Dataset Information

Adherence with brand versus generic bisphosphonates among osteoporosis patients: a new-user cohort study in the French National Healthcare Insurance database.

ABSTRACT: Several studies documented declines in treatment adherence with generic forms of oral bisphosphonates in osteoporosis compared to branded forms, while others did not support this relation. Our aim was to compare medication adherence with brand versus generic forms of oral bisphosphonates. A new-user cohort study was conducted using routinely collected administrative and healthcare data linked at the individual level extracted from a nationwide representative sample of the French National Healthcare Insurance database. We included all patients aged 50 and older, new users of oral bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis between 01/01/2009 and 31/12/2015. Two components of adherence were measured: implementation (continuous multiple-interval measure of medication availability version 7; CMA7) and persistence (time to discontinuation). The sample was composed of 1,834 in the "brand bisphosphonate" group and 1,495 patients in the "generic bisphosphonate" group. Initiating oral bisphosphonate treatment with brand was associated with a higher risk of discontinuation within 12 months (Hazard Ratio?=?1.08; 95%CI?= [1.02;1.14]). The risk of good implementation (CMA7???0.90) was significantly lower in "brand bisphosphonate" group (Risk Ratio = 0.90; 95%CI = [0.85; 0.95]). We did not find any evidence to support the hypothesis of a lower adherence to generic bisphosphonates. In fact, prescribing of generic bisphosphonates led to a higher persistence rate and to better implementation at 1 year.

SUBMITTER: Viprey M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7198539 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adherence with brand versus generic bisphosphonates among osteoporosis patients: a new-user cohort study in the French National Healthcare Insurance database.

Viprey Marie M Xue Yufeng Y Rousseau Aurélie A Payet Cécile C Chapurlat Roland R Caillet Pascal P Dima Alexandra A Schott Anne-Marie AM

Scientific reports 20200504 1

Several studies documented declines in treatment adherence with generic forms of oral bisphosphonates in osteoporosis compared to branded forms, while others did not support this relation. Our aim was to compare medication adherence with brand versus generic forms of oral bisphosphonates. A new-user cohort study was conducted using routinely collected administrative and healthcare data linked at the individual level extracted from a nationwide representative sample of the French National Healthc ...[more]

PMID: 32366863

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:ObjectivesThis study examined patient adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis in real-world settings.MethodsA systematic review was completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database NHS EED) databases were searched for studies published in English language up to April 2018. Prospective and retrospective observational studies that used prescription claim databases or hospital medical records to examine patient adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonate treatment among adults with osteoporosis were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of included studies.ResultsThe search yielded 540 published studies, of which 89 were deemed relevant and were included in this review. The mean age of patients included within the studies ranged between 53 to 80.8 years, and the follow-up varied from 3 months to 14 years. The mean persistence of oral bisphosphonates for 6 months, 1?year and 2 years ranged from 34.8% to 71.3%, 17.7% to 74.8% and 12.9% to 72.0%, respectively. The mean medication possession ratio ranged from 28.2% to 84.5%, 23% to 50%, 27.2% to 46% over 1?year, 2 years and 3 years, respectively. All studies included scored between 6 to 8 out of 9 on the NOS. The determinants of adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonates included geographic residence, marital status, tobacco use, educational status, income, hospitalisation, medication type and dosing frequency.ConclusionsWhile a number of studies reported high levels of persistence and adherence, the findings of this review suggest that patient persistence and adherence with oral bisphosphonates medications was poor and reduced notably over time. Overall, adherence was suboptimal. To maximise adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonates, it is important to consider possible determinants, including characteristics of the patients.

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

Adherence with brand versus generic bisphosphonates among osteoporosis patients: a new-user cohort study in the French National Healthcare Insurance database.

Publications

Adherence with brand versus generic bisphosphonates among osteoporosis patients: a new-user cohort study in the French National Healthcare Insurance database.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets