IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0163339.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Physicians’ Trust in the FDA’s Use of Product-Specific Pathways for Generic Drug Approval

Author

Listed:
  • Aaron S Kesselheim
  • Wesley Eddings
  • Tara Raj
  • Eric G Campbell
  • Jessica M Franklin
  • Kathryn M Ross
  • Lisa A Fulchino
  • Jerry Avorn
  • Joshua J Gagne

Abstract

Background: Generic drugs are cost-effective versions of brand-name drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) following proof of pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence. Generic drugs are widely prescribed by physicians, although there is disagreement over the clinical comparability of generic drugs to brand-name drugs within the physician community. The objective of this survey was to assess physicians' perceptions of generic drugs and the generic drug approval process. Methods and Findings: A survey was administered to a national sample of primary care internists and specialists between August 2014 and January 2015. In total, 1,152 physicians comprising of internists with no reported specialty certification and those with specialty certification in hematology, infectious diseases, and endocrinology were surveyed. The survey assessed physicians’ perceptions of the FDA’s generic drug approval process, as well as their experiences prescribing six generic drugs approved between 2008 and 2012 using product-specific approval pathways and selected comparator drugs. Among 718 respondents (62% response rate), a majority were comfortable with the FDA’s process in ensuring the safety and effectiveness of generic drugs overall (91%) and with letting the FDA determine which tests were necessary to determine bioequivalence in a particular drug (92%). A minority (13–26%) still reported being uncomfortable prescribing generic drugs approved using product-specific pathways. Overall, few physicians heard reports of concerns about generic versions of the study drugs or their comparators, with no differences between the two groups. Physicians tended to hear about concerns about the safety or effectiveness of generic drugs from patients, pharmacists, and physician colleagues. Conclusions: Physicians hold largely positive views of the FDA's generic drug approval process even when some questioned the performance of certain generic drugs in comparison to brand-name drugs. Better education about the generic drug approval process and standards may alleviate concerns among the physician community and support the delivery of cost-effective health care.

Suggested Citation

  • Aaron S Kesselheim & Wesley Eddings & Tara Raj & Eric G Campbell & Jessica M Franklin & Kathryn M Ross & Lisa A Fulchino & Jerry Avorn & Joshua J Gagne, 2016. "Physicians’ Trust in the FDA’s Use of Product-Specific Pathways for Generic Drug Approval," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0163339
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163339
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163339&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0163339?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0163339. 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.