We keep hearing about beads vs. powder. Is that truly still part of the issue? Perhaps that's why I have trouble understanding this controversy, because I really feel that in the 4 years since the patent on Sporanox ran out, the generic R&D has come a very long way. Those little Janssen Sporanox beads are old news, and it would seem that any research done would quickly reveal that.
Like most pharmaceutical companies, Janssen has even had a hand in developing the generic and bulk forms in tandem with other companies- it's hugely profitable for them to make their own product available for repackaging in generic form.
Injectibles, powders, oral suspensions, capsules, tablets (Stiefel Labs and others) - it's a gigantic mind-numbing and fast moving business, bigger than I can begin to comprehend. And is Janssen above reproach? Most likely not.
I fail to understand why anyone would consider those little beads to be a gold standard anymore.
Gunner is right, there are new fat binding techniques, new polymers, the Meltrex technique, Eon Labs, Kaken Labs and the rapid-dissolve Itra tablet, Halcygen's super-generic SUBA-itraconazole, which promises to leave other forms of Sporanox and Itra in the dust. They're generics, "compounded" into another form-and in some cases, even more effective than those original beads.
So why are we stuck on the issue? We've got people making claims that one product is proven to be inferior than the other, but nobody presenting actual proof of that claim - just insinuation, opinion, and allegation.
The searches are simple. The research is there if one wishes to go through it.
I am not qualified to disperse or attempt to dissect such technical information, and wouldn't even presume.
This is why I advocate speaking to a professional if one has questions about formulations or where to get the ones they want at the price they wish to pay.
And now I'm shutting up before I make myself look foolish.
Unless that ship has sailed, which wouldn't surprise me. My apologies y'all.
j