: All nine generic products failed the Xenical specifications in four or more tests, and two generic products failed in seven tests. A failure common to all generic products was the amount of impurities present, mostly due to different by-products, including side-chain homologues not present in Xenical. Some impurities were unidentified. Two generic products tested failed the dissolution test, one product formed a capsule-shaped agglomerate on storage and resulted in poor (=15%) dissolution. Six generic products were powder formulations.
CONCLUSIONS: All tested generic orlistat products were pharmaceutically inferior to Xenical. The high levels of impurities in generic orlistat products are a major safety and tolerability concern.
METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional nationwide survey targeting physicians from private medical centres in Malaysia. The survey was conducted using questionnaire having (i) background and demographic data of the physicians, volume of prescription in a day, stock of generic medicines in their hospital pharmacy etc. (ii) their knowledge about bioequivalence (iii) prescribing behavior (iv) physicians' knowledge of quality, safety and efficacy of generic medicines, and their cost (v) perceptions of physicians towards issues pertaining to generic medicines utilization.
RESULTS: A total of 263 questionnaires out of 735 were received, giving a response rate of 35.8%. Of the respondents, 214 (81.4%) were male and 49 (18.6%) were females. The majority of the participants were in the age range of 41-50 years and comprised 49.0% of the respondents. Only 2.3% of physicians were aware of the regulatory limits of bioequivalence standards in Malaysia. Of the respondents, 23.2% agreed that they 'always' write their prescriptions using originator product name whereas 50.2% do it 'usually'. A number of significant associations were found between their knowledge, perceptions about generic medicines and their demographic characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the physicians from private medical centres in Malaysia had negative perceptions about safety, quality and the efficacy of generic medicines. These negative perceptions could be the cause of the limited use of generic medicines in the private medical centres. Therefore, in order to facilitate their use, it is recommended that the physicians need to be reassured and educated about the drug regulatory authority approval system of generic medicines with regard to their bioequivalence, quality, efficacy and safety. Apart from the policy on generic substitution, it would also be recommended to have a national medicine pricing policy, which controls drug prices, in both the public and private sector. These efforts are worthwhile to reduce the drug expenditure and improve the medicine affordability in Malaysia.
SETTING: A sample of 1419 Malaysian community pharmacies with resident pharmacists.
METHOD: A cross-sectional nationwide survey using a self-completed mailing questionnaire.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Pharmacists' views on generic medicines including issues surrounding efficacy, safety, quality and bioequivalence.
RESULTS: Responses were received from 219 pharmacies (response rate 15.4%). Only 50.2% of the surveyed pharmacists agreed that all products that are approved as generic equivalents can be considered therapeutically equivalent with the innovator medicines. Around 76% of respondents indicated that generic substitution of narrow therapeutic index medicines is inappropriate. The majority of the pharmacists understood that a generic medicine must contain the same amount of active ingredient (84.5%) and must be in the same dosage form as the innovator brand (71.7%). About 21% of respondents though that generic medicines are of inferior quality compared to innovator medicines. Most of the pharmacists (61.6%) disagreed that generic medicines produce more side-effects than innovator brand. Pharmacists graduated from Malaysian universities, twinning program and overseas universities were not differed significantly in their views on generic medicines. Additionally, the respondents appeared to have difficulty in ascertaining the bioequivalent status of the marketed generic products in Malaysia.
CONCLUSION: The Malaysian pharmacists' have lack of information and/or trust in the generic manufacturing and/or approval system in Malaysia. This issue should be addressed by pharmacy educators and relevant government agencies.