A critical review of brand and generic alendronate for the treatment of osteoporosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Compare in vitro and in vivo characteristics and clinical outcomes of brand and generic alendronate. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Relevant search terms were input into Medline ("alendronate" AND "generic" up to August 5, 2013) and any abstracts deemed possibly relevant selected for full paper review and abstraction. RESULTS: Multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III clinical trials of substantial size and duration have established the anti-fracture efficacy and safety of brand amino-bisphosphonates. For regulatory approval, generic versions of brand drugs need to demonstrate bioequivalence in young, healthy volunteers and have similar dissolution times. While the potency and amount of active drug within generic formulations must be identical to the brand, differences are permitted in the excipients. Significant differences in tablet disintegration time among different versions of generic and brand alendronate have been reported. Rapidly disintegrating alendronate pills may increase oesophageal bioadhesion and adverse event risk. Oesophageal-bound alendronate or slow disintegrating alendronate tablets may be made inert and ineffective by subsequently ingested food or drink. Investigations have reported a lower persistence to therapy with generic brands of alendronate as compared to brand bisphosphonates and patients switched from brand to generic alendronate have increased adverse event rates and losses in bone mineral density. CONCLUSION: Numerous differences exist between brand and generic alendronate including: disintegration time, bioadhesion to the oesophagus, patient persistence to therapy, adverse event incidence, and maintenance of bone mineral density. Generic forms of alendronate warrant closer clinical study before they are ascribed the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of brand alendronate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".