Generic vancomycin products fail in vivo despite being pharmaceutical equivalents of the innovator.

Generic versions of intravenous antibiotics are not required to demonstrate therapeutic equivalence with the innovator because therapeutic equivalence is assumed from pharmaceutical equivalence. To test such assumptions, we studied three generic versions of vancomycin in simultaneous experiments with the innovator and determined the concentration and potency of the active pharmaceutical ingredient by microbiological assay, single-dose pharmacokinetics in infected mice, antibacterial effect by broth microdilution and time-kill curves (TKC), and pharmacodynamics against two wild-type strains of Staphylococcus aureus by using the neutropenic mouse thigh infection model. The main outcome measure was the comparison of magnitudes and patterns of in vivo efficacy between generic products and the innovator. Except for one product exhibiting slightly greater concentration, vancomycin generics were undistinguishable from the innovator based on concentration and potency, protein binding, in vitro antibacterial effect determined by minimal inhibitory or bactericidal concentrations and TKC, and serum pharmacokinetics. Despite such similarities, all generic products failed in vivo to kill S. aureus, while the innovator displayed the expected bactericidal efficacy: maximum antibacterial effect (Emax) (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 2.04 (1.89 to 2.19), 2.59 (2.21 to 2.98), and 3.48 (2.92 to 4.04) versus 5.65 (5.52 to 5.78) log10 CFU/g for three generics and the innovator product, respectively (P<0.0001, any comparison). Nonlinear regression analysis suggests that generic versions of vancomycin contain inhibitory and stimulatory principles within their formulations that cause agonistic-antagonistic actions responsible for in vivo failure. In conclusion, pharmaceutical equivalence does not imply therapeutic equivalence for vancomycin.