Department of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Ann Pharmacother. 2011 May;45(5):e27. doi: 10.1345/aph.1P765. Epub 2011 Apr 26.
We report on 4 patients having an increased incidence of seizures when treatment was switched from brand name levetiracetam (Keppra) to generic levetiracetam formulations.
Patients reported an increase in seizure activity to their neurologists after treatment was switched from Keppra to generic levetiracetam formulations. To confirm the timeline of increased seizure activity with use of the generic drug and report these adverse events to MedWatch, we made a telephone call to each patient's pharmacy to collect information on dispensing dates and the generic formulations' manufacturers. Subsequent to the increase in seizure frequency with generic levetiracetam, treatment in all 4 patients was switched back to Keppra. Seizure frequency in all patients returned to baseline when Keppra was reinstituted.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers generic medications to be therapeutically equivalent to their corresponding brand name formulation when the generic meets bioequivalence criteria. Considering the linear pharmacokinetic profile of levetiracetam, loss of seizure control or fluctuations of serum concentrations are unexpected if the patient remains on a consistent dose. However, there is growing evidence to support the concept that brand name antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are not clinically equivalent to their generic counterparts. Because the FDA relies on voluntary reporting of adverse events from health-care professionals and consumers to their MedWatch program, underreporting makes it difficult to quantify the significance of brand to generic switches, and, equally important, generic to generic switches.
Until the use of generic AEDs can be evaluated in a large randomized blinded controlled study, clinicians must be vigilant in their efforts to report to MedWatch adverse events resulting from the switch from an AED brand to generic formulation of an AED.
我们报告了 4 名患者在将左乙拉西坦(开浦兰)从品牌药转换为仿制药时癫痫发作频率增加的情况。
患者在将开浦兰转换为仿制药后向其神经科医生报告癫痫发作活动增加。为了确认使用仿制药后癫痫发作增加的时间线,并向 MedWatch 报告这些不良事件,我们致电每位患者的药房收集配药日期和仿制药制造商的信息。在使用仿制药左乙拉西坦后癫痫发作频率增加后,所有 4 名患者的治疗均转回开浦兰。当重新使用开浦兰时,所有患者的癫痫发作频率均恢复到基线。
当仿制药符合生物等效性标准时,美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)认为仿制药与相应的品牌药物制剂在治疗上等效。考虑到左乙拉西坦的线性药代动力学特征,如果患者保持一致的剂量,失去癫痫控制或血清浓度波动是出乎意料的。然而,越来越多的证据支持这样一种观点,即品牌抗癫痫药物(AED)与它们的仿制药在临床上并不等效。由于 FDA 依赖于医疗保健专业人员和消费者向其 MedWatch 计划自愿报告不良事件,因此报告不足使得难以量化品牌到仿制药转换的意义,同样重要的是,仿制药到仿制药转换的意义。
在能够在大型随机对照盲法研究中评估通用 AED 的使用之前,临床医生必须警惕向 MedWatch 报告由于从 AED 品牌转换为 AED 的仿制药配方而导致的不良事件。