Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology

Advanced search

The problem of choice: original drug or generic? Emphasis on rosuvastatin

Full Text:


An increase in the life expectancy of the population and the number of polymorbid patients with a combination of two or more diseases in different age categories, including among young people, has led to a significant increase in the cost of medical care in the field of public health. The transition from original drugs to generic ones has become a common measure to contain these costs. While this is an important goal for healthcare systems around the world, the impact of this practice on patient outcomes needs to be carefully considered. In some cases, generics may represent a suitable alternative to branded products, but this is not always the case. In particular, studies have shown that changing the drug can negatively affect not only patients' adherence to treatment, but also clinical outcomes, and a subsequent increase in the total cost of treatment, therefore, the use of generics in clinical practice still causes caution and concerns on the part of both the doctor and the patient. Due to the high prevalence of dyslipidemia and hypercholesterolemia both worldwide and in Russia, in this review the problem of choosing an original drug or generic is described by the example of such a hypolipidemic agent as rosuvastatin. According to numerous studies, rosuvastatin is one of the most potent and widely prescribed statins. Considering that most of the clinically significant effects of this drug are demonstrated in relation to its original form, the review emphasizes the importance of prescribing the original drug rosuvastatin in routine clinical practice.

About the Authors

O. A. Polyakova
Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education
Russian Federation

Olga A. Polyakova


O. D. Ostroumova
Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education
Russian Federation

Olga D. Ostroumova



1. Straka RJ, Keohane DJ, Liu LZ. Potential Clinical and Economic Impact of Switching Branded Medications to Generics. Am J Ther. 2017;24(3):e278-e289. DOI:10.1097/MJT.0000000000000282.

2. Zarowitz BJ. The generic imperative. Geriatr Nurs. 2008;29(4):223-6. DOI:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2008.06.003.

3. Lewek P, Kardas P. Generic drugs: the benefits and risks of making the switch. J Fam Pract. 2010;59(11):634-40.

4. Original drugs or generics? District therapist. 2017;(6):16. [cited by March 1, 2022] Available from: (In Russ.)

5. Tian Y, Reichardt B, Dunkler D, et al. Comparative effectiveness of branded vs. generic versions of antihypertensive, lipid-lowering and hypoglycemic substances: a population-wide cohort study. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):5964. DOI:10.1038/s41598-020-62318-y.

6. Goldszmidt RB, Buttendorf AR, Schuldt Filho G, et al. The impact of generic labels on the consumption of and adherence to medication: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Public Health. 2019;29(1):12-7. DOI:10.1093/eurpub/cky183.

7. Colgan S, Faasse K, Martin LR, et al. Perceptions of generic medication in the general population, doctors and pharmacists: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e008915. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008915.

8. Dunne S, Shannon B, Hannigan A, et al. Physician and pharmacist perceptions of generic medicines: what they think and how they differ. Health Policy. 2014;116(2-3):214-23. DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.03.007.

9. FDA. Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations 42nd Edition (Orange Book) [cited 2022 March 20] Available from:

10. Verbeeck RK. Bioequivalence, therapeutic equivalence and generic drugs. Acta Clin Belg. 2009;64(5):379-383. DOI:10.1179/acb.2009.063

11. Kesselheim AS, Misono AS, Lee JL, et al. Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(21):2514-26. DOI:10.1001/jama.2008.758

12. Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI). The 2019 voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access - chapters and glossary. London, 2018. [cited 2022 March 20] Available from:

13. Blier P. Brand versus generic medications: the money, the patient and the research. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2003;28(3):167-168.

14. Blier P. Generic medications: another variable in the treatment of illnesses. J Psychopharmacol. 2007;21(5):459-60. DOI:10.1177/0269881107081126

15. Blier P. Generic substitution for psychotropic drugs. CNS Spectr. 2009;14(9 Suppl Q and A Forum):1-7. DOI:10.1017/s1092852900024706

16. Johnston A, Stafylas P, Stergiou GS. Effectiveness, safety and cost of drug substitution in hypertension. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;70(3):320-34. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03681.x

17. Nakai K, Fujita M, Ogata H. International harmonization of bioequivalence studies and issues shared in common. Yakugaku Zasshi. 2000;120(11):1193-200. DOI:10.1248/yakushi1947.120.11_1193.

18. Crawford P, Feely M, Guberman A, Kramer G. Are there potential problems with generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs? A review of issues. Seizure. 2006;15(3):165-76. DOI:10.1016/j.seizure.2005.12.010.

19. Borgheini G. The bioequivalence and therapeutic efficacy of generic versus brand-name psychoactive drugs. Clin Ther. 2003;25(6):1578-92. DOI:10.1016/s0149-2918(03)80157-1.

20. Verbeeck RK, Kanfer I, Walker RB. Generic substitution: the use of medicinal products containing different salts and implications for safety and efficacy. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2006;28(1-2):1-6. DOI:10.1016/j.ejps.2005.12.001.

21. Heikkilä R, Mäntyselkä P, Ahonen R. Do people regard cheaper medicines effective? Population survey on public opinion of generic substitution in Finland. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(2):185-91. DOI:10.1002/pds.2084.

22. Heikkilä R, Mäntyselkä P, Hartikainen-Herranen K, Ahonen R. Customers' and physicians' opinions of and experiences with generic substitution during the first year in Finland. Health Policy. 2007;82(3):366-74. DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.10.006

23. Himmel W, Simmenroth-Nayda A, Niebling W et al. What do primary care patients think about generic drugs?. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005;43(10):472-9. DOI:10.5414/cpp43472.

24. Weissenfeld J, Stock S, Lüngen M, Gerber A. The nocebo effect: a reason for patients' non-adherence to generic substitution? Pharmazie. 2010;65(7):451-6.

25. Håkonsen H, Eilertsen M, Borge H, Toverud EL. Generic substitution: additional challenge for adherence in hypertensive patients? Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(10):2515-21. DOI:10.1185/03007990903192223.

26. Thiebaud P, Patel BV, Nichol MB, Berenbeim DM. The effect of switching on compliance and persistence: the case of statin treatment. Am J Manag Care. 2005;11(11):670-4.

27. Ansell BJ. Not getting to goal: the clinical costs of noncompliance. J Manag Care Pharm. 2008;14(6 Suppl B):9-15. DOI:10.18553/jmcp.2008.14.S6-B.9.

28. Bainbridge JL, Ruscin JM. Challenges of treatment adherence in older patients with Parkinson's disease. Drugs Aging. 2009;26(2):145-55. DOI:10.2165/0002512-200926020-00006.

29. Desmarais JE, Beauclair L, Margolese HC. Switching from brand-name to generic psychotropic medications: a literature review. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2011;17(6):750-60. DOI:10.1111/j.1755-5949.2010.00210.x.

30. Langley C, Bush J, Harvey J et al. Establishing the extent of patient no adherence to prescribed medication in the Heart of Birmingham teaching Primary Care Trust (HoBtPCT): the Aston Medication Adherence Study (AMAS) [cited 2022 March 20]. Available from:

31. Monisha ST, Ela KM, Islam R, et al. Quality Attributes Comparison of Selected Brands of Rosuvastatin Calcium Tablets Marketed in the US and Bangladesh. J Pharm Res Int. 2021;33(39A):46-55. DOI:10.9734/JPRI/2021/v33i39A32140.

32. Betto M, Fares J, Saliba N, Ballout H. Efficacy and safety of a generic rosuvastatin in a real-world setting: prospective, observational clinical study in Lebanese patients. Ann Saudi Med. 2017;37(5):366-74. DOI:10.5144/0256-4947.2017.366.

33. Liu WT, Lin C, Tsai MC, et al. Effects of Pitavastatin, Atorvastatin, and Rosuvastatin on the Risk of New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus: A Single-Center Cohort Study. Biomedicines. 2020;8(11):499. DOI:10.3390/biomedicines8110499.

34. Kukharchuk VV, Ezhov MV, Sergienko IV et al. Eurasian Association of Cardiology (EAC)/ Russian National Atherosclerosis Society (RNAS) Guidelines for the diagnosis and correction of dyslipidemia for the prevention and treatment of atherosclerosis (2020). Eurasian Heart Journal. 2020;(2):6-29 (In Russ.) DOI:10.38109/2225-1685-2020-2-6-29.

35. Mach F, Baigent C, Catapano AL, et al. 2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(1):111-88. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz455.

36. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2019;139(25):e1082-e1143. DOI:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000625.

37. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration, Baigent C, Blackwell L et al. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials. Lancet. 2010;376(9753):1670-81. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61350-5.

38. Shaheen S, Elserafy ASH, Amin M, et al. Brand versus Generic Rosuvastatin in Egyptian Patients with Hyperlipidemia; Cost-Minimization Analysis. Int J Clin Med. 2019;10:631-638. DOI:10.4236/ijcm.2019.1012052.

39. Adams SP, Sekhon SS, Wright JM. Lipid-lowering efficacy of rosuvastatin. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(11):CD010254. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD010254.pub2.

40. Strandberg TE, Feely J, Sigurdsson EL; DISCOVERY study group. Twelve-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label comparison of the effects of rosuvastatin 10 mg/d and atorvastatin 10 mg/d in high-risk adults: a DISCOVERY study. Clin Ther. 2004;26(11):1821-33. DOI:10.1016/j.clinthera.2004.11.015.

41. Schuster H, Barter PJ, Stender S, et al. Effects of switching statins on achievement of lipid goals: Measuring Effective Reductions in Cholesterol Using Rosuvastatin Therapy (MERCURY I) study. Am Heart J. 2004;147(4):705-13. DOI:10.1016/j.ahj.2003.10.004.

42. Bajaj T, Giwa AO. Rosuvastatin. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing, 2021. [cited 2022 March 20]. Available from:

43. Lopez VA, Franklin SS, Tang S, Wong ND. Coronary heart disease events preventable by control of blood pressure and lipids in US adults with hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2007;9(6):436-443. DOI:10.1111/j.1524-6175.2007.06518.x.

44. Colivicchi F, Gulizia MM, Franzini L et al. Clinical Implications of Switching Lipid Lowering Treatment from Rosuvastatin to Other Agents in Primary Care. Adv Ther. 2016;33(11):2049-58. DOI:10.1007/s12325-016-0412-8.

45. Tarlovskaya EI, Balandina YuA, Sapozhnikova IE, Maksimchuk NS. Сomparative efficacy and safety of hypolipidemic therapy with generic and original medicinal products of simvastatin. Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology. 2011;7(5):579-83 (In Russ.) DOI:10.20996/1819-6446-2011-7-5-74.

46. Kim H, Lee CJ, Choi D, et al. Lipid-Lowering Efficacy and Safety of a New Generic Rosuvastatin in Koreans: an 8-Week Randomized Comparative Study with a Proprietary Rosuvastatin. J Lipid Atheroscler. 2020;9(2):283-90. DOI:10.12997/jla.2020.9.2.283.

47. Bart BYa, Luchinkina EE, Gordeev IG, et al. Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Rosuvastatin Generic and Rosuvastatin Original. Kardiologiia. 2016;56(6):46-9 (In Russ.) DOI:10.18565/cardio.2016.6.46-49.

48. Tarlovskaya EI, Nechaeva GI, Malchikova SV, Semenkin АА. Prediction of the influence of original and generic rosuvastatin on direct medical costs of secondary prevention in patients with chronic types of ischemic heart disease. Cardiovascular Therapy and Prevention. 2015;14(4):29-37 (In Russ.) DOI: 10.15829/1728-8800-2015-4-29-37.


For citations:

Polyakova O.A., Ostroumova O.D. The problem of choice: original drug or generic? Emphasis on rosuvastatin. Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology. 2022;18(2):225-230. (In Russ.)

Views: 304

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

ISSN 1819-6446 (Print)
ISSN 2225-3653 (Online)