There's no denying that. However that's what gets pounded into my head and frankly I'm not interested in research so there's no self-interest in studying it on my own.
However it still doesn't change the fact that it's the kinetics geeks and pharmacuetic professors that keep hounding not to switch warfarin generics.
Ask your professors to show you any data proving this notion, they will not be able to. On the other hand, there have been very eloquent, controlled studies showing there is not much of a difference when switching between warfarin products.
Giventhat, show me something that makes bioequiv testing interesting outside of people that do it for a living to eddumakate my dumb*****. I read the FDA paper and skimmed several other sources on the web and have yet to find something that articulately describes the process without drowning in the too much detail.
It was the same problem I had last year when trying to learn this.
There was actually a very good, concise, not-too-detailed piece on this in the Pharmacist's Letter (July 2008). If you are a student, your school should make this valuable publication available to you. Here is what they cover (available at
www.pharmacistsletter.com with subscription:
"Pharmacist's Letter addresses the drug therapy issues facing pharmacists. For example:
Where does the rumor that generics can vary by 20% more than branded drugs?
Can the amount of drug in a generic product or mean blood levels differ by 20% from brand name drugs?
How are generics deemed bioequivalent and interchangeable by the FDA?
How much do AB-rated generics differ on average from branded drugs?
What is a confidence interval and how does it apply to the generic approvals?"
They do point out, however, that generics are not always established as therapeutically equivalent to other generics, so this is a situation where closer monitoring/heightened concern/whatever may be warranted.thyroxine
