Generic Lamivudine Research Articles

Dual therapy based on co-formulated darunavir/ritonavir plus lamivudine for initial therapy of HIV infection: The ANDES randomized controlled trial

Tenofovir-containing antiretroviral therapy regimens may have long-term toxicity-related side effects. This study aimed to compare the virological efficacy of co-formulated darunavir/ritonavir plus lamivudine with darunavir/ritonavir plus tenofovir and emtricitabine or lamivudine. The ANDES study was a 48-week, phase 4, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial in treatment-naïve adults living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive a daily oral regimen of either dual therapy based on a generic co-formulation of darunavir/ritonavir (800/100 mg) plus a generic lamivudine 300 mg pill, or triple therapy with darunavir/ritonavir plus tenofovir/emtricitabine (300/200 mg) or tenofovir/lamivudine (300/300 mg). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a viral load of <50 copies/mL at week 48 in the intention-to-treat population. The US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm and a non-inferiority margin of -12% were used. The secondary objective was to analyse safety in the per-protocol population. This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02770508). Between November 2015 and 31 October 2020, 336 participants were assigned at random to the triple therapy arm (n=165) or the dual therapy arm (n=171). After 48 weeks, 153 patients in the triple therapy group (93%) and 155 patients in the dual therapy group (91%) achieved virological suppression (difference -2.1%, 95% confidence interval -7.0 to 2.9). Drug-related adverse events were more common in the triple therapy group (P=0.04). Two toxicity-related events led to discontinuation in each group. Co-formulated darunavir/ritonavir plus lamivudine showed non-inferiority and a safer toxicity profile compared with the standard-of-care triple therapy regimen including tenofovir in treatment-naïve patients.

Comparative evaluation of dissolution profiles of the generic drug lamivudine 150 mg tablet marketed in Peru vs. the innovative Epivir.

Lamivudine is one of the most prescribed drugs in the world, and is used to treat human immunodeficiency and hepatitis B. This study aimed to evaluate the quality attributes and compare the dissolution profiles of two batches (A and B) of generic lamivudine 150 mg tablets with the innovator drug Epivir 150 mg tablets. We conducted an analytical, experimental, cross-sectional study, and used a spectrophotometric method at a wavelength of maximum absorption (λ) corresponding to 270 nm, to measure the percentage of dissolved drug. The study evaluated identification, content, dissolution and mass uniformity. Apparatus 2 USP (Paddle) 75 rpm, 900 mL of dissolution medium (37 ± 0.5 °C) was used in three dissolution media: pH 1.2; 4.5 and 6.8. Samples of 5 mL were obtained at 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 min. Both batches of generic lamivudine (A and B) were found to have the same dissolution kinetic profile as the innovator drug. Both formulations met the criteria of very fast dissolving (85% dissolved in 15 min), and fast dissolving (85% dissolved in 30 min) drugs. Therefore, it was not necessary to calculate the similarity factor. We concluded that generic drugs A and B are in vitro equivalents to the innovator drug Epivir. Motivation for the study. To evaluate the quality of antiretroviral drugs used in the treatment of HIV dispensed in the HAART Program of the Ministry of Health of Peru. Main findings. Two batches of generic lamivudine drugs were found to achieve a dissolution rate greater than 85% at 15 min, being equivalent in vitro to the reference product Epivir. Implications. There is a need to apply the current regulations regarding equivalence between drugs by the regulatory authority prior to their authorization and to include dissolution profile tests as a requirement in public drug purchases, especially in national strategies (HIV, TB, etc.), in order to ensure quality products for the population.

Substituting Generic Lamivudine for Emtricitabine in Virologically Suppressed HIV-Infected Patients.

This study evaluated the effectiveness of formulary substitution from products or regimens containing name brand emtricitabine to alternative regimens containing generic lamivudine among virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients in a correctional managed health care system. Results of this retrospective cohort study showed that 94.9% of patients switched from emtricitabine to lamivudine ( n = 447) and 93.0% of emtricitabine control patients ( n = 449) had an undetectable viral load at last available test over a 2-year period. The two groups also showed similar values for CD4 counts, compliance, discontinuation, and M184V mutation; however, a slightly greater proportion of lamivudine patients experienced respiratory symptoms. Nonetheless, this study demonstrates that switching virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients from name brand emtricitabine-containing regimens to generic lamivudine-based regimens may reduce costs without compromising safety or effectiveness in correctional managed health care systems with directly observed therapy.

Efficacy and safety of switching from branded to generic antiretrovirals in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients.

BackgroundAim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of switching from branded to generic antiretrovirals in patients with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL.MethodsMatched-cohort study of patients followed at a single clinical center. Since September 2014, all patients with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL who were receiving branded lamivudine or zidovudine/lamivudine or efavirenz were switched to the generic compound (switchers) and matched, in a ratio 1:1, for age (±5 years), gender, anti-HCV antibodies, nadir and (±50 cells/μL) baseline CD4+ count (±100 cells/μL), duration of antiretroviral therapy (±1 year), with patients with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL, on treatment with unavailable generic compounds (non-switchers). Incidence rates (IR) of different outcomes were calculated and compared by Poisson regression model. A confirmed HIV-RNA ≥50 copies/mL defined virological failure; any change in the antiretroviral regimen was defined as treatment discontinuation.ResultsFour hundred forty patients were switched to generic compounds (268 [61%] on lamivudine, 65 [15%] on zidovudine/lamivudine, 87 [20%] on efavirenz and 20 [4%] on efavirenz and either lamivudine or zidovudine/lamivudine). Over a median follow-up of 15.0 (12.1–15.7) months, virological failure occurred in four switchers (IR: 0.07 [0.02–0.18]/100-person months of follow-up [PMFU]) and in ten non-switchers (IR: 0.20 [0.10–0.35]/100-PMFU) (p = 0.0003), while treatment discontinuation occurred in 118 switchers (IR: 2.05 [1.70–2.44]/100-PMFU) and in 128 non-switchers (IR: 2.37 [1.99–2.81]/100-PMFU) (p = 0.699).ConclusionsAfter more than one year of follow-up, we found no evidence of increased risk of reduced efficacy or increased toxicity after switching from branded to generic lamivudine or zidovudine/lamivudine or efavirenz.

Cost-Effectiveness of Single- Versus Generic Multiple-Tablet Regimens for Treatment of HIV-1 Infection in the United States.

BackgroundThe possibility of incorporating generics into combination antiretroviral therapy and breaking apart once-daily single-tablet regimens (STRs), may result in less efficacious medications and/or more complex regimens with the expectation of marked monetary savings. A modeling approach that assesses the merits of such policies in terms of lifelong costs and health outcomes using adherence and effectiveness data from real-world U.S. settings.MethodsA comprehensive computer-based microsimulation model was developed to assess the lifetime health (life expectancy and quality adjusted life-years—QALYs) and economic outcomes in HIV-1 infected patients initiating STRs compared with multiple-table regimens including generic medications where possible (gMTRs). The STRs considered included tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and efavirenz or rilpivirine or elvitegravir/cobicistat. gMTRs substitutions included each counterpart to STRs, including generic lamivudine for emtricitabine and generic versus branded efavirenz.ResultsLife expectancy is estimated to be 1.301 years higher (discounted 0.619 QALY gain) in HIV-1 patients initiating a single-tablet regimen in comparison to a generic-based multiple-table regimen. STRs were associated with an average increment of $26,547.43 per patient in medication and $1,824.09 in other medical costs due to longer survival which were partially offset by higher inpatients costs ($12,035.61) with gMTRs treatment. Overall, STRs presented incremental lifetime costs of $16,335.91 compared with gMTRs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $26,383.82 per QALY gained.ConclusionsSTRs continue to represent good value for money under contemporary cost-effectiveness thresholds despite substantial price reductions of generic medications in the U. S.

Increased virological failure in naive HIV-1-infected patients taking lamivudine compared with emtricitabine in combination with tenofovir and efavirenz or nevirapine in the Dutch nationwide ATHENA cohort.

Guidelines for treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection consider lamivudine and emtricitabine to be interchangeable components in first-line combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). The evidence for their clinical equivalence in cART is inconsistent. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the virological responses to lamivudine and emtricitabine in recommended cART. This was an observational study using data from the AIDS Therapy Evaluation in the Netherlands (ATHENA) nationwide HIV cohort. The virological responses to lamivudine and emtricitabine were compared by multivariable adjusted logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models. Sensitivity analyses included propensity score-adjusted models. Therapy-naive HIV-1-infected patients without baseline resistance (N = 4740) initiated lamivudine or emtricitabine with efavirenz/tenofovir or nevirapine/tenofovir. The use of lamivudine was associated with more virological failure at week 48 compared to emtricitabine with efavirenz/tenofovir (10.8% vs 3.6%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-2.84) and nevirapine/tenofovir (27% vs 11%; AOR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.25-3.52) in on-treatment analysis. Propensity score-adjusted models and intent-to-treat sensitivity analyses gave comparable results. The adjusted hazard ratio of virological failure at week 240 using lamivudine instead of emtricitabine was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.61-3.42) with efavirenz and 2.01 (95% CI, 1.36-2.98) with nevirapine. The inclusion of lamivudine or emtricitabine in cART did not influence the time to virological suppression within 48 weeks or the probability of virological rebound after successful virological suppression. The use of emtricitabine instead of lamivudine as part of cART was associated with better virological responses. These findings are relevant for settings with extensive use of lamivudine and for settings where generic lamivudine will be available.

A cost-utility analysis of drug treatments in patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B in Thailand.

BackgroundOnly lamivudine has been included for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in the National List of Essential Drugs (NLED), a pharmaceutical reimbursement list in Thailand. There have also been no economic evaluation studies of CHB drug treatments conducted in Thailand yet. In order to fill this gap in policy research, the objective of this study was to compare the cost-utility of each drug therapy (Figure 1) with palliative care in patients with HBeAg-positive CHB.MethodsA cost-utility analysis using an economic evaluation model was performed to compare each drug treatment for HBeAg-positive CHB patients. A Markov model was used to estimate the relevant costs and health outcomes during a lifetime horizon based on a societal perspective. Direct medical costs, direct non-medical costs, and indirect costs were included, and health outcomes were denoted in life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The results were presented as an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) in Thai baht (THB) per LY or QALY gained. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were applied to investigate the effects of model parameter uncertainties.ResultsThe ICER values of providing generic lamivudine with the addition of tenofovir when drug resistance occurred, generic lamivudine with the addition of tenofovir based on the road map guideline, and tenofovir monotherapy were -14,000 (USD -467), -8,000 (USD -267) , and -5,000 (USD -167) THB per QALY gained, respectively. However, when taking into account all parameter uncertainties in the model, providing generic lamivudine with the addition of tenofovir when drug resistance occurred (78% and 75%) and tenofovir monotherapy (18% and 24%) would yield higher probabilities of being cost-effective at the societal willingness to pay thresholds of 100,000 (USD 3,333) and 300,000 (USD 10,000) THB per QALY gained in Thailand, respectively.ConclusionsBased on the policy recommendations from this study, the Thai government decided to include tenofovir into the NLED in addition to generic lamivudine which is already on the list. Moreover, the results have shown that the preferred treatment regimen involves using generic lamivudine as the first-line drug with tenofovir added if drug resistance occurs in HBeAg-positive CHB patients.

Legal, ethical, and economic implications of breaking down once-daily fixed-dose antiretroviral combinations into their single components for cost reduction

The availability of generic lamivudine in the context of the current economic crisis has raised a new issue in some European countries: breaking up the once-daily fixed-dose antiretroviral combinations (FDAC) of efavirenz/tenofovir/emtricitabine, tenofovir/emtricitabine, or abacavir/lamivudine, in order to administer their components separately, thereby allowing the use of generic lamivudine instead of branded emtricitabine or lamivudine. The legal, ethical, and economic implications of this potential strategy are reviewed, particularly in those patients receiving a once-daily single-tablet regimen. An unfamiliar change in antiretroviral treatment from a successful patient-friendly FDAC into a more complex regimen including separately the components to allow the substitution of one (or some) of them for generic surrogates (in the absence of a generic bioequivalent FDAC) could be discriminatory because it does not guarantee access to equal excellence in healthcare to all citizens. Furthermore, it could violate the principle of non-maleficence by potentially causing harm both at the individual level (hindering adherence and favouring treatment failure and resistance), and at the community level (hampering control of disease transmission and transmission of HIV-1 resistance). Replacing a FDAC with the individual components of that combination should only be permitted when the substituting medication has the same qualitative and quantitative composition of active ingredients, pharmaceutical form, method of administration, dosage and presentation as the medication being replaced, and a randomized study has demonstrated its non-inferiority. Finally, a strict pharma-economic study supporting this change, comparing the effectiveness and the cost of a specific intervention with the best available alternative, should be undertaken before its potential implementation.

Economic savings versus health losses: the cost-effectiveness of generic antiretroviral therapy in the United States.

U.S. HIV treatment guidelines recommend branded once-daily, 1-pill efavirenz-emtricitabine-tenofovir as first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART). With the anticipated approval of generic efavirenz in the United States, a once-daily, 3-pill alternative (generic efavirenz, generic lamivudine, and tenofovir) will decrease cost but may reduce adherence and virologic suppression. To assess the clinical effect, costs, and cost-effectiveness of a 3-pill, generic-based regimen compared with a branded, coformulated regimen and to project the potential national savings in the first year of a switch to generic-based ART. Mathematical simulation of HIV disease. United States. HIV-infected persons. No ART (for comparison); 3-pill, generic-based ART; and branded ART. Quality-adjusted life expectancy, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Compared with no ART, generic-based ART has an ICER of $21,100/QALY. Compared with generic-based ART, branded ART increases lifetime costs by $42,500 and per-person survival gains by 0.37 QALYs for an ICER of $114,800/QALY. Estimated first-year savings, if all eligible U.S. patients start or switch to generic-based ART, are $920 million. Most plausible assumptions about generic-based ART efficacy and costs lead to branded ART ICERs greater than $100,000/QALY. The efficacy and price reduction associated with generic drugs are unknown, and estimates are intended to be conservative. Compared with a slightly less effective generic-based regimen, the cost-effectiveness of first-line branded ART exceeds $100,000/QALY. Generic-based ART in the United States could yield substantial budgetary savings to HIV programs. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Cost analysis of HIV treatment and drug-related adverse events when fixed-dose combinations of antiretrovirals (FDCs) were stopped, versus continuation with FDCs.

BackgroundThe lower sales price of generic lamivudine has caused healthcare administrators to consider abolishing fixed-dose antiretroviral combinations (FDCs) that contain lamivudine and emtricitabine. The alternative is to administer the individual components of the FDCs separately, thus incorporating the new generic lamivudine medication.MethodsThe Balearic Islands Health Service ordered the discontinuation of the treatment with FDCs in July 2010, but FDCs were reintroduced in August 2010. At that point, an independent, retrospective cost analysis was performed by Son Llàtzer Hospital. A total of 75 patients who were treated from July to August 2010 underwent replacement of their FDC treatment with the individual components. Additionally, 150 patients who continued using FDCs were randomly selected. For both patient groups, the antiretroviral therapy that was administered and the costs associated with management of adverse events were recorded. The study period used for the cost calculations was the average number of days that patients used separate components of FDCs (120 days). An alternative analysis was performed to consider the costs of the extra follow-up visit (consultation and clinical tests) that was required for patients who changed their antiretroviral therapy.ResultsConsidering antiretroviral therapies and adverse events, the administration of the separate components increased the total daily cost by 0.72 € per patient compared to treatment with FDCs. When the cost of an extra follow-up visit was considered, the daily cost increased by 3.61 € per patient.ConclusionsOur study suggests that the discontinuation of FDC treatment and the replacement with the administration of separate antiretroviral agents could lead to an increase in healthcare costs due to the higher rate of adverse events that was observed with the discontinuation of FDCs.

FDA Grants Tentative Approval for 75th Generic Antiretroviral Drug

On October 29, 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration reached a milestone: the 75th anti-retroviral generic drug approved or tentatively approved as part of President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Marketed by Macleods Pharmaceuticals, Ltd, in India, the 75th drug consists of 150- and 300-mg tablets of generic lamivudine (Figure), a nucleoside analog reverse-transcriptase inhibitor that blocks the enzyme reverse transcriptase, which is important for HIV replication. HIV-infected patients who take lamivudine with other anti-HIV treatments develop fewer opportunistic infections. “HHS/FDA has helped save lives by making high quality, anti-retroviral generic drugs available quickly, at a lower cost, for those most in need under the President's Emergency Plan,” said Commissioner of Food and Drugs Andrew C. von Eschenbach, MD. “As we grant tentative approval for the 75th product, our efforts won't stop: we will continue to provide review of applications for safe and effective treatments for AIDS to combat this global concern.” “Tentative approval” means that although existing patents and/or marketing exclusivity prevent the approval of the product in the United States at this time, the product meets all of the FDA's normal requirements for manufacturing quality and clinical safety and efficacy. The agency says it performs all of its reviews of applications received in association with the Emergency Plan on an expedited basis; the agency reviewed this application for lamivudine tablets in <6 months. After receiving approval or tentative approval under this expedited process, a generic antiretroviral quickly passes on to the prequalification list maintained by the Secretariat of the World Health Organization (WHO), because of a confidentiality agreement that allows the FDA to share data from its evaluations with the WHO team in Geneva. Generic antiretrovirals given federal approval or tentative approval are also immediately eligible for procurement by recipients of grants from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. In 2003, President Bush launched the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief to combat global HIV/AIDS. At that time, approximately 50,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa were receiving antiretroviral treatment. Today, the Emergency Plan reaches >1.7 million persons worldwide with antiretroviral treatment, the vast majority of them in sub-Saharan Africa, and supports care for >6.6 million people, including 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children. To date, interventions funded by the Emergency Plan have allowed mothers to give birth to nearly 200,000 HIV-free children. For more information, see www.pepfar.gov or http://www.fda.gov/oia/pepfar.htm

A generic lamivudine product [Victron; ICA Pharmaceuticals] has been introduced in Vietnam,

A generic lamivudine product [Victron; ICA Pharmaceuticals] has been introduced in Vietnam,