Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Generic vs Brand-Name Levothyroxine in Achieving Normal Thyrotropin Levels

ABSTRACT: This cohort study compares the effectiveness of generic vs brand-name levothyroxine in achieving and maintaining normal thyrotropin levels among new users. Key Points Question What is the comparative effectiveness of generic vs brand-name levothyroxine in achieving normal thyrotropin levels? Findings In a cohort study of 17 598 patients from a national administrative claims database, a similar proportion of generic vs brand-name levothyroxine users achieved target thyrotropin levels. Meaning These findings suggest that initiation of generic or brand levothyroxine for mild thyroid dysfunction is associated with similar rates of achieving target laboratory outcomes. Importance Whether the use of generic vs brand levothyroxine affects thyrotropin levels remains unclear. Objective To compare the effectiveness of generic vs brand levothyroxine in achieving and maintaining normal thyrotropin levels among new users. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective, 1:1 propensity score–matched longitudinal cohort study used the OptumLabs Data Warehouse administrative claims database linked to laboratory results from commercially insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees throughout the United States. Eligible patients were adults (aged ?18 years) with thyrotropin levels ranging from 4.5 to 19.9 mIU/L who initiated use of generic or brand-name levothyroxine from January 1, 2008, to October 1, 2017. Data were analyzed from August 13, 2018, to October 25, 2019. Exposure Patients received generic or brand-name levothyroxine. Main Outcomes and Measures Proportion of patients with normal vs markedly abnormal thyrotropin levels (<0.1 or >10 mIU/L) within 3 months and with stable thyrotropin levels within 3 months after the thyrotropin value fell into the normal range. Results A total of 17 598 patients were included (69.0% female; 74.0% White; mean [SD] age, 55.1 [16.0] years), of whom 15?299 filled generic and 2299 filled brand-name levothyroxine prescriptions during the study period. Among 4570 propensity score–matched patients (mean [SD] age,?50.3 [13.8] years; 3457 [75.6%] female; 3510 [76.8%] White), the proportion with normal thyrotropin levels within 3 months of filling levothyroxine prescriptions was similar for patients who received generic vs brand-name levothyroxine (1722 [75.4%; 95% CI, 71.9%-79.0%] vs 1757 [76.9%; 95% CI, 73.4%-80.6%]; P?=?.23), as was the proportion with markedly abnormal levels (94 [4.1%; 95% CI, 3.4%-5.0%] vs 88 [3.9%; 95% CI, 3.1%-4.7%]; P?=?.65). Among 1034 propensity score–matched patients who achieved a normal thyrotropin value within 3 months of initiation of levothyroxine, the proportion maintaining subsequent normal thyrotropin levels during the next 3 months was similar for patients receiving generic vs brand-name levothyroxine (427 [82.6%] vs 433 [83.8%]; P?=?.62). Conclusions and Relevance Initiation of generic vs brand-name levothyroxine formulations was associated with similar rates of normal and stable thyrotropin levels. These results suggest that generic levothyroxine as initial therapy for mild thyroid dysfunction is as effective as brand-name levothyroxine.

SUBMITTER: Brito J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7527873 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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: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.

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.

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.

Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Generic vs Brand-Name Levothyroxine in Achieving Normal Thyrotropin Levels

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets