Literature DB >> 25755988

The differences between the branded and generic medicines using solid dosage forms: In-vitro dissolution testing.

Mubarak Nasser Al Ameri1, Nanda Nayuni2, K G Anil Kumar3, David Perrett2, Arthur Tucker2, Atholl Johnston2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Dissolution is the amount of substance that goes into solution per unit time under standardised conditions of liquid/solid interface, solvent composition and temperature. Dissolution is one of the most important tools to predict the in-vivo bioavailability and in some cases to determine bioequivalence and assure interchangeability. AIM: To compare the differences in dissolution behaviour of solid dosage forms between innovators (reference products) and their generic counterparts (tested products).
METHODS: Four replicates for each batch of 37 tested medicines was carried out using A PT-DT70 dissolution tester from Pharma Test. A total of 13 branded medicines and 24 generic counterparts were obtained locally and internationally to detect any differences in their dissolution behaviour. They were tested according to the British Pharmacopeia, European Pharmacopeia and the US Pharmacopeia with the rate of dissolution determined by ultra-violet Spectrophotometery.
RESULTS: Most tested medicines complied with the pharmacopoeial specifications and achieved 85% dissolution in 60 min. However, some generic medicines showed significant differences in dissolution rate at 60 and 120 min. Many generic medicines showed a slower dissolution rate than their branded counterparts such as the generic forms of omeprazole 20 mg. Some showed an incomplete dissolution such as the generic form of nifedipine 10 mg. Other generics showed faster dissolution rate than their branded counterpart such as the generic forms of meloxicam 15 mg. Moreover, some generics from different batches of the same manufacturer showed significant differences in their dissolution rate such as the generic forms of meloxicam 7.5 mg. Nevertheless, some generic medicines violated the EMA and the FDA guidelines for industry when they failed to achieve 85% dissolution at 60 min, such as the generic form of diclofenac sodium 50 mg.
CONCLUSION: Most medicines in this study complied with the pharmacopeial limits. However, some generics dissolved differently than their branded counterparts. This can clearly question the interchangeability between the branded and its generic counterpart or even among generics.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Absorption; Differences between the branded and generic medicines; Dissolution methods; IVIVC; In-vitro dissolution

Year:  2011        PMID: 25755988      PMCID: PMC4167181          DOI: 10.1016/j.rinphs.2011.12.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Results Pharma Sci        ISSN: 2211-2863


  17 in total

Review 1.  Generic and therapeutic substitutions: are they always ethical in their own terms?

Authors:  Mubarak AlAmeri; Miran Epstein; Atholl Johnston
Journal:  Pharm World Sci       Date:  2010-12

2.  "Inactive" excipients such as Cremophor can affect in vivo drug disposition.

Authors:  Cristoph Wandel; Richard B Kim; C Michael Stein
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.875

3.  Diclofenac sodium multisource prolonged release tablets--a comparative study on the dissolution profiles.

Authors:  Paola Bertocchi; Eleonora Antoniella; Luisa Valvo; Stefano Alimonti; Adriana Memoli
Journal:  J Pharm Biomed Anal       Date:  2004-12-22       Impact factor: 3.935

4.  A century of dissolution research: from Noyes and Whitney to the biopharmaceutics classification system.

Authors:  Aristides Dokoumetzidis; Panos Macheras
Journal:  Int J Pharm       Date:  2006-07-15       Impact factor: 5.875

5.  Assessment of the pharmaceutical quality of omeprazole capsule brands marketed in Egypt.

Authors:  A El-Sayed; N A Boraie; F A Ismail; L K El-Khordagui; S A Khalil
Journal:  East Mediterr Health J       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.628

6.  The ongoing regulation of generic drugs.

Authors:  Richard G Frank
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-11-15       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Generic and therapeutic substitution: ethics meets health economics.

Authors:  Steven Simoens
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2011-03-24

8.  A survey to determine the views of renal transplant patients on generic substitution in the UK.

Authors:  Mubarak N Al Ameri; Clare Whittaker; Arthur Tucker; Magdi Yaqoob; Atholl Johnston
Journal:  Transpl Int       Date:  2011-05-16       Impact factor: 3.782

9.  Drug formulations intended for the global market should be tested for stability under tropical climatic conditions.

Authors:  P G Risha; C Vervaet; G Vergote; L Van Bortel; J P Remon
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2003-04-30       Impact factor: 2.953

10.  Comparison of simvastatin tablets from the US and international markets obtained via the Internet.

Authors:  Michael A Veronin; Nga T Nguyen
Journal:  Ann Pharmacother       Date:  2008-04-15       Impact factor: 3.154

View more
  5 in total

1.  Quality Attributes and In Vitro Bioequivalence of Different Brands of Amoxicillin Trihydrate Tablets.

Authors:  Moawia M Al-Tabakha; Khairi M S Fahelelbom; Dana Emad Eddin Obaid; Sadik Sayed
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2017-05-20       Impact factor: 6.321

2.  Comparison between the dissolution profiles of nine meloxicam tablet brands commercially available in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Authors:  Laura D Simionato; Luciana Petrone; Mariela Baldut; Silvina L Bonafede; Adriana Inés Segall
Journal:  Saudi Pharm J       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  Effects of packaging and storage conditions on the quality of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid - an analysis of Cambodian samples.

Authors:  Mohiuddin Hussain Khan; Kirara Hatanaka; Tey Sovannarith; Nam Nivanna; Lidia Cecilia Cadena Casas; Naoko Yoshida; Hirohito Tsuboi; Tsuyoshi Tanimoto; Kazuko Kimura
Journal:  BMC Pharmacol Toxicol       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 2.483

4.  Effectiveness and safety of generic version of abacavir/lamivudine and efavirenz in treatment naïve HIV-infected patients: a nonrandomized, open-label, phase IV study in Cali-Colombia, 2011-2012.

Authors:  Jaime Galindo; Pedro Amariles; Héctor F Mueses-Marín; Jaime A Hincapié; Sebastián González-Avendaño; Ximena Galindo-Orrego
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 3.090

5.  Manufacturing and Assessing the New Orally Disintegrating Tablets, Containing Nimodipine-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin and Nimodipine-methyl-β-cyclodextrin Inclusion Complexes.

Authors:  Marian Novac; Adina Magdalena Musuc; Emma Adriana Ozon; Iulian Sarbu; Mirela Adriana Mitu; Adriana Rusu; Daniela Gheorghe; Simona Petrescu; Irina Atkinson; Dumitru Lupuliasa
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 4.411

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.