Generic Imatinib Efficacy Comparable to Original for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

In terms of efficacy and safety, generic imatinib does not appear to be inferior to the original for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia, according to a systematic review published in Blood Advances.

“In most studies, generics showed similar results regarding efficacy and safety, both in newly diagnosed patients and after switching from Gleevec,” researchers wrote. “Knowing the fact that different generics are available in different countries, some contradictory findings regarding efficacy and toxicity can be attributed to manufacturer variability.”

The review included 33 full-text articles and three letters on generic imatinib use in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia.

In both in vitro and in vivo studies, generic versions of imatinib were comparable with the branded medication in bioequivalence and bioavailability, according to the study. Efficacy and safety, too, were generally similar between generics and the original molecule. Although rare, contradictory results on efficacy and safety were observed, but researchers suggested they stemmed from differences between different generics.

Hypothetical models and real-life investigations agreed that generic imatinib significantly reduced health care costs.

“The launch of generics had an effect on reducing the price of branded imatinib globally, and this resulted in imatinib being more affordable and accessible,” researchers wrote, “and generic imatinib was recently considered to be the most cost-effective frontline treatment option in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase by the European LeukemiaNet 2020 recommendations.”

Nevertheless, more time is necessary to draw firm conclusions on the efficacy and safety of generic imatinib over the long term, the review advised.

Reference:
Erçalışkan A, Seyhan Erdoğan D, Eşkazan AE. Current evidence on the efficacy and safety of generic imatinib in CML and the impact of generics on health care costs. Blood Adv. 2021;5(17):3344-3353. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004194