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. 301 No. 16, April 22/29, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 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
 •Related article
 •Related letters
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Aging/ Geriatrics
 •Cardiovascular System
 •Arrhythmias
 •Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction
 •Drug Therapy
 •Drug Therapy, Other
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Equivalence of Generic and Brand-Name Drugs for Cardiovascular Disease

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

To the Editor: Although the observations of Dr Kesselheim and colleagues1 are generally accurate, the authors oversimplified the issue and did not adequately consider all of the evidence. They largely grouped the material they reviewed into clinical trials and editorials. The former were appropriately given more weight in the authors' conclusions. However, case report material in some editorials as well as in articles that were not included2 (such as reports of serious arrhythmic recurrences, proarrhythmic events, and deaths in association with formulation substitution of an antiarrhythmic drug) was ignored.

In addition, the systematic review did not consider the major concern of repeated formulation substitution over time among a branded agent and several of its generic congeners. Although each generic has to meet bioequivalence with the branded product for it to be released to the market, one generic does not have to meet the same equivalence standard to another. For example, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

James A. Reiffel, MD
jar2@columbia.edu
Department of Medicine
Columbia University Medical Center
New York, New York



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Clinical Equivalence of Generic and Brand-Name Drugs Used in Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Aaron S. Kesselheim, Alexander S. Misono, Joy L. Lee, Margaret R. Stedman, M. Alan Brookhart, Niteesh K. Choudhry, and William H. Shrank
JAMA. 2008;300(21):2514-2526.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTERS

Equivalence of Generic and Brand-Name Drugs for Cardiovascular Disease
Barry L. Carter
JAMA. 2009;301(16):1654.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Equivalence of Generic and Brand-Name Drugs for Cardiovascular Disease
Michael James Zema
JAMA. 2009;301(16):1654-1655.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Equivalence of Generic and Brand-Name Drugs for Cardiovascular Disease—Reply
Aaron S. Kesselheim, Alexander S. Misono, and William H. Shrank
JAMA. 2009;301(16):1655-1656.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2009 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.