MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cross-sectional study was conducted among first to fifth semester students during February 2015. A previously developed instrument was used. Basic demographic information was collected. Respondent's agreement with a set of statements was noted using a Likert-type scale. The calculated total score was compared among subgroups of respondents. One sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to study the normality of distribution, Independent samples t-test to compare the total score for dichotomous variables, and analysis of variance for others were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Fifty-six of the 85 students (65.8%) participated. Around 55% of respondents were between 20 and 25 years of age and of American nationality. Only three respondents (5.3%) provided the correct value of the regulatory bioequivalence limits. The mean total score was 43.41 (maximum 60). There was no significant difference in scores among subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant knowledge gap with regard to the regulatory bioequivalence limits for generic medicines. Respondents' level of knowledge about other aspects of generic medicines was good but could be improved. Studies among clinical students in the institution and in other Caribbean medical schools are required. Deficiencies were noted and we have strengthened learning about generic medicines during the basic science years.
METHODS: We matched medicines from the product registration database by medicine formulation to medicines in IQVIA National Pharmaceutical Audit database for each year. The price per Defined Daily Dose (DDD), market concentration and generic utilization share variables were calculated. A panel fixed effect model was performed to measure diffusion of NCEs for each year and test possible determinants of diffusion of NCEs for overall market and sector specifics.
RESULTS: The utilization of NCEs was larger in the private sector compared to the public sector but the speed of diffusion over time was higher in the public sector. Price per DDD was negatively associated with diffusion of NCEs, while generic utilization share was significantly regressive in the public sector. Market concentration was negatively associated with utilization of NCEs, however result tends to be mixed according to sector and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) category.
CONCLUSIONS: Understanding key aspects of sectoral variation in diffusion of NCEs are crucial to reduce the differences of access to new medicines within a country and ensure resources are used on cost effective treatments.
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: A cross sectional survey was conducted with consumers who attended the annual University open day. Using convenience sampling, survey forms were distributed to the respective consumers via the help of a group of trained 1st year pharmacy students. For a period of 5 days, 400 respondents had participated in the survey. Analysis of the response from the collected forms yielded in 396 usable forms.
RESULTS: Only 28.3% (n=112) of the respondents were familiar with the term "generic medicines". More than 70% of the respondents do not know that generic medicines can be marketed under different names. About 34% (n=38) of consumers stated that they had been given information regarding generics by their pharmacists. In terms of side effects, about 32% (n=127) of the respondents felt that generic medicines may cause more side effects than branded medicines. Majority of the consumers surveyed (64%) understand that generic cost less compared to their branded counterparts.
CONCLUSION: This survey showed that there is a gap in consumers' knowledge and understanding about generic medicines. The findings also suggest that direct patient education by the healthcare providers on issues relating to safety and efficacy of generic medicines could further enhance their uptake.