↓ Skip to main content

Generic-reference and generic-generic bioequivalence of forty-two, randomly-selected, on-market generic products of fourteen immediate-release oral drugs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Generic-reference and generic-generic bioequivalence of forty-two, randomly-selected, on-market generic products of fourteen immediate-release oral drugs
Published in
BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40360-017-0182-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Muhammad M. Hammami, Sophia J. S. De Padua, Rajaa Hussein, Eman Al Gaai, Nesrine A. Khodr, Reem Al-Swayeh, Syed N. Alvi, Nada Binhashim

Abstract

The extents of generic-reference and generic-generic average bioequivalence and intra-subject variation of on-market drug products have not been prospectively studied on a large scale. We assessed bioequivalence of 42 generic products of 14 immediate-release oral drugs with the highest number of generic products on the Saudi market. We conducted 14 four-sequence, randomized, crossover studies on the reference and three randomly-selected generic products of amlodipine, amoxicillin, atenolol, cephalexin, ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, diclofenac, ibuprofen, fluconazole, metformin, metronidazole, paracetamol, omeprazole, and ranitidine. Geometric mean ratios of maximum concentration (Cmax) and area-under-the-concentration-time-curve, to last measured concentration (AUCT), extrapolated to infinity (AUCI), or truncated to Cmax time of reference product (AUCReftmax) were calculated using non-compartmental method and their 90% confidence intervals (CI) were compared to the 80.00%-125.00% bioequivalence range. Percentages of individual ratios falling outside the ±25% range were also determined. Mean (SD) age and body-mass-index of 700 healthy volunteers (28-80/study) were 32.2 (6.2) years and 24.4 (3.2) kg/m2, respectively. In 42 generic-reference comparisons, 100% of AUCT and AUCI CIs showed bioequivalence, 9.5% of Cmax CIs barely failed to show bioequivalence, and 66.7% of AUCReftmax CIs failed to show bioequivalence/showed bioinequivalence. Adjusting for 6 comparisons, 2.4% of AUCT and AUCI CIs and 21.4% of Cmax CIs failed to show bioequivalence. In 42 generic-generic comparisons, 2.4% of AUCT, AUCI, and Cmax CIs failed to show bioequivalence, and 66.7% of AUCReftmax CIs failed to show bioequivalence/showed bioinequivalence. Adjusting for 6 comparisons, 2.4% of AUCT and AUCI CIs and 14.3% of Cmax CIs failed to show bioequivalence. Average geometric mean ratio deviation from 100% was ≤3.2 and ≤5.4 percentage points for AUCI and Cmax, respectively, in both generic-reference and generic-generic comparisons. Individual generic/reference and generic/generic ratios, respectively, were within the ±25% range in >75% of individuals in 79% and 71% of the 14 drugs for AUCT and 36% and 29% for Cmax. On-market generic drug products continue to be reference-bioequivalent and are bioequivalent to each other based on AUCT, AUCI, and Cmax but not AUCReftmax. Average deviation of geometric mean ratios and intra-subject variations are similar between reference-generic and generic-generic comparisons. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01344070 (registered April 3, 2011).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Professor 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,369,953
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#206
of 442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,700
of 439,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#11
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.