You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 282 No. 21, December 1, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  From the Food and Drug Administration
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA

Review of Generic Bioequivalence Studies

JAMA. 1999;282:1995.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Questions have been raised recently about the ethics, safety, and effectiveness of generic substitutes for brand-name products. To address this issue, the FDA has examined all 127 in vivo bioequivalence studies in the 273 generic drug applications approved in 1997. The examinations focused on data that are used to evaluate the therapeutic equivalence of a generic and innovator drug.

Three measures were reviewed: the area under the plasma drug concentration–time curve from time 0 to time t (AUC [0-t]), the AUC from time 0 to infinity (AUC [0-Inf]), and the highest drug concentration (Cmax). The observed mean difference between the innovator's product and the generic product for AUC (0-t) was ± 3.47% (SD, 2.84), for AUC (0-Inf) it was ±3.25% (SD, 2.97), and for Cmax it was ± 4.29% (SD, 3.72).

These findings confirm the results of a similar FDA review of 224 in vivo studies in applications for generic . . . [Full Text of this Article]







HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1999 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.