通用多烯紫杉醇。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Journal of clinical pharmacology Pub Date : 2017-07-01 Epub Date: 2017-05-03 DOI:10.1002/jcph.893
Dominique Levêque, Guillaume Becker
{"title":"通用多烯紫杉醇。","authors":"Dominique Levêque, Guillaume Becker","doi":"10.1002/jcph.893","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We read with great interest the article by N. Al Faqeer et al on the retrospective comparison of generic and branded formulations of docetaxel in terms of incidence of febrile neutropenia resulting in hospital admission.1 The authors found a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia with generic formulations compared with branded docetaxel and stated that the lower cost of generics should be balanced with the expenditure relative to complications. This kind of study is rather uncommon because approved generics and branded drugs have the same clinical activity. The approval of intravenous generic drugs is based on pharmaceutical equivalence, and clinical trials are not required by drug regulatory agencies. In fact, they are useless because the active entity is the same. In short, comparing generic drugs and their branded reference is the same as comparing various batches of the branded drug.2 Suspicion about generic drugs is often related to case reports or isolated observations. We do not think that this study proves than docetaxel generics are clinically different from the branded reference because of the several limitations highlighted by the authors (retrospective design, no check of drug–drug interactions). Docetaxel is cleared by CYP3A-mediated metabolism, and huge variations of elimination have been found among patients.3,4 In addition, docetaxel clearance has been related to CYP3A activity5 and has also been found to be an independent predictor of febrile neutropenia.3 So the difference of febrile neutropenia might have been simply related to the variations of metabolic elimination and not to the source of the docetaxel. At last, if a higher incidence of severe neutropenia really exists between the different formulations of docetaxel, it suggests that the generic vials are overdosed. Consequently, the drug agencies and the manufacturers should be alerted and the vials checked and eventually withdrawn. Otherwise, what can we do with this information, apart from casting doubts on generics and fear among patients?","PeriodicalId":15536,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical pharmacology","volume":"57 7","pages":"935"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/jcph.893","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Generic Docetaxel.\",\"authors\":\"Dominique Levêque, Guillaume Becker\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jcph.893\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We read with great interest the article by N. Al Faqeer et al on the retrospective comparison of generic and branded formulations of docetaxel in terms of incidence of febrile neutropenia resulting in hospital admission.1 The authors found a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia with generic formulations compared with branded docetaxel and stated that the lower cost of generics should be balanced with the expenditure relative to complications. This kind of study is rather uncommon because approved generics and branded drugs have the same clinical activity. The approval of intravenous generic drugs is based on pharmaceutical equivalence, and clinical trials are not required by drug regulatory agencies. In fact, they are useless because the active entity is the same. In short, comparing generic drugs and their branded reference is the same as comparing various batches of the branded drug.2 Suspicion about generic drugs is often related to case reports or isolated observations. We do not think that this study proves than docetaxel generics are clinically different from the branded reference because of the several limitations highlighted by the authors (retrospective design, no check of drug–drug interactions). Docetaxel is cleared by CYP3A-mediated metabolism, and huge variations of elimination have been found among patients.3,4 In addition, docetaxel clearance has been related to CYP3A activity5 and has also been found to be an independent predictor of febrile neutropenia.3 So the difference of febrile neutropenia might have been simply related to the variations of metabolic elimination and not to the source of the docetaxel. At last, if a higher incidence of severe neutropenia really exists between the different formulations of docetaxel, it suggests that the generic vials are overdosed. Consequently, the drug agencies and the manufacturers should be alerted and the vials checked and eventually withdrawn. Otherwise, what can we do with this information, apart from casting doubts on generics and fear among patients?\",\"PeriodicalId\":15536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical pharmacology\",\"volume\":\"57 7\",\"pages\":\"935\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/jcph.893\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.893\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/5/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.893","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/5/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Generic Docetaxel.
We read with great interest the article by N. Al Faqeer et al on the retrospective comparison of generic and branded formulations of docetaxel in terms of incidence of febrile neutropenia resulting in hospital admission.1 The authors found a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia with generic formulations compared with branded docetaxel and stated that the lower cost of generics should be balanced with the expenditure relative to complications. This kind of study is rather uncommon because approved generics and branded drugs have the same clinical activity. The approval of intravenous generic drugs is based on pharmaceutical equivalence, and clinical trials are not required by drug regulatory agencies. In fact, they are useless because the active entity is the same. In short, comparing generic drugs and their branded reference is the same as comparing various batches of the branded drug.2 Suspicion about generic drugs is often related to case reports or isolated observations. We do not think that this study proves than docetaxel generics are clinically different from the branded reference because of the several limitations highlighted by the authors (retrospective design, no check of drug–drug interactions). Docetaxel is cleared by CYP3A-mediated metabolism, and huge variations of elimination have been found among patients.3,4 In addition, docetaxel clearance has been related to CYP3A activity5 and has also been found to be an independent predictor of febrile neutropenia.3 So the difference of febrile neutropenia might have been simply related to the variations of metabolic elimination and not to the source of the docetaxel. At last, if a higher incidence of severe neutropenia really exists between the different formulations of docetaxel, it suggests that the generic vials are overdosed. Consequently, the drug agencies and the manufacturers should be alerted and the vials checked and eventually withdrawn. Otherwise, what can we do with this information, apart from casting doubts on generics and fear among patients?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.40%
发文量
176
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (JCP) is a Human Pharmacology journal designed to provide physicians, pharmacists, research scientists, regulatory scientists, drug developers and academic colleagues a forum to present research in all aspects of Clinical Pharmacology. This includes original research in pharmacokinetics, pharmacogenetics/pharmacogenomics, pharmacometrics, physiologic based pharmacokinetic modeling, drug interactions, therapeutic drug monitoring, regulatory sciences (including unique methods of data analysis), special population studies, drug development, pharmacovigilance, womens’ health, pediatric pharmacology, and pharmacodynamics. Additionally, JCP publishes review articles, commentaries and educational manuscripts. The Journal also serves as an instrument to disseminate Public Policy statements from the American College of Clinical Pharmacology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信