Cargando…

Quality of Reporting of Bioequivalence Trials Comparing Generic to Brand Name Drugs: A Methodological Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Generic drugs are used by millions of patients for economic reasons, so their evaluation must be highly transparent. OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of reporting of bioequivalence trials comparing generic to brand-name drugs. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: PubMed was searched for repor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van der Meersch, Amélie, Dechartres, Agnès, Ravaud, Philippe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157430/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21858184
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023611
_version_ 1782210303890554880
author van der Meersch, Amélie
Dechartres, Agnès
Ravaud, Philippe
author_facet van der Meersch, Amélie
Dechartres, Agnès
Ravaud, Philippe
author_sort van der Meersch, Amélie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Generic drugs are used by millions of patients for economic reasons, so their evaluation must be highly transparent. OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of reporting of bioequivalence trials comparing generic to brand-name drugs. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: PubMed was searched for reports of bioequivalence trials comparing generic to brand-name drugs between January 2005 and December 2008. Articles were included if the aim of the study was to assess the bioequivalency of generic and brand-name drugs. We excluded case studies, pharmaco-economic evaluations, and validation dosage assays of drugs. We evaluated whether important information about funding, methodology, location of trials, and participants were reported. We also assessed whether the criteria required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) to conclude bioequivalence were reported and that the conclusions were in agreement with the results. We identified 134 potentially relevant articles but eliminated 55 because the brand-name or generic drug status of the reference drug was unknown. Thus, we evaluated 79 articles. The funding source and location of the trial were reported in 41% and 56% of articles, respectively. The type of statistical analysis was reported in 94% of articles, but the methods to generate the randomization sequence and to conceal allocation were reported in only 15% and 5%, respectively. In total, 65 articles of single-dose trials (89%) concluded bioequivalence. Of these, 20 (31%) did not report the 3 criteria within the limits required by the FDA and 11 (17%) did not report the 2 criteria within the limits required by the EMA. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Important information to judge the validity and relevance of results are frequently missing in published reports of trials assessing generic drugs. The quality of reporting of such trials is in need of improvement.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3157430
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31574302011-08-19 Quality of Reporting of Bioequivalence Trials Comparing Generic to Brand Name Drugs: A Methodological Systematic Review van der Meersch, Amélie Dechartres, Agnès Ravaud, Philippe PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Generic drugs are used by millions of patients for economic reasons, so their evaluation must be highly transparent. OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of reporting of bioequivalence trials comparing generic to brand-name drugs. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: PubMed was searched for reports of bioequivalence trials comparing generic to brand-name drugs between January 2005 and December 2008. Articles were included if the aim of the study was to assess the bioequivalency of generic and brand-name drugs. We excluded case studies, pharmaco-economic evaluations, and validation dosage assays of drugs. We evaluated whether important information about funding, methodology, location of trials, and participants were reported. We also assessed whether the criteria required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) to conclude bioequivalence were reported and that the conclusions were in agreement with the results. We identified 134 potentially relevant articles but eliminated 55 because the brand-name or generic drug status of the reference drug was unknown. Thus, we evaluated 79 articles. The funding source and location of the trial were reported in 41% and 56% of articles, respectively. The type of statistical analysis was reported in 94% of articles, but the methods to generate the randomization sequence and to conceal allocation were reported in only 15% and 5%, respectively. In total, 65 articles of single-dose trials (89%) concluded bioequivalence. Of these, 20 (31%) did not report the 3 criteria within the limits required by the FDA and 11 (17%) did not report the 2 criteria within the limits required by the EMA. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Important information to judge the validity and relevance of results are frequently missing in published reports of trials assessing generic drugs. The quality of reporting of such trials is in need of improvement. Public Library of Science 2011-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3157430/ /pubmed/21858184 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023611 Text en van der Meersch et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
van der Meersch, Amélie
Dechartres, Agnès
Ravaud, Philippe
Quality of Reporting of Bioequivalence Trials Comparing Generic to Brand Name Drugs: A Methodological Systematic Review
title Quality of Reporting of Bioequivalence Trials Comparing Generic to Brand Name Drugs: A Methodological Systematic Review
title_full Quality of Reporting of Bioequivalence Trials Comparing Generic to Brand Name Drugs: A Methodological Systematic Review
title_fullStr Quality of Reporting of Bioequivalence Trials Comparing Generic to Brand Name Drugs: A Methodological Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Quality of Reporting of Bioequivalence Trials Comparing Generic to Brand Name Drugs: A Methodological Systematic Review
title_short Quality of Reporting of Bioequivalence Trials Comparing Generic to Brand Name Drugs: A Methodological Systematic Review
title_sort quality of reporting of bioequivalence trials comparing generic to brand name drugs: a methodological systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157430/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21858184
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023611
work_keys_str_mv AT vandermeerschamelie qualityofreportingofbioequivalencetrialscomparinggenerictobrandnamedrugsamethodologicalsystematicreview
AT dechartresagnes qualityofreportingofbioequivalencetrialscomparinggenerictobrandnamedrugsamethodologicalsystematicreview
AT ravaudphilippe qualityofreportingofbioequivalencetrialscomparinggenerictobrandnamedrugsamethodologicalsystematicreview