Gregory L. Krauss, MD Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Meyer 2-147, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2008 Jul;10(4):260-8. doi: 10.1007/s11940-008-0029-6.
Generic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) generally provide safe, effective, lower-cost alternatives to brand-name drugs. To be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), manufacturers must show that generic drugs are comparable to brand-name formulations, meeting bioequivalence, dissolution, and manufacturing quality standards. Bioequivalence for most generic formulations is evaluated by measuring blood pharmacokinetic values in a small, crossover study of adult volunteers taking single doses of brand-name and generic AEDs. Bioequivalence standards require that ratios of average peak drug concentrations (C(max)) and total extent of absorption (area under the curve, AUC) for a test drug be within 80% to 125% of the reference brand-name drug, with a confidence interval of 90%. Bioequivalence of most generic AEDs, however, has not been evaluated in patients with epilepsy or in other special populations such as elderly patients or patients taking multiple AEDs and prodrugs. Moreover, evidence is limited regarding the adequacy of FDA generic standards for AEDs, particularly for "narrow therapeutic ratio" medications such as oxcarbazepine, although two carbamazepine studies are supportive. Most patients can successfully initiate therapy with generic AEDs and can safely switch from brand-name to generic AEDs (and sometimes back again). The FDA, however, has not shown safety in generic-to-generic switches, which could potentially cause drug concentration changes of up to 40%. Less expensive generic formulations will soon be available for most of the "second generation" AEDs--onisamide, for example, recently had 17 generic formulations approved in the United States--providing substantial savings in health care costs. In summary, although generic AEDs are generally safe and effective for most patients, the current bioequivalence standards may not be sufficient for certain patient populations and for certain drugs, requiring vulnerable patients to be monitored very carefully when converting to generic AEDs. The adequacy or inadequacy of FDA bioequivalence standards for AEDs has not yet been well evaluated with large, well-controlled studies.
通用抗癫痫药物(AED)通常提供安全、有效、成本较低的品牌药物替代方案。为获得美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)的批准,制造商必须证明仿制药与品牌配方具有可比性,符合生物等效性、溶出度和制造质量标准。大多数仿制药的生物等效性通过在服用品牌和仿制药 AED 单剂量的成年志愿者的小型交叉研究中测量血液药代动力学值来评估。生物等效性标准要求,测试药物的平均峰值药物浓度(C(max))和总吸收程度(曲线下面积,AUC)比值应在参考品牌药物的 80%至 125%范围内,置信区间为 90%。然而,癫痫患者或其他特殊人群(如老年患者或服用多种 AED 和前药的患者)尚未评估大多数通用 AED 的生物等效性。此外,关于 FDA 对 AED 的通用标准的充分性的证据有限,特别是对于“治疗窗窄”药物,如奥卡西平,尽管有两项卡马西平研究提供了支持。大多数患者可以成功地开始接受通用 AED 治疗,并可以安全地从品牌药物转换为通用 AED(有时又会转回品牌药物)。然而,FDA 尚未证明通用药物相互转换的安全性,这可能导致药物浓度变化高达 40%。大多数“第二代”AED 即将推出更便宜的通用配方,例如奥卡西平,最近在美国批准了 17 种通用配方,这将大大节省医疗保健成本。总之,尽管通用 AED 对大多数患者通常是安全有效的,但目前的生物等效性标准可能不足以满足某些患者群体和某些药物的需求,需要非常仔细地监测易受影响的患者在转换为通用 AED 时的情况。FDA 对 AED 的生物等效性标准的充分性或不充分性尚未通过大型、对照良好的研究进行很好的评估。