Dataset Information

Medication changes after switching from CONCERTA® brand methylphenidate HCl to a generic long-acting formulation: A retrospective database study.

ABSTRACT: Observational studies of switching from branded to generic formulations of the same drug substance often lack appropriate comparators for the subjects who switched. Three generic formulations were deemed equivalent to Concerta: an authorized generic (AG) identical except for external packaging, and two other generics (EG).Compare the incidence of a combined endpoint (switching back to Concerta, changing the use of immediate release methylphenidate (MPH), stopping all long-acting methylphenidate, or starting a new medication) among people switched from Concerta to the AG versus the EG.Cohort study from the Truven CCAE database of people aged 6 to 65 diagnosed with ADHD, treated with Concerta, and switched to the EG or to the AG formulation.In the EG arm 24.6% and in the AG arm 19.7% of subjects switched back to Concerta. The proportion of subjects meeting the combined endpoint was 39.5% in the EG arm, 32.9% in the AG arm, a crude risk ratio of 1.20 (95% CI 0.94, 1.54). After adjustment by propensity score stratification, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 1.23 (95% CI 0.90, 1.70). In an unplanned analysis using a different method of adjustment, the adjusted OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.69, 1.44).This study did not detect a difference between the proportion of people who met the study endpoint in the two study arms, i.e. between those who switched to a generic formulation that was identical to Concerta except for external packaging and those who switched to the comparison generics. The high incidence of the combined endpoint in the AG arm demonstrates the need for an appropriate comparator in studies of this type.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02730572.

SUBMITTER: Fife D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5831385 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Medication changes after switching from CONCERTA® brand methylphenidate HCl to a generic long-acting formulation: A retrospective database study.

Fife Daniel D Cepeda M Soledad MS Baseman Alan A Richards Henry H Hu Peter P Starr H Lynn HL Sena Anthony G AG

PloS one 20180228 2

<h4>Background</h4>Observational studies of switching from branded to generic formulations of the same drug substance often lack appropriate comparators for the subjects who switched. Three generic formulations were deemed equivalent to Concerta: an authorized generic (AG) identical except for external packaging, and two other generics (EG).<h4>Objective</h4>Compare the incidence of a combined endpoint (switching back to Concerta, changing the use of immediate release methylphenidate (MPH), stop ...[more]

PMID: 29489906

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo the extent that outcomes are mediated through negative perceptions of generics (the nocebo effect), observational studies comparing brand-name and generic drugs are susceptible to bias favoring the brand-name drugs. We used authorized generic (AG) products, which are identical in composition and appearance to brand-name products but are marketed as generics, as a control group to address this bias in an evaluation aiming to compare the effectiveness of generic versus brand medications.Methods and findingsFor commercial health insurance enrollees from the US, administrative claims data were derived from 2 databases: (1) Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (years: 2004-2013) and (2) Truven MarketScan (years: 2003-2015). For a total of 8 drug products, the following groups were compared using a cohort study design: (1) patients switching from brand-name products to AGs versus generics, and patients initiating treatment with AGs versus generics, where AG use proxied brand-name use, addressing negative perception bias, and (2) patients initiating generic versus brand-name products (bias-prone direct comparison) and patients initiating AG versus brand-name products (negative control). Using Cox proportional hazards regression after 1:1 propensity-score matching, we compared a composite cardiovascular endpoint (for amlodipine, amlodipine-benazepril, and quinapril), non-vertebral fracture (for alendronate and calcitonin), psychiatric hospitalization rate (for sertraline and escitalopram), and insulin initiation (for glipizide) between the groups. Inverse variance meta-analytic methods were used to pool adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for each comparison between the 2 databases. Across 8 products, 2,264,774 matched pairs of patients were included in the comparisons of AGs versus generics. A majority (12 out of 16) of the clinical endpoint estimates showed similar outcomes between AGs and generics. Among the other 4 estimates that did have significantly different outcomes, 3 suggested improved outcomes with generics and 1 favored AGs (patients switching from amlodipine brand-name: HR [95% CI] 0.92 [0.88-0.97]). The comparison between generic and brand-name initiators involved 1,313,161 matched pairs, and no differences in outcomes were noted for alendronate, calcitonin, glipizide, or quinapril. We observed a lower risk of the composite cardiovascular endpoint with generics versus brand-name products for amlodipine and amlodipine-benazepril (HR [95% CI]: 0.91 [0.84-0.99] and 0.84 [0.76-0.94], respectively). For escitalopram and sertraline, we observed higher rates of psychiatric hospitalizations with generics (HR [95% CI]: 1.05 [1.01-1.10] and 1.07 [1.01-1.14], respectively). The negative control comparisons also indicated potentially higher rates of similar magnitude with AG compared to brand-name initiation for escitalopram and sertraline (HR [95% CI]: 1.06 [0.98-1.13] and 1.11 [1.05-1.18], respectively), suggesting that the differences observed between brand and generic users in these outcomes are likely explained by either residual confounding or generic perception bias. Limitations of this study include potential residual confounding due to the unavailability of certain clinical parameters in administrative claims data and the inability to evaluate surrogate outcomes, such as immediate changes in blood pressure, upon switching from brand products to generics.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that use of generics was associated with comparable clinical outcomes to use of brand-name products. These results could help in promoting educational interventions aimed at increasing patient and provider confidence in the ability of generic medicines to manage chronic diseases.

Project description:Background/aimsEntecavir (ETV) can suppress chronic hepatitis B (CHB) virus replication as a standard of treatment drugs. For the treatment of CHB, affordable generic drugs may be more widely used in developing and undeveloped countries. However, there is little real-world data regarding the clinical efficacy of switching from entecavir-brand-name drugs (ETV-Brand) to entecavir generic drugs (ETV-Generic) with 0.5 mg once daily. The aim of the study was to evaluate the antiviral activity and safety of ETV-Generic in comparison to ETV-Brand in CHB-patients.MethodsIn this single-center, retrospective, 175 treatment-naïve-CHB-patients were assigned to receive 0.5 mg of ETV-Brand per day for a least 2 years and then switched to ETV-Generic for 6 months for analysis. The primary efficacy endpoint was a sustained virological response in comparison of the rate of undetectable serum Hepatitis B deoxyribonucleic acid (HBV DNA) as the sustained virologic response at baseline and 6 months after switching. Secondary efficacy endpoints were the comparison of the alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels between before and after switching and ALT normalization. Renal safety consideration was reported on changing the estimated glomerular filtration rate.ResultsFrom baseline to 6 months, the rate of undetectable HBV DNA and ALT levels remained stable as compared ETV-Brand period with ETV-Generic for 6 months. The rate of undetectable HBV DNA were 81.1%in ETV-Brand versus 88.0%in ETV-Generic (p = 0.05 CI 0.1-13.5%). ALT levels were 27.2 IU/L (CI 24.8-29.6 IU/L) in ETV-Brand versus 26.2 IU/L (CI 24.0-28.4 IU/L) in ETV-Generic (p = 0.55). Both endpoints were not significantly different between ETV-Brand and ETV-Generic treatments. Kidney function did not significantly differ from ETV-Brand (80.8, interquartile range [IQR]: 66.6-95.3 mL/min/1.73 m2) to ETV-Generic treatment period (80.3, IQR: 65.6-93.5 mL/min/1.73 m2).ConclusionIn treatment-naïve CHB-patients, the efficacy and safety profiles of switching from ETV-Brand to ETV-Generic showed no difference. Concluding the ETV-Generic comes to exciting virologic responses and rare adverse events.

Project description:This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse events, either serious or mild/moderate, of all generic versus brand-name cardiovascular medicines. We searched randomized trials in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov (last update December 1, 2014). Attempts were made to contact the investigators of all potentially eligible trials. Two investigators independently extracted and analyzed soft (including systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and others) and hard efficacy outcomes (including major cardiovascular adverse events and death), minor/moderate and serious adverse events. We included 74 randomized trials; 53 reported ≥1 efficacy outcome (overall sample 3051), 32 measured mild/moderate adverse events (n = 2407), and 51 evaluated serious adverse events (n = 2892). We included trials assessing ACE inhibitors (n = 12), anticoagulants (n = 5), antiplatelet agents (n = 17), beta-blockers (n = 11), calcium channel blockers (n = 7); diuretics (n = 13); statins (n = 6); and others (n = 3). For both soft and hard efficacy outcomes, 100 % of the trials showed non-significant differences between generic and brand-name drugs. The aggregate effect size was 0.01 (95 % CI -0.05; 0.08) for soft outcomes; -0.06 (-0.71; 0.59) for hard outcomes. All but two trials showed non-significant differences in mild/moderate adverse events, and aggregate effect size was 0.07 (-0.06; 0.20). Comparable results were observed for each drug class and in each stratified meta-analysis. Overall, 8 serious possibly drug-related adverse events were reported: 5/2074 subjects on generics; 3/2076 subjects on brand-name drugs (OR 1.69; 95 % CI 0.40-7.20). This meta-analysis strengthens the evidence for clinical equivalence between brand-name and generic cardiovascular drugs. Physicians could be reassured about prescribing generic cardiovascular drugs, and health care organization about endorsing their wider use.

Dataset Information

Medication changes after switching from CONCERTA® brand methylphenidate HCl to a generic long-acting formulation: A retrospective database study.

Publications

Medication changes after switching from CONCERTA® brand methylphenidate HCl to a generic long-acting formulation: A retrospective database study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets