Dataset Information

Approval rating and opinion of outpatients and general practitioners toward generic drugs: a questionnaire-based real-world study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Generic drugs use in the Liguria region is higher than the Italian average, but lower than in other European countries. No data exist about real-life prescription and level of awareness of generic drugs. In this study, we analyzed demographic, social, economic and cultural factors that may affect the level of awareness of generic drugs and their effective use.

Methods

We conducted a population survey using a structured questionnaire, administered to a sample of 8 outpatient clinics of general practitioners located in different districts of Genoa (Liguria, Italy). Multivariate logistic modeling was adopted to study the relationship between awareness/use of generic drugs and characteristics of subjects.

Results

Out of 2,000 outpatients surveyed, 95% were aware of generic drugs: these were mostly females (OR =2.2, 95% CI: 1.4-3.6), >35 years old (OR >6.0 vs 18-35 years), with a high level of education (OR >4.4 vs "elementary sch"), living in the west side of the city (OR =1.9 vs center); of these, only 59% declared that they effectively use generic drugs. Users were younger (OR =3.1, 18-35 years vs >65 years), with a high level of education (high school/university degree vs no title/elementary/secondary school OR =1.7), and were aware of the lower cost compared with branded drugs, and were mainly informed by pharmacists and physicians.

Conclusions

Although subjects were substantially aware of the existence of generic drugs, ~40% still did not use them; doubts about their efficacy seem to be mainly driven by the idea that cheaper drugs lead to lower product quality, in terms of efficacy, safety and tolerability. New education policies on generic drugs are needed.

SUBMITTER: Mattioli F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5572951 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The extents of generic-reference and generic-generic average bioequivalence and intra-subject variation of on-market drug products have not been prospectively studied on a large scale.We assessed bioequivalence of 42 generic products of 14 immediate-release oral drugs with the highest number of generic products on the Saudi market. We conducted 14 four-sequence, randomized, crossover studies on the reference and three randomly-selected generic products of amlodipine, amoxicillin, atenolol, cephalexin, ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, diclofenac, ibuprofen, fluconazole, metformin, metronidazole, paracetamol, omeprazole, and ranitidine. Geometric mean ratios of maximum concentration (Cmax) and area-under-the-concentration-time-curve, to last measured concentration (AUCT), extrapolated to infinity (AUCI), or truncated to Cmax time of reference product (AUCReftmax) were calculated using non-compartmental method and their 90% confidence intervals (CI) were compared to the 80.00%-125.00% bioequivalence range. Percentages of individual ratios falling outside the ±25% range were also determined.Mean (SD) age and body-mass-index of 700 healthy volunteers (28-80/study) were 32.2 (6.2) years and 24.4 (3.2) kg/m2, respectively. In 42 generic-reference comparisons, 100% of AUCT and AUCI CIs showed bioequivalence, 9.5% of Cmax CIs barely failed to show bioequivalence, and 66.7% of AUCReftmax CIs failed to show bioequivalence/showed bioinequivalence. Adjusting for 6 comparisons, 2.4% of AUCT and AUCI CIs and 21.4% of Cmax CIs failed to show bioequivalence. In 42 generic-generic comparisons, 2.4% of AUCT, AUCI, and Cmax CIs failed to show bioequivalence, and 66.7% of AUCReftmax CIs failed to show bioequivalence/showed bioinequivalence. Adjusting for 6 comparisons, 2.4% of AUCT and AUCI CIs and 14.3% of Cmax CIs failed to show bioequivalence. Average geometric mean ratio deviation from 100% was ?3.2 and ?5.4 percentage points for AUCI and Cmax, respectively, in both generic-reference and generic-generic comparisons. Individual generic/reference and generic/generic ratios, respectively, were within the ±25% range in >75% of individuals in 79% and 71% of the 14 drugs for AUCT and 36% and 29% for Cmax.On-market generic drug products continue to be reference-bioequivalent and are bioequivalent to each other based on AUCT, AUCI, and Cmax but not AUCReftmax. Average deviation of geometric mean ratios and intra-subject variations are similar between reference-generic and generic-generic comparisons.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01344070 (registered April 3, 2011).

Project description:Generic drugs are cost-effective versions of brand-name drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) following proof of pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence. Generic drugs are widely prescribed by physicians, although there is disagreement over the clinical comparability of generic drugs to brand-name drugs within the physician community. The objective of this survey was to assess physicians' perceptions of generic drugs and the generic drug approval process.A survey was administered to a national sample of primary care internists and specialists between August 2014 and January 2015. In total, 1,152 physicians comprising of internists with no reported specialty certification and those with specialty certification in hematology, infectious diseases, and endocrinology were surveyed. The survey assessed physicians' perceptions of the FDA's generic drug approval process, as well as their experiences prescribing six generic drugs approved between 2008 and 2012 using product-specific approval pathways and selected comparator drugs. Among 718 respondents (62% response rate), a majority were comfortable with the FDA's process in ensuring the safety and effectiveness of generic drugs overall (91%) and with letting the FDA determine which tests were necessary to determine bioequivalence in a particular drug (92%). A minority (13-26%) still reported being uncomfortable prescribing generic drugs approved using product-specific pathways. Overall, few physicians heard reports of concerns about generic versions of the study drugs or their comparators, with no differences between the two groups. Physicians tended to hear about concerns about the safety or effectiveness of generic drugs from patients, pharmacists, and physician colleagues.Physicians hold largely positive views of the FDA's generic drug approval process even when some questioned the performance of certain generic drugs in comparison to brand-name drugs. Better education about the generic drug approval process and standards may alleviate concerns among the physician community and support the delivery of cost-effective health care.

Project description:Prescription drug spending is growing faster than any other sector of healthcare. However, very little is known about patterns of prescribing and cost of prescribing between general practices. In this study, we examined variation in prescription rates and prescription costs through time for 55 GP surgeries in Northern Ireland Western Health and Social Care Trust. Temporal changes in variability of prescribing rates and costs were assessed using the Mann-Kendall test. Outlier practices contributing to between practice variation in prescribing rates were identified with the interquartile range outlier detection method. The relationship between rates and cost of prescribing was explored with Spearman's statistics. The differences in variability and mean number of prescribing rates associated with the practice setting and socioeconomic deprivation were tested using t-test and F-test respectively. The largest between-practice difference in prescribing rates was observed for Apr-Jun 2015, with the number of prescriptions ranging from 3.34 to 8.36 per patient. We showed that practices with outlier prescribing rates greatly contributed to between-practice variability. The largest difference in prescribing costs was reported for Apr-Jun 2014, with the prescription cost per patient ranging from £26.4 to £64.5. In addition, the temporal changes in variability of prescribing rates and costs were shown to undergo an upward trend. We demonstrated that practice setting and socio-economic deprivation accounted for some of the between-practice variation in prescribing. Rural practices had higher between practice variability than urban practices at all time points. Practices situated in more deprived areas had higher prescribing rates but lower variability than those located in less deprived areas. Further analysis is recommended to assess if variation in prescribing can be explained by demographic characteristics of patient population and practice features. Identification of other factors contributing to prescribing variability can help us better address potential inappropriateness of prescribing.