AIMS: There are concerns about the quality of generic drugs in the postmarketing setting. The aim was to establish whether two generic formulations of amoxicillin, available on the Italian market, fulfil the criteria for clinical pharmacokinetic bioequivalence vs. the branded drug. METHODS: Two generic amoxicillin products (generic A and B) were selected among four fast-release tablet formulations available on the Italian market. Twenty-four healthy adult volunteers of either sex participated to a single-dose, randomized, three-treatment, crossover, single-blind bioequivalence study designed to compare generic A and B with branded amoxicillin. Plasma samples were collected at preset times for 24 h after dosing, and assayed for amoxicillin levels by high-performance liquid chromatography. RESULTS: Ninety percent confidence intervals of AUC ratios were 0.8238, 1.0502 (ratio 0.9302) and 0.8116, 1.1007 (ratio 0.9452) for generic A and B vs. branded amoxicillin, respectively. Ninety percent confidence intervals of C(max) ratios were 0.7921, 1.0134 (ratio 0.8960) and 0.8246, 1.1199 (ratio 0.9610) for generic A and B vs. branded amoxicillin, respectively. The mean pharmacokinetic profiles showed that the AUC value of branded amoxicillin was 8.5 and 5.4% greater than that estimated for generic A and B, respectively. Few adverse events were recorded; these were not serious and occurred without apparent relationship to any specific amoxicillin formulation. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that one of the two marketed amoxicillin generics analysed in the present study is not bioequivalent to the brand leader product for C(max) on the basis of single-dose pharmacokinetic assessment.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: There are concerns about the quality of generic drugs in the postmarketing setting. The aim was to establish whether two generic formulations of amoxicillin, available on the Italian market, fulfil the criteria for clinical pharmacokinetic bioequivalence vs. the branded drug. METHODS: Two generic amoxicillin products (generic A and B) were selected among four fast-release tablet formulations available on the Italian market. Twenty-four healthy adult volunteers of either sex participated to a single-dose, randomized, three-treatment, crossover, single-blind bioequivalence study designed to compare generic A and B with branded amoxicillin. Plasma samples were collected at preset times for 24 h after dosing, and assayed for amoxicillin levels by high-performance liquid chromatography. RESULTS: Ninety percent confidence intervals of AUC ratios were 0.8238, 1.0502 (ratio 0.9302) and 0.8116, 1.1007 (ratio 0.9452) for generic A and B vs. branded amoxicillin, respectively. Ninety percent confidence intervals of C(max) ratios were 0.7921, 1.0134 (ratio 0.8960) and 0.8246, 1.1199 (ratio 0.9610) for generic A and B vs. branded amoxicillin, respectively. The mean pharmacokinetic profiles showed that the AUC value of branded amoxicillin was 8.5 and 5.4% greater than that estimated for generic A and B, respectively. Few adverse events were recorded; these were not serious and occurred without apparent relationship to any specific amoxicillin formulation. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that one of the two marketed amoxicillin generics analysed in the present study is not bioequivalent to the brand leader product for C(max) on the basis of single-dose pharmacokinetic assessment.
Authors: M L Chen; V Shah; R Patnaik; W Adams; A Hussain; D Conner; M Mehta; H Malinowski; J Lazor; S M Huang; D Hare; L Lesko; D Sporn; R Williams Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Lawrence X Yu; Gordon L Amidon; James E Polli; Hong Zhao; Mehul U Mehta; Dale P Conner; Vinod P Shah; Lawrence J Lesko; Mei-Ling Chen; Vincent H L Lee; Ajaz S Hussain Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Xiaoli Du; Chonghua Li; Heather K Sun; Charles H Nightingale; David P Nicolau Journal: J Pharm Biomed Anal Date: 2005-09-15 Impact factor: 3.935
Authors: Richard A Hansen; Jingjing Qian; Richard Berg; James Linneman; Enrique Seoane-Vazquez; Sarah K Dutcher; Saeid Raofi; C David Page; Peggy Peissig Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: R A Hansen; J Qian; R L Berg; J G Linneman; E Seoane-Vazquez; S Dutcher; S Raofi; C D Page; P L Peissig Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Md Motiur Rahman; Yasser Alatawi; Ning Cheng; Jingjing Qian; Peggy L Peissig; Richard L Berg; David C Page; Richard A Hansen Journal: Clin Drug Investig Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 2.859
Authors: Ning Cheng; Md Motiur Rahman; Yasser Alatawi; Jingjing Qian; Peggy L Peissig; Richard L Berg; C David Page; Richard A Hansen Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Gabriel Levy-Hara; Carlos F Amábile-Cuevas; Ian Gould; Jim Hutchinson; Lilian Abbo; Lynora Saxynger; Erika Vlieghe; Fernando L Lopes Cardoso; Shaheen Methar; Souha Kanj; Norio Ohmagari; Stephan Harbarth Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 5.640
Authors: Mario Del Tacca; Giuseppe Pasqualetti; Giovanni Gori; Pasquale Pepe; Antonello Di Paolo; Marianna Lastella; Ferdinando De Negri; Corrado Blandizzi Journal: Ther Clin Risk Manag Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 2.423