Comparison of Outcomes Following a Switch From a Brand to an Authorized Versus Independent Generic Drug.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hansen RA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5860648 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparison of Outcomes Following a Switch From a Brand to an Authorized Versus Independent Generic Drug.
Hansen R A RA Qian J J Berg R L RL Linneman J G JG Seoane-Vazquez E E Dutcher S S Raofi S S Page C D CD Peissig P L PL
Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics 20171010 2
Authorized generics are identical in formulation to brand drugs, manufactured by the brand company but marketed as a generic. Generics, marketed by generic manufacturers, are required to demonstrate pharmaceutical and bioequivalence to the brand drug, but repetition of clinical trials is not required. This retrospective cohort study compared outcomes for generics and authorized generics, which serves as a generic vs. brand proxy that minimizes bias against generics. For the seven drugs studied b ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), a post-marketing safety database, can be used to differentiate brand versus generic safety signals.ObjectiveTo explore the methods for identifying and analyzing brand versus generic adverse event (AE) reports.MethodsPublic release FAERS data from January 2004 to March 2015 were analyzed using alendronate and carbamazepine as examples. Reports were classified as brand, generic, and authorized generic (AG). Disproportionality analyses compared reporting odds ratios (RORs) of selected known labeled serious adverse events stratifying by brand, generic, and AG. The homogeneity of these RORs was compared using the Breslow-Day test. The AG versus generic was the primary focus since the AG is identical to brand but marketed as a generic, therefore minimizing generic perception bias. Sensitivity analyses explored how methodological approach influenced results.ResultsBased on 17,521 US event reports involving alendronate and 3733 US event reports involving carbamazepine (immediate and extended release), no consistently significant differences were observed across RORs for the AGs versus generics. Similar results were obtained when comparing reporting patterns over all time and just after generic entry. The most restrictive approach for classifying AE reports yielded smaller report counts but similar results.ConclusionDifferentiation of FAERS reports as brand versus generic requires careful attention to risk of product misclassification, but the relative stability of findings across varying assumptions supports the utility of these approaches for potential signal detection.
| S-EPMC5842081 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIn response to scrutiny over high drug prices, manufacturers of insulin and direct-acting antiviral agents for treating hepatitis C have recently introduced authorized generic alternatives to their patented brand-name products. These authorized generic drugs have list prices at least 50% lower than the list price of the brand-name drugs, which should result in savings to patients. However, it is unclear whether these authorized generic drugs are offered on Medicare Part D formularies because they may not provide savings to plans or Medicare.ObjectiveTo assess Medicare Part D formulary coverage for 4 brand-name formulations of insulin and direct-acting antiviral agents and their authorized generic formulations.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Formulary and Pricing Information Files from quarter 3 of 2020 and Medicare Part D plan enrollment for September 2020. Four patented brand-name drugs (sofosbuvir and velpatasvir fixed-dose combination tablets [Epclusa], ledipasvir and sofosbuvir tablets [Harvoni], insulin lispro [Humalog], and insulin aspart [Novolog]) and their authorized generic formulations for all Part D stand-alone prescription drug plans (n = 959) and Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans (n = 3148) were studied.Main outcomes and measuresBeneficiary-weighted formulary coverage of brand-name and authorized generic products; beneficiary out-of-pocket costs; and prerebate plan, manufacturer, and Medicare spending on brand-name and authorized generic products.ResultsIn quarter 3 of 2020, 97% of beneficiaries were in plans that covered brand-name drugs only or both brand-name and authorized generic drugs; approximately 3% were in plans that covered authorized generic drugs only. Observed authorized generic drug list prices were 67%, 62%, and 50% lower than list prices for Epclusa, Harvoni, and each brand-name insulin product, respectively. Medicare beneficiaries using authorized generic drugs could save $270 per year for 12 vials of Humalog and $2974 for a full course of Harvoni. Plans, however, have limited incentives to encourage authorized generic drug use because rebates for brands likely exceed savings available with authorized generic drugs, particularly for beneficiaries with spending that reaches the Medicare Part D coverage gap.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cross-sectional study suggest that authorized generic drugs for insulin and direct-acting antiviral agents may lower out-of-pocket spending for patients but are unlikely to provide savings for Part D plans or Medicare. Instead, these drugs allow manufacturers to offer products at a lower list price without materially lowering net prices or profits.
| S-EPMC8524353 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4877434 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIMS:The aim of the present study was to investigate whether differences in total and peak drug exposure upon generic substitution are due to differences between formulations or to intrasubject pharmacokinetic variability of the active substance. METHODS:The study was designed as a retrospective reanalysis of existing studies. Nine replicate design bioequivalence studies representing six drug classes - i.e. for alendronate, atorvastatin, cyclosporin, ebastine, exemestane, mycophenolate mofetil, and ropinirole - were retrieved from the Dutch Medicines Regulatory Authority. RESULTS:In most studies, the intrasubject variability in total and peak drug exposure was comparable for the brand-name [in the range 0.01-0.24 for area under the concentration-time curve (AUCt ) and 0.02-0.29 for peak plasma concentration (Cmax ) on a log scale] and generic (0.01-0.23 for AUCt and 0.08-0.33 for Cmax ) drugs, and was comparable with the intrasubject variability upon switching between those drugs (0.01-0.23 for AUCt and 0.06-0.33 for Cmax ). The variance related to subject-by-formulation interaction could be considered negligible (-0.069 to 0.047 for AUCt and -0.091 to 0.02 for Cmax ). CONCLUSION:In the investigated studies, the variation in total and peak exposure seen when a patient is switched from a brand-name to a generic drug is comparable with that seen following repeated administration of the brand-name drug in the patient. Only the intrasubject variability seems to play a crucial and decisive role in the variation in drug exposure seen; no additional formulation-dependent variation in exposure is observed upon switching. Thus, our data support that, for the medicines that were included in the present investigation, from a clinical pharmacological perspective, the benefit-risk balance of a generic drug is comparable with that of the brand-name drug.
| S-EPMC4799932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Due to a liberalisation reform in 2009, the availability of over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics has increased significantly in the Swedish market over the past decade. With the increasing number of generic products available on the market and the possibility of buying OTC drugs from non-pharmacy outlets, a key to safe drug use is that consumers possess the necessary knowledge to differentiate between the different brands and choose the appropriate drug for their ailments. The aim of this study was to investigate Swedish consumers’ knowledge of and attitudes towards generic OTC analgesics. Methods A sample of 209 Swedish adults (66% women; mean age 43.1?years) who bought OTC analgesics at a community pharmacy in one of the country’s three largest cities responded to a structured questionnaire. The questions related to knowledge of active substances, the use and choice of OTC analgesics (generic or original brand), attitudes towards generic OTC analgesics, information received about OTC analgesics and experience with generic substitution of prescription drugs. Results Almost one in five reported weekly use of OTC analgesics, and 32% assigned minimum three out of four active substances to the correct brand(s) of OTC analgesics. Among the 50 participants (24%) who assigned all four active substances correctly, it was predominantly women and participants with higher education. Four out of five participants were positive towards the cheaper brands, and 69% reportedly chose cheaper generic brands over more expensive brands. Knowledge about the active substances of different brands was associated with positive attitudes towards generic products. Conclusion Swedish pharmacy customers have to a varying extent the knowledge to differentiate between different brands of commonly used OTC analgesics in terms of active substances. There is a predominantly positive attitude towards generic OTC analgesics, although some consider generic drugs to be inferior and stay loyal to the original brands.
| S-EPMC7528226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although the same efficacy and tolerability are anticipated due to both drugs containing the same active ingredients, comparative studies between brand and generic alendronate are limited. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to compare efficacy and safety between brand alendronate and a recently introduced generic alendronate drug.A total of 140 postmenopausal women or men aged older than 50 years who met the indications for osteoporosis treatment were randomized to receive either generic (Bonmax®) or brand alendronate (Fosamax®) 70 mg/week over a 12-month period during the May 2014 to June 2015 study period. Endpoints included bone mineral density (BMD) changes at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck; percentage of patients with predefined levels of change in total hip and lumbar spine BMD at 12 months; and, changes in biochemical bone markers at 3, 6, and 12 months. Tolerability was evaluated by patient self-reporting of adverse experiences.At 12 months post-treatment, BMD significantly increased at all sites in both groups. There were no differences in BMD percentage changes or the number of patients with stable or increased BMD after 1 year between groups. No significant differences in the amount of biochemical bone marker reduction or incidence of adverse events were observed between groups.Generic and brand alendronate produced similar gains in BMD and reduction in bone turnover markers. Both medicadoitions were also equally well-tolerated. Based on these findings, generic alendronate (Bonmax®) is a viable alternative to the original brand of alendronate.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02371252.
| S-EPMC5498028 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is unclear whether generics are as safe as brand-name drugs in cardiology. For public health surveillance purposes, we evaluated if switching from the brand-name losartan, valsartan, or candesartan impacted the occurrence of the following outcomes: emergency room (ER) consultations, hospitalizations, or death.Study designThis was a retrospective cohort study.MethodsThis study was conducted in the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System, including healthcare administrative data of the population of Quebec, Canada. We included brand-name users of losartan, valsartan, or candesartan aged ≥ 66 years who had undergone ≥ 30 days of stable treatment on the brand-name drug prior to cohort entry (substitution time-distribution matching was used to prevent immortal time bias). Outcomes up to 1 year were compared between groups using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models (validity assumptions were verified).ResultsIn our cohorts (losartan, n =15,783; valsartan, n =16,907; candesartan, n =26,178), mean age was 76-78 years, 59-66% were female, 90-92% had hypertension, and 13-15% had heart failure. Validity assumptions were violated for losartan only. For patients switched to generic valsartan, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) was 1.07 (0.99-1.14) for ER consultation, 1.26 (1.14-1.39) for hospitalization, and 1.01 (0.61-1.67) for death. The corresponding rates for candesartan were 1.00 (0.95-1.05), 0.96 (0.89-1.03), and 0.57 (0.37-0.88), respectively.ConclusionsWe observed an increased risk of hospitalizations for patients switched to generic valsartan, and a decreased risk of death for patients switched to generic candesartan, compared with those who continued taking the brand-name drug. The differences between generic and brand-name drugs may lead to some differences in public health outcomes, but this safety signal must be further studied using other cohorts and settings.
| S-EPMC7221012 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Value of Information (VOI) analysis examines whether to acquire information before making a decision. We introduced VOI to the HIV audience, using the example of generic antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the US.We used a mathematical model and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to generate probability distributions of survival (in quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) and cost for three potential first-line ART regimens: three-pill generic, two-pill generic, and single-pill branded. These served as input for a comparison of two hypothetical two-arm trials: three-pill generic versus single-pill branded; and two-pill generic versus single-pill branded. We modeled pre-trial uncertainty by defining probability distributions around key inputs, including 24-week HIV-RNA suppression and subsequent ART failure. We assumed that, without a trial, patients received the single-pill branded strategy. Post-trial, we assumed that patients received the most cost-effective strategy. For both trials, we quantified the probability of changing to a generic-based regimen upon trial completion and the expected VOI in terms of improved health outcomes and costs. Assuming a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100?000/QALY, the three-pill trial led to more treatment changes (84%) than the two-pill trial (78%). Estimated VOI was $48?000 (three-pill trial) and $35?700 (two-pill trial) per future patient initiating ART.A three-pill trial of generic ART is more likely to lead to post-trial treatment changes and to provide more value than a two-pill trial if policy decisions are based on cost-effectiveness. Value of Information analysis can identify trials likely to confer the greatest impact and value for HIV care.
| S-EPMC4718767 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe length of hospital stay after lower limb arthroplasty has rapidly decreased in the last decade, largely in part due to the rise of improved perioperative protocols, but also as a response to the increased economic demand associated with the rapid growth in hip and knee arthroplasty procedures. In line with this, the development of a new pathway after lower limb arthroplasty that allows for the surgery to be performed in an outpatient setting and permits for same-day discharge after the procedure is increasingly being offered. Although costs and complications between the inpatient and outpatient models have been compared, there appears to be little known about the effects on a patient's physical function after undergoing hip or knee outpatient arthroplasty. Therefore, this systematic review aims to explore the available evidence for the effect on functional outcomes following inpatient versus outpatient hip or knee arthroplasty.MethodsThis systematic review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and was prospectively registered ( https://osf.io/8bfae/ ). An electronic search of three online databases (PubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE) was conducted to identify eligible studies. All studies investigating inpatient and outpatient comparator groups, for a population of patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty, that assessed one or more functional outcomes, were included. A methodological quality appraisal was undertaken for the final studies contained in this review. A narrative synthesis of results is described along with quantitative outcomes presented in tables and figures.ResultsA total of seven studies containing 1,876 participants were included in this review. Four studies assessed a THA population, two assessed TKA and one assessed both. Functional outcomes varied, with 20 different functional outcomes utilised, of which 18 were patient-reported tools. Results of functional outcomes offered mixed support for both inpatient and outpatient pathways.ConclusionsThe results of this review suggest that outpatient or inpatient pathway selection for hip or knee arthroplasty should not be based on the superiority of functional outcomes alone. However, given there is growing evidence in support of an outpatient pathway in select patients with respect to cost savings and without any increase in complications, it could be proposed that an equivalency of post-operative function between the two settings makes same-day discharge favourable. Publicly registered with Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/8bfae/ ).
| S-EPMC9344712 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAn increasing number of generic alendronate formulations have become available. Although expected to have the same tolerability and efficacy, head-to head comparison of generic and brand alendronate was never performed. Therefore, we compared the tolerability and efficacy of generic and brand alendronate.MethodsIn a randomized double-blinded single centre cross-over study in 37 postmenopausal women (mean age 65.4±6.4 years) with osteoporosis were treated with generic and branded alendronate during 24 (2x12) weeks. Tolerance was evaluated by the Gastro intestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and self-reported side effects. Efficacy was assessed by serum bone turnover markers, carboxy terminal telopeptide (CTX) and procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (PINP). No wash out period was allowed (ethical reasons). Because of possible carry over effect only data of the first 12 weeks were analyzed using linear mixed models.ResultsThere were no significant differences in overall tolerance (GSRS) between treatment groups. However, for subscale abdominal pain, patients using generic had a significantly higher mean GSRS score at week 4 (estimated mean difference (B): 0.40; 95%CI: 0.05 to 0.74, p = 0.024). The level of bone turnover markers significantly decreased over 12 weeks of follow-up for generic and branded alendronate (p < 0.001). Mean level of CTX was significantly lower with branded at week 4 (B: 121.3; 95%CI: 52.0 to 190.5), but not at week 12 (B: 53.6; 95%CI:-3.7 to 110.9). No significant differences were found for PINP at week 4 or 12.ConclusionsBone turnover markers were significantly reduced with branded and generic alendronate. With branded, CTX was significantly lower at 4 weeks. Generic caused significantly higher abdominal pain scores in the first 4 weeks of treatment. Therefore, generic alendronate may not have the same tolerability and efficacy as branded alendronate in the first weeks after starting treatment in patients with a recent fracture.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register NTR number 1867 http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1867.
| S-EPMC3804551 | biostudies-literature