{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016719745222929936, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.512953367875648, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[GENERIC DRUGS: IS BIOEQUIVALENCE SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE QUALITY, EFFICACY AND SAFETY?].

This article is focusing on the current debate that prescription of generic drugs is producing among patients and healthcare professionals. Following European Medicine Agency (EMA) recommendations, a number of generic medicines have recently been withdrawn from the market in Spain. The authorization for these generic drugs was primarily based on clinical studies conducted at GVK Biosciences in Hyderabad, India. The EMA inspection of GVK revealed data manipulation of electrocardiograms during the development of some studies of generic medicines. These manipulations had taken place over a period of at least five years. The article is also dealing with the consideration that bioavailability and bioequivalence studies receive as a cornerstone to approve generic drugs, and the discrepancies between the national regulatory agencies of medicines to implement guidelines of approval. Likewise, in the last few years, the rapid expansion of clinical trial activity regarding generic medicines and other drugs in emerging markets, is often leading to doubt on the integrity of the way trials were performed and on the reliability of data obtained from these studies.