Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10668341›Full record

ReviewMedizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983)2000

[Original brands and generic preparations].

K U Petersen

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983), 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

K U PetersenKarlUwe.Petersen@post.rwth-aachen.de

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModern guidelines of drug approval aim at interchangeability of drugs containing the same active ingredients. Therapeutic equivalence of original and generic drugs is assumed as soon as bioequivalence is documented. For this to be accepted, first, pharmaceutical equivalence must prevail (the same amount of active substances in the same dosage forms) and, second, differences in bioavailabilities must not exceed certain limits. Drastic deviations from the original--not infrequent in the past--have become rare under the new sets of rules. CURRENT RELEVANCE: However, there is still room for sometimes stunning discrepancies between approved drugs, since the current procedures--mainly for economic reasons--do not cover some potentially relevant aspects: Usually, studies are performed on young, healthy, mostly male volunteers; possible effects of meals on bioavailability are not investigated and, after approval of a drug, maintenance of attested quality--as with all manufacturers--is not monitored. Moreover, the tolerated deviations from the bioavailability of the original drug are quite large; with certain substances, a change from the generic drug with the lowest bioavailability to that with the highest could mean transition from low efficacy to a toxic dose level. Documented examples include carbamazepine, phenytoin, levothyroxin, verapamil, and aspirin.

conclusionsIn conclusion, even today's sophisticated rules do not suffice to cover all eventualities. In particular, drugs with a narrow therapeutic range require close scrutiny in product selection. Pertinent are drug documentation as well as the distinguishing features of the respective manufacturers, mainly scientific support and record of product reliability. Besides the sometimes insufficient official documentation, the internet has been gaining importance as a source of information.

Indexed as

Biological AvailabilityChemistry, PharmaceuticalClinical Trials as TopicDrug ApprovalDrug EvaluationDrug IndustryGermanyHumansMalePharmaceutical PreparationsTherapeutic EquivalencyPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID10668341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.