Dataset Information

Comparing tolerability and efficacy of generic versus brand alendronate: a randomized clinical study in postmenopausal women with a recent fracture.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

An increasing number of generic alendronate formulations have become available. Although expected to have the same tolerability and efficacy, head-to head comparison of generic and brand alendronate was never performed. Therefore, we compared the tolerability and efficacy of generic and brand alendronate.

Methods

In a randomized double-blinded single centre cross-over study in 37 postmenopausal women (mean age 65.4±6.4 years) with osteoporosis were treated with generic and branded alendronate during 24 (2x12) weeks. Tolerance was evaluated by the Gastro intestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and self-reported side effects. Efficacy was assessed by serum bone turnover markers, carboxy terminal telopeptide (CTX) and procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (PINP). No wash out period was allowed (ethical reasons). Because of possible carry over effect only data of the first 12 weeks were analyzed using linear mixed models.

Results

There were no significant differences in overall tolerance (GSRS) between treatment groups. However, for subscale abdominal pain, patients using generic had a significantly higher mean GSRS score at week 4 (estimated mean difference (B): 0.40; 95%CI: 0.05 to 0.74, p = 0.024). The level of bone turnover markers significantly decreased over 12 weeks of follow-up for generic and branded alendronate (p < 0.001). Mean level of CTX was significantly lower with branded at week 4 (B: 121.3; 95%CI: 52.0 to 190.5), but not at week 12 (B: 53.6; 95%CI:-3.7 to 110.9). No significant differences were found for PINP at week 4 or 12.

Conclusions

Bone turnover markers were significantly reduced with branded and generic alendronate. With branded, CTX was significantly lower at 4 weeks. Generic caused significantly higher abdominal pain scores in the first 4 weeks of treatment. Therefore, generic alendronate may not have the same tolerability and efficacy as branded alendronate in the first weeks after starting treatment in patients with a recent fracture.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register NTR number 1867 http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1867.

SUBMITTER: van den Bergh JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3804551 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing tolerability and efficacy of generic versus brand alendronate: a randomized clinical study in postmenopausal women with a recent fracture.

van den Bergh Joop P W JP Bouts Marian E ME van der Veer Eveline E van der Velde Robert Y RY Janssen Marcel J W MJ Geusens Piet P PP Winkens Bjorn B Oldenhof Nico J J NJ van Geel Tineke A C M TA

PloS one 20131021 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>An increasing number of generic alendronate formulations have become available. Although expected to have the same tolerability and efficacy, head-to head comparison of generic and brand alendronate was never performed. Therefore, we compared the tolerability and efficacy of generic and brand alendronate.<h4>Methods</h4>In a randomized double-blinded single centre cross-over study in 37 postmenopausal women (mean age 65.4±6.4 years) with osteoporosis were treated with generi ...[more]

PMID: 24205135

Similar Datasets

Project description:The efficacy of generic teriparatide in improving BMD at lumbar spine in patients with osteoporosis was similar to that of alendronate. It provided a new choice for osteoporosis treatment in Chinese population.IntroductionTo determine whether the efficacy of generic teriparatide is noninferior to alendronate for Chinese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.MethodsEligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) in a 48-week, open-label design to receive 20 µg sc daily teriparatide or 70 mg oral weekly alendronate. Primary outcome was percentage change in BMD at the lumbar spine from baseline to 48 weeks and was assessed for non-inferiority. The same outcome was further assessed for superiority as a secondary endpoint.ResultsThree hundred ninety-one and 196 participants were randomly assigned to the teriparatide or alendronate group, of whom 379 and 194 receiving at least one dose of teriparatide and alendronate treatment were eligible for the efficacy analysis. Teriparatide was non-inferior to alendronate for BMD change at lumbar spine (treatment difference: 0.7%, 95% CI: - 0.3 to 1.7%), which excluded the predefined non-inferiority margin of - 1.5%. However, teriparatide was not statistically superior to alendronate in improving BMD at lumbar spine (P = 0.169). At 48 weeks, changes in BMD at total hip were - 1.0% and 2.2% in teriparatide and alendronate group, respectively (P < 0.001). The incidence of new fracture showed no statistical difference between groups (P = 0.128). Serum P1NP and β-CTX levels significantly increased in the teriparatide group and markedly decreased in alendronate group (all P < 0.001 vs baseline). The adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were more common in the teriparatide group than in the alendronate group, which were mainly teriparatide-related hypercalcemia, elevated alkaline phosphatase or parathyroid hormone, dizziness, and arthralgia.ConclusionsTeriparatide was not inferior to alendronate in increasing BMD at lumbar spine in Chinese postmenopausal women, and they achieved these effects through different mechanisms.

Project description:This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse events, either serious or mild/moderate, of all generic versus brand-name cardiovascular medicines. We searched randomized trials in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov (last update December 1, 2014). Attempts were made to contact the investigators of all potentially eligible trials. Two investigators independently extracted and analyzed soft (including systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and others) and hard efficacy outcomes (including major cardiovascular adverse events and death), minor/moderate and serious adverse events. We included 74 randomized trials; 53 reported ≥1 efficacy outcome (overall sample 3051), 32 measured mild/moderate adverse events (n = 2407), and 51 evaluated serious adverse events (n = 2892). We included trials assessing ACE inhibitors (n = 12), anticoagulants (n = 5), antiplatelet agents (n = 17), beta-blockers (n = 11), calcium channel blockers (n = 7); diuretics (n = 13); statins (n = 6); and others (n = 3). For both soft and hard efficacy outcomes, 100 % of the trials showed non-significant differences between generic and brand-name drugs. The aggregate effect size was 0.01 (95 % CI -0.05; 0.08) for soft outcomes; -0.06 (-0.71; 0.59) for hard outcomes. All but two trials showed non-significant differences in mild/moderate adverse events, and aggregate effect size was 0.07 (-0.06; 0.20). Comparable results were observed for each drug class and in each stratified meta-analysis. Overall, 8 serious possibly drug-related adverse events were reported: 5/2074 subjects on generics; 3/2076 subjects on brand-name drugs (OR 1.69; 95 % CI 0.40-7.20). This meta-analysis strengthens the evidence for clinical equivalence between brand-name and generic cardiovascular drugs. Physicians could be reassured about prescribing generic cardiovascular drugs, and health care organization about endorsing their wider use.

Project description:Teriparatide, currently only available in brand form in the United States, is a costly drug approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women who are at high risk of fracture. Because market exclusivity for brand teriparatide expired in August 2019 in the US, we sought to understand the potential health economic impact of the availability of generic or biosimilar (generic/biosimilar) teriparatide. We examined the cost-effectiveness of daily teriparatide for 2?years followed by weekly alendronate for 10?years (ie, sequential teriparatide/alendronate) compared with alendronate alone for 10?years in community-dwelling white osteoporotic women with prior vertebral fracture at ages 65, 70, 75, and 80. Using an updated version of previously validated Markov microsimulation models, we obtained incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (dollars [$] per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $150,000 per QALY from a societal perspective with a lifelong time horizon. In the base case, we estimated the annual cost of teriparatide to be $20,161, based on the assumption of 10% brand usage (at a cost of $27,618) and 90% generic/biosimilar usage (priced 30% lower than brand). The ICERs of sequential teriparatide/alendronate compared with alendronate alone were greater than $280,000 per QALY at all ages examined. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, results were sensitive to teriparatide's cost, with the cost of a generic/biosimilar product needing to be 65% to 85% lower than brand for sequential teriparatide/alendronate to be cost-effective. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, under the assumption that the annual cost of teriparatide was $20,161, the probabilities of sequential teriparatide/alendronate being cost-effective were less than 4% at a WTP of $150,000 per QALY. In conclusion, among community-dwelling older osteoporotic women with prior vertebral fracture in the US, even with the potential availability of generic/biosimilar teriparatide, sequential teriparatide/alendronate would not be cost-effective unless the cost of generic/biosimilar teriparatide were heavily discounted with respect to the current brand cost. © 2019 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Project description:The Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH) trial (NCT01631214; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01631214) showed that romosozumab for 1 year followed by alendronate led to larger areal bone mineral density (aBMD) gains and superior fracture risk reduction versus alendronate alone. aBMD correlates with bone strength but does not capture all determinants of bone strength that might be differentially affected by various osteoporosis therapeutic agents. We therefore used quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and finite element analysis (FEA) to assess changes in lumbar spine volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD), bone volume, bone mineral content (BMC), and bone strength with romosozumab versus alendronate in a subset of ARCH patients. In ARCH, 4093 postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis received monthly romosozumab 210 mg sc or weekly oral alendronate 70 mg for 12 months, followed by open-label weekly oral alendronate 70 mg for ≥12 months. Of these, 90 (49 romosozumab, 41 alendronate) enrolled in the QCT/FEA imaging substudy. QCT scans at baseline and at months 6, 12, and 24 were assessed to determine changes in integral (total), cortical, and trabecular lumbar spine vBMD and corresponding bone strength by FEA. Additional outcomes assessed include changes in aBMD, bone volume, and BMC. Romosozumab caused greater gains in lumbar spine integral, cortical, and trabecular vBMD and BMC than alendronate at months 6 and 12, with the greater gains maintained upon transition to alendronate through month 24. These improvements were accompanied by significantly greater increases in FEA bone strength (p < 0.001 at all time points). Most newly formed bone was accrued in the cortical compartment, with romosozumab showing larger absolute BMC gains than alendronate (p < 0.001 at all time points). In conclusion, romosozumab significantly improved bone mass and bone strength parameters at the lumbar spine compared with alendronate. These results are consistent with greater vertebral fracture risk reduction observed with romosozumab versus alendronate in ARCH and provide insights into structural determinants of this differential treatment effect. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Dataset Information

Comparing tolerability and efficacy of generic versus brand alendronate: a randomized clinical study in postmenopausal women with a recent fracture.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Comparing tolerability and efficacy of generic versus brand alendronate: a randomized clinical study in postmenopausal women with a recent fracture.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets