Current evidence on the efficacy and safety of generic imatinib in CML and the impact of generics on health care costs

Abdülkadir Erçalışkan, Duygu Seyhan Erdoğan, Ahmet Emre Eşkazan, Abdülkadir Erçalışkan, Duygu Seyhan Erdoğan, Ahmet Emre Eşkazan

Abstract

Since the introduction of imatinib, the management of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has changed considerably. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the mainstay of CML treatment; however, the high financial burden of TKIs can be problematic for both the patients and health care systems. After the emergence of generics, reimbursement policies of many countries have changed, and generics offered an alternative treatment option for CML patients. There are many papers published on the use of generics in CML patients with conflicting results regarding both efficacy and safety. In this paper, we systematically reviewed the current literature on generic imatinib use in CML, and 36 papers were evaluated. Both in vitro and in vivo studies of generic imatinib showed comparable results with branded imatinib in terms of bioequivalence and bioavailability. In most studies, generics were comparable with the original molecule in terms of efficacy and safety, both in newly diagnosed patients and after switching from Gleevec. Some generic studies showed contradictory findings regarding efficacy and toxicity, and these differences can be attributed to some factors including the use of different generics in different countries. Both in hypothetical models and in real life, introduction of generic imatinib caused significant reduction in health care costs. In conclusion, generics are not inferior to original imatinib in terms of efficacy with an acceptable toxicity profile. Notwithstanding the generally favorable efficacy and safety of generics worldwide to date, we most probably still need more time to draw firmer conclusions on the longer-term outcomes of generics.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: A.E.E. has received advisory board honoraria from Novartis, and Pfizer and received speaker bureau honoraria from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer outside the present study. The remaining authors declare no competing financial interests.

© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flow diagram of article selection process.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel