Gib Dat Genetic Brand

Started by amox
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Is it wrong that I want to strangle these idiots?

If I hear another ****** physician state that idiotic percentage range without realizing that the same requirements apply to the brand names from batch to batch. And of course they cite the single outlier. The Teva buproprion. I wonder why they never ask why generics never seem to work better than the brand.

Fricking institutionalized nocebo effect. Will one of you clinical trial dorks do me a favor and make this your pet project.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
This is all you need to read:

RESULTS:

The mean +/- SD of the GMRs from the 2070 studies was 1.00 +/- 0.06 for C(max) and 1.00 +/- 0.04 for AUC. The average difference in C(max) and AUC between generic and innovator products was 4.35% and 3.56%, respectively. In addition, in nearly 98% of the bioequivalence studies conducted during this period, the generic product AUC differed from that of the innovator product by less than 10%.
CONCLUSIONS:

The criteria used to evaluate generic drug bioequivalence studies support the FDA's objective of approving generic drug formulations that are therapeutically equivalent to their innovator counterparts.