IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0023611.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Amélie van der Meersch
  • Agnès Dechartres
  • Philippe Ravaud

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Amélie van der Meersch & Agnès Dechartres & Philippe Ravaud, 2011. "Quality of Reporting of Bioequivalence Trials Comparing Generic to Brand Name Drugs: A Methodological Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-7, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0023611
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023611
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023611
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023611&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0023611?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mihajlo B, Jakovljevic & Nakazono, S & Ogura, S, 2014. "Contemporary generic market in Japan – key conditions to successful evolution," CIS Discussion paper series 613, Center for Intergenerational Studies, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0023611. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.