Generic Drugs are copies of small chemical drugs identical to their reference drug by dose, form, safety, strength, mode of administration, quality, performance, and intended purpose. They have been on the market for a long time and have abbreviated pathways to be approved. Their development is more simple and more affordable than their reference counterpart, which makes them widely used by patients. More recently, biosimilars were introduced to the market with strict regulations. They are highly similar to large, complex molecules, known as biological drugs, in terms of quality characteristics, biological activity, safety, and efficacy. Their development is complex and expensive, where clinical trials are necessary. Even though generic drugs and biosimilars are both copies of a reference drug, they differ in many aspects. Misconceptions or misinformation among healthcare stakeholders could have limited their use. Therefore, this short review aims to compare generic drugs and biosimilars in terms of characteristics, development, regulation, and interchangeability with brand drugs. Findings from this report can help clarify misconceptions and promote their use.
Vincent RajkumarS. The high cost of prescription drugs: causes and solutions. Berlin, Germany: Nature Publishing Group, 2020, pp. 1–5.
2.
FerrarioADedetGHumbertT, et al.Strategies to achieve fairer prices for generic and biosimilar medicines. BMJ2020; 368: l5444.
3.
WoutersOJKanavosPGMcKeeM. Comparing generic drug markets in Europe and the United States: prices, volumes, and spending. Milbank Q2017; 95(3): 554–601.
4.
DaveCVHartzemaAKesselheimAS. Prices of generic drugs associated with numbers of manufacturers. N Engl J Med2017; 377(26): 2597–2598.
5.
GebresillassieBMBelachewSATeferaYG, et al.Evaluating patients’, physicians’ and pharmacy professionals’ perception and concern regarding generic medicines in Gondar town, northwest Ethiopia: a multi-stakeholder, cross-sectional survey. PLoS One2018; 13(11): e0204146.
6.
ShresthaRPrajapatiS. Assessment of prescription pattern and prescription error in outpatient department at tertiary care district hospital, central Nepal. J Pharm Policy Pract2019; 12(1): 16–19.
7.
DesaiRJSarpatwariADejeneS, et al.Differences in rates of switchbacks after switching from branded to authorized generic and branded to generic drug products: cohort study. BMJ2018; 361: k1180.
8.
BeauvaisVMarqueAFertéG, et al.Factors influencing the use of the “not for generic substitution” mention for prescriptions in primary care: a survey with general practitioners. BMC Health Serv Res2018; 18(1): 850–858.
9.
XanthopoulouS-SKatsaliakiK. Policies and perceptions on generic drugs: the case of Greece. Health Serv Manage Res2019; 32(1): 49–56.
10.
PinhoM. Prescribers’ and dispensers’ views about generic medicines and international non-proprietary name prescribing–a mixed methods study in Portugal. Int J Pharm Healthc Mark2020; 14(2): 177–199.
11.
TripathiSBhattacharyaS. Patient perception about generic vs. branded medicines prescribed in a tertiary care hospital in northern India-a descriptive study. Indian J Phar Pract2018; 11(2): 91–95.
12.
HatemGMichiel GoossensM. Health care system in lebanon: a review addressing health inequalities and ethical dilemmas of frontline workers during COVID-19 pandemic. BAU J2022; 5(1): 4.
13.
ChoSKJunH. Substitution of generic drugs and biosimilars. JAMA Intern Med2021; 181(4): 567–568.
14.
TheodorouMKontemeniotisAKantarisM, et al.Disentangling prescribing behaviour of cypriot physicians, within a complex framework of interacting. Int J Health Plann Manage2022; 37: 2410–2420.
15.
HatemGLahoudEHalwaniL, et al.The unified medical prescription as a tool to promote generic prescription: a cross-sectional study addressing physicians’ perception in Lebanon. J Generic Med2022; 18: 214–222.
16.
HowardJNHarrisIFrankG, et al.Influencers of generic drug utilization: a systematic review. Res Social Adm Pharm2018; 14(7): 619–627.
17.
RoyVRanaP. Prescribing generics: all in a name. Indian J Med Res2018; 147(5): 442–444.
18.
SongYBartholdD. The effects of state‐level pharmacist regulations on generic substitution of prescription drugs. Health Econ2018; 27(11): 1717–1737.
19.
SacksCAVan de WieleVLFulchinoLA, et al.Assessment of variation in state regulation of generic drug and interchangeable biologic substitutions. JAMA Intern Med2021; 181(1): 16–22.
20.
McFadyenRE. Thalidomide in America: a brush with tragedy. In: Clio medica: acta academiae internationalis historiae medicinae. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1976, pp. 79–93, 11.
21.
LisYWalkerSR. Novel medicines marketed in the UK (1960–87). Br J Clin Pharmacol1989; 28(3): 333–343.
22.
JanssenWF. Outline of the history of US drug regulation and labeling. Food Drug Cosmet Law J1981; 36(8): 420–441.
23.
GreeneJA. Generic: the unbranding of modern medicine. Baltimore, MA, USA: JHU Press, 2014.
24.
FarhatFTorresAParkW, et al.The concept of biosimilars: from characterization to evolution—a narrative review. Oncologist2018; 23(3): 346–352.
25.
LiangBAMackeyT. Tipping point: Biosimilars, emerging markets, and public-private engagement to promote global health. J Commer Biotechnol2012; 18(4): 65–74.
26.
Kalantar-ZadehK. History of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, the development of biosimilars, and the future of anemia treatment in nephrology. Am J Nephrol2017; 45(3): 235–247.
27.
SitteHHFreissmuthM. Biosimilars versus generics: scientific basics and clinical implications. Memo2013; 6(3): 202–206.
28.
RémuzatCDoreyJCristeauO, et al.Key drivers for market penetration of biosimilars in Europe. J Mark Access Health Policy2017; 5(1): 1272308.
29.
EpsteinMSEhrenpreisEDKulkarniPM. Biosimilars: the need, the challenge, the future: the FDA perspective. Am J Gastroenterol2014; 109(12): 1856–1859.
30.
AnourR. Biosimilars versus ‘biobetters’—a regulator’s perspective. GaBI J2014; 3(4): 166–167.
31.
DeclerckPDanesiRPeterselD, et al.The language of biosimilars: clarification, definitions, and regulatory aspects. Drugs2017; 77(6): 671–677.
32.
MisraA. Are biosimilars really generics?Expert Opin Biol Ther2010; 10(4): 489–494.
33.
HonavarSG. From biologics to biosimilars and biobetters–democratization of high-end therapeutics. Indian J Ophthalmol2021; 69(2): 207–208.
34.
HarveyRD. Science of biosimilars. J Oncol Pract2017; 13(9_suppl): 17s–23s.
35.
HakimARossJS. Obstacles to the adoption of biosimilars for chronic diseases. JAMA2017; 317(21): 2163–2164.
36.
RogerSDGoldsmithD. Biosimilars: it’s not as simple as cost alone. J Clin Pharm Ther2008; 33(5): 459–464.
37.
CrommelinDBermejoTBissigM, et al.Pharmaceutical evaluation of biosimilars: important differences from generic low-molecular-weight pharmaceuticals. Eur J Hosp Pharm Sci2005; 11(1): 11–17.
38.
GenazzaniAABiggioGCaputiAP, et al.Biosimilar drugs: concerns and opportunities. BioDrugs2007; 21(6): 351–356.
39.
BhupinderS. Biowaivers and biosimilars reinforcing intent and content of researchers and regulators. J Bioequiv Availab2012; 4: 0851–0975.
40.
HandooSAroraVKheraD, et al.A comprehensive study on regulatory requirements for development and filing of generic drugs globally. Int J Pharm Investig2012; 2(3): 99–105.
41.
PramodKTahirMACharooNA, et al.Pharmaceutical product development: a quality by design approach. Int J Pharm Investig2016; 6(3): 129–138.
42.
ChowSC. Bioavailability and bioequivalence in drug development. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat2014; 6(4): 304–312.
43.
WuFCristofolettiRZhaoL, et al.Scientific considerations to move towards biowaiver for biopharmaceutical classification system class III drugs: how modeling and simulation can help. Biopharm Drug Dispos2021; 42(4): 118–127.
44.
GoliVARButreddyA. Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies: challenges and approaches towards formulation. Chem Biol Interact2022; 366: 110116.
45.
LeeCCKesselheimASSarpatwariA. Clinical development times for biosimilars in the United States. In: Mayo clinic proceedings, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2020. Elsevier, pp. 2152–2154.
46.
SchreitmüllerTBartonBZharkovA, et al.Comparative immunogenicity assessment of biosimilars. Future Oncol2019; 15(3): 319–329.
47.
OlechE. Biosimilars: rationale and current regulatory landscape. In: Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2016. Elsevier, pp. S1–S10.
48.
DavitBMChenM-LConnerDP, et al.Implementation of a reference-scaled average bioequivalence approach for highly variable generic drug products by the US food and drug administration. AAPS J2012; 14(4): 915–924.
49.
MyslerEAzevedoVFDaneseS, et al.Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching: what is the rationale and current experience?Drugs2021; 81(16): 1859–1879.
50.
HomeF. Orange book: approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations. Silver Spring, MA, USA: US Food and Drug Administration, 2013.
51.
SabatelliADAlpha-CobbCJ. Will purple become the new orange? the new FDA purple book for biologics: what does the future hold?Pharm Pat Anal2015; 4(2): 63–68.
52.
LiERamananSGreenL. Pharmacist substitution of biological products: issues and considerations. J Manag Care Spec Pharm2015; 21(7): 532–539.
EbbersHCCrowSAVultoAG, et al.Interchangeability, immunogenicity and biosimilars. Nat Biotechnol2012; 30(12): 1186–1190.
55.
KurkiPvan AertsLWolff-HolzE, et al.Interchangeability of biosimilars: a European perspective. BioDrugs2017; 31(2): 83–91.
56.
RubinsteinE. Letter--draft FDA guidance “considerations in demonstrating interchangeability with a reference product”: overview and presentation-related concerns. J Manag Care Spec Pharm2017; 23(3): 266–266.
57.
Al-JazairiASBharethSEqtefanIS, et al.Brand and generic medications: are they interchangeable?Ann Saudi Med2008; 28(1): 33–41.
