Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (The Orange Book)

2007 ◽  
pp. 36-51
1995 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 115-120
Author(s):  
David L. Rosen

This article provides pharmacists and other health professionals with a practical guide to using FDA's Orange Book, the authoritative source for FDA approved products and their respective therapeutic equivalence ratings. Copyright © 1995 by W.B. Saunders Company


10.5912/jcb29 ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel G Brown

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (Publ. No. 98-417, 98 Stat. 1585 (1984)), commonly known as the Hatch–Waxman Act (the Act) provides the statutory framework by which most generic drugs are approved for marketing in the USA. Most provisions in the Act concern the standards and procedures the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must follow to approve generic drugs. A relatively small number of the provisions, however, create a framework for resolving patent disputes between the brand and generic pharmaceutical companies. These provisions have been the subject of much recent activity, in the US Courts, in Congress, in the FDA itself and in the White House. Much of the activity revolves around a publication by FDA entitled Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, known colloquially as the Orange Book.Under present FDA practice, the mere listing of a patent in the Orange Book corresponding to a brand pharmaceutical product invokes a number of statutory provisions that confer valuable exclusivity rights on the brand company, and also possibly on one or more generic companies. This situation creates a strong incentive for patentees and brand pharmaceutical companies to list patents in the Orange Book. A number of recent court cases have addressed the remedies and damages available when the listing is found to be improper. Thus far, the most successful means to challenge or prevent improper listings has been through private and governmental enforcement of the antitrust laws.


2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laszlo Endrenyi ◽  
Laszlo Tothfalusi

Purpose. To demonstrate that current regulatory requirements for bioequivalence (BE) do not always reflect therapeutic equivalence. To investigate the potential usefulness of an additional metric, the partial AUC. Methods. Pharmacokinetic information was reviewed and evaluated on the pharmacokinetics of modified-release methylphenidate and nifedipine products. Results. In studies of modified-release products of methylphenidate as well as of nifedipine, traditional regulatory criteria found two formulations to be bioequivalent even though their concentration profiles strongly diverged during the period of absorption. An additional metric, partial AUC, discriminated strongly between the concentrations of the drug products. Conclusions. The current regulatory criteria for the acceptance of BE do not always reflect the therapeutic equivalence of modified-release drug products. With some modified-release products, the application of an additional metric, the partial AUC, yields an improved discriminatory representation.


1990 ◽  
Vol 47 (12) ◽  
pp. 2696-2700
Author(s):  
James E. Knoben ◽  
George R. Scott ◽  
Robert J. Tonelli

2011 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 506-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mei-Ling Chen ◽  
Vinod P. Shah ◽  
Daan J. Crommelin ◽  
Leon Shargel ◽  
Dennis Bashaw ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 107 (10) ◽  
pp. 2519-2530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Cristofoletti ◽  
Malcolm Rowland ◽  
Lawrence J. Lesko ◽  
Henning Blume ◽  
Amin Rostami-Hodjegan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document