Switching from brand-name to generic psychotropic medications: a literature review

Generic medications do not undergo the rigorous approval process required of original medications. Their effectiveness and safety is expected to be equal to that of their more expensive counterparts. However, several case reports and studies describe clinical deterioration and decreased tolerability with generic substitution. Pubmed was searched from January 1, 1974 to March 1, 2010. The MeSH term "generic, drugs" was combined with "anticonvulsants," "mood stabilizers," "lithium," "antidepressants," "antipsychotics," "anxiolytics," and "benzodiazepines." Additional articles were obtained by searching the bibliographies of relevant references. Articles in English, French, or Spanish were considered if they discussed clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name medications, generic substitution, or issues about effectiveness, tolerability, compliance, or economics encountered with generics. Clinical deterioration, adverse effects, and changes in pharmacokinetics are described with generic substitution of several anticonvulsants/mood stabilizers (carbamazepine, valproate, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, lithium), antidepressants (amitriptyline, nortriptyline, desipramine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, citalopram, sertraline, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, bupropion), antipsychotics (risperidone, clozapine), and anxiolytics (clonazepam, alprazolam). Generics do not always lead to the anticipated monetary savings and also raise compliance issues. Although the review is limited by publication bias and heterogeneity of the studies in the literature, we believe there is enough concern to advise generic switching on an individual basis with close monitoring throughout the transition. Health professionals should be aware of the stakes around generic substitution especially when health economics promote universal use of generics.     

Evaluating the quality of active-control trials in periodontal research

AIM: The increasing popularity of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) has raised the issue of their quality. Frequently overlooked are the differences between superiority and equivalence trials. The purpose of this study was to apply specific methodological criteria to evaluate the quality of active-control trials using studies that compared guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with enamel matrix derivatives (EMD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven RCTs were identified in the literature. Standard methodological criteria and seven additional criteria for trials using active-control groups were used to evaluate the quality of the seven RCTs. RESULTS: Two trials were considered as superiority trials. The remaining five provided no clear statement of their research aim. However, two claimed that EMD and GTR were equally effective, because their results failed to show a significant difference between EMD and GTR. Most trials did not meet the majority of the design criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The general lack of compliance with quality criteria might place doubt on the value of these trials and may render any conclusions questionable. It is therefore important to distinguish clearly between superiority trials and equivalence trials, and to incorporate appropriate additional criteria in the design of future RCTs with active-control groups.     

等效检验及其软件实现

对等效检验进行了简要介绍。利用实例和Equiv TestTM 2.0软件上的等效检验过程进行了等效检验,并对主要输出结果进行了解释。     

减法系统Ⅲ——各种BCY代数的等价类

在“减法系统Ⅰ”基础上,引入其它一些BCY代数并研究某些BGY代数的等价类(关于“=”),并证明了等价类的集合分别形成BCI代数、BCK代数或可换BCK代数。     

Updated Recommendations on Evidence Needed to Support Measurement Comparability Among Modes of Data Collection for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force

The ISPOR Task Force on measurement comparability between modes of data collection for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has updated the good practice recommendations from the 2009 ISPOR electronic patient-reported outcome and 2014 patient-reported outcome mixed modes Good Research Practices Task Force reports in light of accumulated evidence of measurement comparability among different modes of PROM data collection. Furthermore, with the increasing use of electronic formats of clinical outcome assessments in clinical trials and the US Food and Drug Administration’s encouragement of electronic data collection, this new task force report provides stakeholders with best practice recommendations reflecting the current body of evidence and enables them to respond to future developments in research and technology.This task force recommends an evidence-based approach to determine whether new research is needed to evaluate measurement comparability for a given questionnaire or technology. The suitability of existing evidence depends upon whether it satisfactorily demonstrates that the change in data collection mode has not affected the PROM’s measurement properties. In cases where sufficient evidence of measurement comparability exists and best practices for faithful migration are followed, this task force concludes that further testing of measurement comparability among the data collection modes is unnecessary, including cases of “mixing modes” within clinical trials such as bring your own device designs.