GENERICS AND COST-EFFECTIVE PRESCRIBING IN BELGIUM: DOES BIOEQUIVALENCE ALWAYS TRANSLATE IN THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCE?

REFERENCES

• Simoens S, De Bruyn K, Bogaert M, Laekeman G. Pharmaceuti-cal policy regarding generic drugs in Belgium. Pharmacoeco-nomics 2005; 23:755–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Wilder PB, Dupont AG. Reimbursement of medicines in Belgium: role of evidence-based medicine. Acta Clin Belg 2009; 64–2: 120-7.
   Google Scholar
• RIZIV, Rijksinstituut voor Ziekte en invaliditeitsverzekering, Geneesmiddelen en andere verstrekkingen, via http://inami.fgov.be/drug/ra/drugs/index.htm; accessed aug 5th 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Van Wilder PB, Dupont AG. Introducing evidence-based medi-cine in reimbursement procedures: does it affect outcome? Value Health 2008; 11:784–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Notes for Guidance on the investigation of bioavailability and bioequiva-lence (CPMP/EWP/QWP/1401/98) 2001. http://www.emea.eu-ropa.eu/htms/human/humanguidelines/efficacy.htm
   Google Scholar
• Tyrer JH, Eadie MJ, Sutherland JM et al. Outbreak of anticonvul-sant intoxication in an Australian city. Br Med J 1970; 4:271–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holt DW. Digoxin bioavailabilty. Lancet 1978; 2:1103.
   Google Scholar
• Cantor LB. Generics: Not all drugs are created equal. Rev Oph-talmol 2002; 9:72–4.
   Google Scholar
• Wandel C, Kim RB, Stein CM. "Inactive" excipients such as cre-mophor can affect in vivo drug disposition. Clin PharmacolTher 2003; 73:394–6.
   Google Scholar
• Toal CB. Formulation dependent pharmacokinetics — Does the dosage form matter for nifedipine?J Cardiovasc Pharmacother 2004; 44:82–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies G. Changing the salt, changing the drug. Pharm J 2001; 266:322–3.
   Google Scholar
• Vergouwen AC, Bakker A. Adverse effects after switching to a different generic form of paroxetine: paroxetine mesylate in-stead of paroxetine HCI hemihydrate. Ned Tijdschr geneeskd 2002; 146:811–2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verbeeck RK, Kanfer I, Walker RB. Generic substitution: the use of medicinal products containing different salts and implica-tions for safety and efficacy. EurJ Pharm Sci 2006; 28:1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. Bioavailability and bioequiv-alence requirements. Fed Regist. 1992; 57: 17,997–18,001.
   Google Scholar
• World Health organization. Multi-source pharmaceutical products: WHO guideline on registration requirements to estab-lish interchangeability. WHO Technical Support series. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1996: IRS 863.
   Google Scholar
• Patnaik R, Lesko Li, Chan K, Williams RL. Bioequivalence assess-ment of generic drugs: An American point of view. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokin 1996; 21:159–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pidgen A. Bioequivalence and generic prescribing: an industrial view.] Pharm Pharmacol 1996; 48:11–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meredith PA. Generic drugs. Therapeutic equivalence. Drug Saf 1996; 15:233–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford P, Hall WW, Chappell B et al. Generic prescribing for epilepsy: is it safe? Seizure 1996; 5:1–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richens A. Impact of generic substitution of anticonvulsants on the treatment of epilepsy. CNS Drugs 1997; 8:123–33.
   Google Scholar
• Besag FM. Is generic prescribing acceptable in epilepsy? Drug Saf2000; 23: 173–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson JD, Esham RH. Generic substitution: issues for prob-lematic drugs. South Med J 2001; 94:16–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiffel JA. Issues in the use of generic antiarrhythmic drugs. Curr Opin Cardiol 2001; 16:23–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borgherini G. The bioequivalence and therapeutic efficacy of generic versus brand-name psychoactive drugs. Clin Ther 2003; 25:1578–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponticelli C. Generic cyclosporine: a word of caution;JNephrol 2004; 17:S1–S5.
   Google Scholar
• Levy G. What are narrow therapeutic index drugs? Clin Phar-macol Ther 1998; 63:501–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuwer MR, Browwne TR, Dodson WE et al. Generic substitu-tions for antiepileptic drugs. Neurology 1990; 8:1647–51.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatini S, Ferguson RM, Helderman JH et al. Drug substitution in transplantation:A National Kidney Foundation White Paper. Am J Kidney Dis 1999; 33:389–397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banahan BF III, Kolassa EM. A physician survey on generic drugs and substitution of critical dose medications. Arch Int Med 997; 157:2080-8.
   Google Scholar
• Cattaneo D, Perico N, Remuzzi G. Generic cyclosporine formu-lations: more open questions than answers. Transplantinterna-tional 2005; 18:371–8.
   Google Scholar
• Gleiter CH, Klotz U, Kuhlmann J et al. When are bioavailabilty studies required?] Clin Pharmacol 1998; 38:904–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majkowski J, Eason W, Daniel W et al. Brand-name and generic drugs in the treatment of epilepsy: biopharmaceutical, phar-macological, clinical and economical problems. Epileptologia 2004; 12:365–89.
   Google Scholar
• Alloway RR, Isaacs R, Lake K et al. Report of the American So-ciety of Transplantation conference on immunosuppressive drugs and the use of generic immunosuppressants. Am J Trans-plant 2003; 1211–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welage LS, Kirking DM, Ascione FJ, Gaither CA. Understanding the scientific issues in the generic drug approval process. J Am Pharm Assoc 2001; 41:856–67.
   Google Scholar
• Gerbino PP, Joseph AS. Multisource drugs: implications and con-cerns in the geriatric population. Hosp Pharm 1993; 28:96–98.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Armstrong J, Challenor VF, Macklin BS et al. The influence of two types of meal on the pharmacokinetics of a modified-re-lease formulation of nifedipine (Adalat retard). Eur J Clin Phar-macol 1997; 53:141–3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrahamsson B, Alpsten M, Bake B et al. Drug absorption from nifedipine hydrophilic matrix-extended release (ER) tablet - comparison with an osmotic pump tablet and effect of food.] Control Rel 1998; 52:301–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schug BS, Brendel E, Wolf D, Wonneman M, Wargenau M, Blume HH. Formulation-dependent food effects demonstrated for nifedipine modified-release preparations marketed in the Eu-ropean Union. Pharm Sci 2002; 15:279–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wonneman M, Schug B, Schmucker K, Brendel E, van Zwieten PA, Blume H. Significant food interactions observed with a nife-dipine modified-release formulation marketed in the European Union. Intl Clin Pharmacol Ther 2006; 44:38–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meredith PA. Bioequivalence and other unresolved issues in ge-neric drug substitution. Clin Ther 2003; 25:2875–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovarik JM, Mueller EA, Richard F et al. Evidence for earlier sta-bilisation of cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in de novo renal transplant patients receiving a micro-emulsion formulation. Transplantation 1996; 62 :759–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nation RL, Sansom LN. Bioequivalence requirements for ge-neric products. Pharmacol Ther 1994; 62:41–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midha KK et al.The bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products. Intl Clin Pharmacol Ther 2005; 43:485–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zariffa NM, Patterson SD. Population and individual bioequiva-lence: lessons from real data and simulation studies. J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 41:811–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midha KK, Rawson MJ, Hubbard JW. Prescribability and swit-chability of highly variable drugs and drug products.] Control Release 1999; 62:33–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrett JS, Batra V, Chow A et al. PhRMA perspective on popu-lation and individual bioequivalence. J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 40:561–570.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen ML, Lesko Li. Individual bioequivalence revisited. Clin Pharmacokin 2001; 40:701–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patterson SD, Zariffa NM, Montague TH, Howland K. Non-tra-ditional study designs to demonstrate average bioequivalence for highly variable drug products. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 57:663–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer G, Biraben A, Carreno M et al. Current approaches to the use of generic antiepileptic drugs. Epilepsy Behav 2007; 11:46–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haskins LS, Tomaszeski KJ, Crawford P. Patient and physician reactions to generic antiepileptic substitution in the treatment of epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav 2005; 1:98–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Himmel W, Simmenroth-Nayda A, Niebling W et al. What do primary care patients think about generic drugs? Intl Clin Phar-macol Ther 2005; 43:472–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira JA, Holbrook AM, Dolovich L et al. Are brand-name and generic warfarin interchangeable? A survey of Ontario patients and physicians. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 12:229–39.
   Google Scholar
• Berg MJ, Gross RA, Haskins LS, Zingaro WM, Tomaszewski KJ. Generic substitution in the treatment of epilepsy: patient and physician perceptions. Epilepsy Behav 2008; 13:525–30.
   Google Scholar
• Wilner AN. Therapeutic equivalencey of generic antiepileptic drugs: results of a survey. Epilepsy Behav 2004; 5:995–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganther JM, Kreling DH. Consumer perceptions of risk and re-quired cost savings for generic prescription drugs. J Am Pharm Assoc 2000; 40:378–83.
   Google Scholar
• Heller F, Dupont AG. Generic drugs: need for clinical concern? Acta Clin Belg 2009; 64:415–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar