This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (11) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Maddineni, J. Articles by Bick, R. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Maddineni, J. Articles by Bick, R. L. Pubmed/NCBI databases Substance via MeSH Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Product Individuality of Commercially Available Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins and Their Generic Versions: Therapeutic Implications

Department of Pharmacology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood

Jeanine M. Walenga, PhD

Walter P. Jeske, PhD

Department of Pathology and Cardiovascular Institute, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood

Debra A. Hoppensteadt, PhD

Jawed Fareed, PhD

Department of Pathology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL

Rakesh Wahi, MD

Grant Memorial Hospital, Petersburg, WV

Rodger L. Bick, MD, PhD

Dallas, Texas and Oxnard, CA

The currently available brand-name low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in the United States include dalteparin (Pfizer), enoxaparin (Aventis), and tinzaparin (Pharmion). Other products available, in Europe, include certoparin (Novartis), reviparin (Abbott), nadroparin (GlaxoSmithkline), and parnaparin (Alpha-Wasserman). Each of these LMWHs has a characteristic molecular weight profile and biological activity in terms of an anti-FXa and anti-FIIa potency. The mean molecular weight of these drugs ranges from 4.0 kDa to 7.0 kDa and the anti-FXa:anti-FIIa ratio ranges from 1.5 to 3.5. These agents may also be characterized by the presence of specific chemical end groups such as 2-O-sulfo-4-enepyranosuronic acid at the nonreducing terminus (enoxaparin) or 2,5-anhydro-D-mannose at the reducing terminus (dalteparin). Further, the component oligosaccharide chains exhibit product-specific distribution profiles. It is now widely accepted that individual LMWHs are chemically unique agents and cannot be interchanged therapeutically. Each commercial LMWH has been individually developed for specific clinical indications, which are dose and product dependent. Recently, several generic LMWHs have become available in India (Cutenox and Markaparin) and South America (dilutol, clenox, dripanina), and three companies have filed for regulatory approval of a generic version of enoxaparin in the United States. As the primary aim of a generic drug is to reduce cost without compromising patient care, a generic drug is required to be chemically and biologically equivalent to the pioneer drug. Because LMWHs represent complex natural mucopolysaccharide drugs that have undergone chemical and enzymatic modifications, physicochemical and biological information in addition to molecular weight and anti-FXa:anti-FIIa ratio should be used to determine generic equivalency to the branded drug. We have utilized a previously reported approach to systematically compare three generic versions of enoxaparin obtained from India and Brazil with the branded enoxaparin (Lovenox) available in the United States. Testing included molecular and structural profiling, evaluation in clot-based and amidolytic anti-FXa and anti-FIIa assays, and heparinase-I digestion profiles. While the molecular profiles (4.8 ± 1.8kD) and anticoagulant potencies as determined by activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) were comparable for all four agents, the generic products showed variations in the thrombin time (TT) and Heptest assays. Two generic and the branded enoxaparin were readily digested by heparinase-I, losing most of their anticoagulant activity, but one generic product resisted digestion. This may have been due to a unique structural feature in this product. These studies show that, while generic LMWHs may exhibit acceptable molecular weight and anti-FXa profiles, they can exhibit assay-based differences and digestion profiles. Testing in animal models to determine safety, efficacy, and pharmacodynamic parameters may be important to verify equivalence. In order to assure that the generic LMWHs are equivalent to branded LMWHs such that equivalent clinical results are obtained, there is a need to develop clear stepwise guidelines that will establish equivalency in terms of physical, chemical, biochemical, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic properties for these anticoagulant drugs.

Key Words: Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) • Unfractionated heparin (UFH) • Generic drugs • Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD)

Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis, Vol. 12, No. 3, 267-276 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1076029606291434


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Fareed, W. Jeske, D. Fareed, M. Clark, R. Wahi, C. Adiguzel, and D. Hoppensteadt Are All Low Molecular Weight Heparins Equivalent in the Management of Venous Thromboembolism? Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis, October 1, 2008; 14(4): 385 - 392. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Kuczka, S. Harder, B. Picard-Willems, A. Warnke, F. Donath, P. Bianchini, B. Parma, and H. Blume Biomarkers and Coagulation Tests for Assessing the Biosimilarity of a Generic Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin: Results of a Study in Healthy Subjects With Enoxaparin J. Clin. Pharmacol., October 1, 2008; 48(10): 1189 - 1196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]