摘要
<strong>Background:</strong> <span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) have some protective benefits for patients with coronary artery and cerebrovascular diseases. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) drugs are prescribed as branded (B: EPADEL</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="color:#4F4F4F;font-family:-apple-system, " font-size:14px;white-space:normal;background-color:#ffffff;"="">?</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;">) or generic products but no data exist concerning the differences in treatment outcomes between these products. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Methods and Results: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">We investigated the differences in the serum levels of EPA, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (AA), and the EPA/AA ratios through blood sampling six months after daily administration of 1800 mg of EPADEL</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="color:#4F4F4F;font-family:-apple-system, " font-size:14px;white-space:normal;background-color:#ffffff;"="">?</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> and a generic EPA drug was initiated for 96 patients with cardiovascular diseases. All patients received these PUFA treatments while continuing with baseline therapy. After 6 months of administration, EPADEL</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="color:#4F4F4F;font-family:-apple-system, " font-size:14px;white-space:normal;background-color:#ffffff;"="">?</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> produced better results than the generic (G) product (EPA;baseline: 59.4 ± 25.5 </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">μ</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">g, B: 215.5 ± 58.8 </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">μ</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">g, G: 199.7 ± 63.8 </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">μ</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">g, B vs G, p < 0.0005;AA;baseline: 197.4 ± 44.6 </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">μ</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">g, B: 158.3 ± 36.3 </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">μ</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">g, G: 163.6 ± 38.9 </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">μ</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">g, B vs G, p < 0.02, as mean ± SD). </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Conclusions</span></b></span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">:</span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> There were clear differences between EPA branded and the generic products. Further study is required to determine whether the benefits from the branded product justify the higher price compared to the generic drug cost.</span>
<strong>Background:</strong> <span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) have some protective benefits for patients with coronary artery and cerebrovascular diseases. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) drugs are prescribed as branded (B: EPADEL</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="color:#4F4F4F;font-family:-apple-system, " font-size:14px;white-space:normal;background-color:#ffffff;"="">?</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;">) or generic products but no data exist concerning the differences in treatment outcomes between these products. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Methods and Results: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">We investigated the differences in the serum levels of EPA, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (AA), and the EPA/AA ratios through blood sampling six months after daily administration of 1800 mg of EPADEL</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="color:#4F4F4F;font-family:-apple-system, " font-size:14px;white-space:normal;background-color:#ffffff;"="">?</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> and a generic EPA drug was initiated for 96 patients with cardiovascular diseases. All patients received these PUFA treatments while continuing with baseline therapy. After 6 months of administration, EPADEL</span><sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="color:#4F4F4F;font-family:-apple-system, " font-size:14px;white-space:normal;background-color:#ffffff;"="">?</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> produced better results than the generic (G) product (EPA;baseline: 59.4 ± 25.5 </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">μ</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">g, B: 215.5 ± 58.8 </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">μ</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">g, G: 199.7 ± 63.8 </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">μ</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">g, B vs G, p < 0.0005;AA;baseline: 197.4 ± 44.6 </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">μ</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">g, B: 158.3 ± 36.3 </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">μ</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">g, G: 163.6 ± 38.9 </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">μ</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">g, B vs G, p < 0.02, as mean ± SD). </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Conclusions</span></b></span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">:</span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> There were clear differences between EPA branded and the generic products. Further study is required to determine whether the benefits from the branded product justify the higher price compared to the generic drug cost.</span>
