Key result
Generic metoprolol ER formulations had similar AUC and Cmax to the brand name, but significantly different Tmax (3.5h for drug 1 and 9.6h for drug 2 vs 6.1h for brand).
Why the study?
Comparison data throughout the dosing interval for generic versus brand metoprolol extended-release tablets were limited.
Do generic formulations of metoprolol ER have equivalent pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles compared to brand name metoprolol ER in adults with hypertension?
RCT (n=36)
cross-over
Do generic formulations of metoprolol ER have equivalent pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles compared to brand name metoprolol ER in adults with hypertension?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
While generic and brand metoprolol ER formulations have similar overall exposure and blood pressure effects, significant differences in Tmax may impact autonomic balance over the dosing interval.
There are limited comparison data throughout the dosing interval for generic versus brand metoprolol extended‐release (ER) tablets. We compared the pharmacokinetics (PKs) and pharmacodynamics of brand name versus two generic formulations (drugs 1 and 2) of metoprolol ER tablets with different time to maximum concentration (Tmax) in adults with hypertension. Participants were randomized to equal drug doses (50–150 mg/day) administered in one of two sequences (brand‐drug1‐brand‐drug2 or brand‐drug2‐brand‐drug1) and completed 24‐h PK, digital heart rate (HR), ambulatory blood pressure (BP), and HR studies after taking each formulation for greater than or equal to 7 days. Metoprolol concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, with noncompartmental analysis performed to obtain PK parameters in Phoenix WinNonlin. Heart rate variability (HRV) low‐to‐high frequency ratio was determined per quartile over the 24‐h period. Thirty‐six participants completed studies with the brand name and at least one generic product. Among 30 participants on the 50 mg dose, the primary PK end points of area under the concentration‐time curve and Cmax were similar between products; Tmax was 6.1 ± 3.6 for the brand versus 3.5 ± 4.9 for drug 1 (p = 0.019) and 9.6 ± 3.2 for drug 2 (p < 0.001). Among all 36 participants, 24‐h BPs and HRs were similar between products. Mean 24‐h HRV low‐to‐high ratio was also similar for drug 1 (2.04 ± 1.35), drug 2 (1.86 ± 1.35), and brand (2.04 ± 1.77), but was more sustained over time for the brand versus drug 1 (drug × quartile interaction p = 0.017). Differences in Tmax between metoprolol ER products following repeated doses may have implications for drug effects on autonomic balance over the dosing interval.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mosley et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in hypertension (n=36). Generic metoprolol ER tablets (drugs 1 and 2) vs. Brand name metoprolol ER tablets was evaluated on Area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and Cmax. Generic metoprolol ER formulations had similar AUC and Cmax to the brand name, but significantly different Tmax (3.5h for drug 1 and 9.6h for drug 2 vs 6.1h for brand).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: