Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25755988›Full record

ArticleResults in pharma sciences2012

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

Mubarak Nasser Al Ameri, Nanda Nayuni, K G Anil Kumar, David Perrett, Arthur Tucker, Atholl Johnston

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Results in pharma sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Comparison between the dissolution profiles of nine meloxicam tablet brands commercially available in Buenos Aires, Argentina.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mubarak Nasser Al AmeriWilliam Harvey Research Institute, Barts and The London, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London EC1M 6BQ, UK ; UAE General Hospital, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Nanda NayuniWilliam Harvey Research Institute, Barts and The London, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
K G Anil KumarUAE General Hospital, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
David PerrettWilliam Harvey Research Institute, Barts and The London, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Arthur TuckerWilliam Harvey Research Institute, Barts and The London, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Atholl JohnstonWilliam Harvey Research Institute, Barts and The London, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
William Harvey Research Institute · GBQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDissolution 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.

aimTo compare the differences in dissolution behaviour of solid dosage forms between innovators (reference products) and their generic counterparts (tested products).

methodsFour 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.

resultsMost 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.

conclusionMost 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.

Indexed as

AbsorptionDifferences between the branded and generic medicinesDissolution methodsIn-vitro dissolutionIVIVC

Identifiers

PMID25755988
PMCPMC4167181
OpenAlexW1972058440

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.