GRIPE: Grupo Investigador de Problemas en Enfermedades Infecciosas, University of Antioquia (UdeA) Medical School, Medellín, Colombia.
Infectious Diseases Unit, Hospital Universitario San Vicente Fundación, Medellín, Colombia.
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 6;14(2):e0211096. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211096. eCollection 2019.
We demonstrated therapeutic nonequivalence of "bioequivalent" generics for meropenem, but there is no data with generics of other carbapenems.
One generic product of imipenem-cilastatin was compared with the innovator in terms of in vitro susceptibility testing, pharmaceutical equivalence, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) equivalence in the neutropenic mouse thigh, lung and brain infection models. Both pharmaceutical forms were then subjected to analytical chemistry assays (LC/MS).
The generic product had 30% lower concentration of cilastatin compared with the innovator of imipenem-cilastatin. Regarding the active pharmaceutical ingredient (imipenem), we found no differences in MIC, MBC, concentration or potency or AUC, confirming equivalence in terms of in vitro activity. However, the generic failed therapeutic equivalence in all three animal models. Its Emax against S. aureus in the thigh model was consistently lower, killing from 0.1 to 7.3 million less microorganisms per gram in 24 hours than the innovator (P = 0.003). Against K. pneumoniae in the lung model, the generic exhibited a conspicuous Eagle effect fitting a Gaussian equation instead of the expected sigmoid curve of the Hill model. In the brain infection model with P. aeruginosa, the generic failed when bacterial growth was >4 log10 CFU/g in 24 hours, but not if it was less than 2.5 log10 CFU/g. These large differences in the PD profile cannot be explained by the lower concentration of cilastatin, and rather suggested a failure attributable to the imipenem constituent of the generic product. Analytical chemistry assays confirmed that, besides having 30% less cilastatin, the generic imipenem was more acidic, less stable, and exhibited four different degradation masses that were absent in the innovator.
我们已经证明了美罗培南“生物等效”仿制药之间存在治疗等效性差异,但尚无其他碳青霉烯类仿制药的相关数据。
本研究比较了一种亚胺培南-西司他丁的仿制药与原研药在体外药敏试验、药学等效性、中性粒细胞减少症小鼠大腿、肺和脑感染模型中的药代动力学(PK)和药效学(PD)等效性方面的差异。然后,对这两种剂型进行分析化学检测(LC/MS)。
与原研的亚胺培南-西司他丁相比,该仿制药的西司他丁浓度低 30%。关于活性药物成分(亚胺培南),我们发现 MIC、MBC、浓度或效价或 AUC 没有差异,这表明体外活性等效。然而,该仿制药在所有三个动物模型中均未达到治疗等效性。在大腿模型中,其对金黄色葡萄球菌的 Emax 始终较低,在 24 小时内,每克组织中比原研药少杀死 0.1 至 730 万个微生物(P = 0.003)。在肺感染模型中,与预期的 Hill 模型的 S 型曲线不同,该仿制药对肺炎克雷伯菌表现出明显的 Eagle 效应,符合高斯方程。在铜绿假单胞菌脑感染模型中,当 24 小时内细菌生长超过 4log10CFU/g 时,该仿制药会失效,但如果低于 2.5log10CFU/g 时则不会。PD 曲线的这些巨大差异不能用西司他丁浓度降低来解释,而更可能是由于仿制药中所含的亚胺培南成分失效所致。分析化学检测证实,除了西司他丁含量降低 30%外,该仿制药的亚胺培南酸度更高、稳定性更差,并且表现出四种在原研药中不存在的不同降解质量。