Trends in Use and Expenditures for Brand-name Statins After Introduction of Generic Statins in the US, 2002-2018.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Importance
The high and increasing expenditures for prescription medications in the US is a national problem.Objective
To explore the association of generic statin competition on relevant use and cost savings and to provide use and expenditure trends for all available statins for private and public payers and for out-of-pocket spending.Design, setting, and participants
This survey study evaluated data from the January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2018, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey by using a difference-in-differences analysis. Participants included noninstitutionalized individual statin users. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2020, to March 30, 2021.Exposures
The market entry of 5 generic statin medications (atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin, and pravastatin).Main outcomes and measures
National- and individual-level reductions in the annual number of statin purchases and total expenditures across private insurance, public insurance (Medicaid and Medicare), and out-of-pocket spending (presented in 2018 US dollars).Results
Between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2018, an average of 21.35 million statins (95% CI, 16.7-25.5 million) were purchased annually, with an average total annual cost of $24.5 billion (95% CI, $18.2-$28.8 billion). The number of brand-name statin purchases decreased by 90.9% (95% CI, 56%-98%) nationally and 27.4% (95% CI, 13%-40%) individually after the end of market exclusivity. Among major payers, the end of market exclusivity was associated with individual cost savings of $370.00 (95% CI, $430.70-$309.20) for private insurers, $281.00 (95% CI, $346.80-$215.30) for Medicare, $72.34 (95% CI, $95.22-$49.46) for Medicaid, and $211.90 (95% CI, $231.20-$192.50) for out-of-pocket spending. Combining all payers, the decrease translates to $925.60 (95% CI, $1005.00-$846.40) of annual savings per individual and $11.9 billion (95% CI, $10.9-$13.0 billion) for the US.Conclusions and relevance
Results of this survey study suggest that full generic competition of statins was associated with significant cost savings across all major payers within the US health care system.
SUBMITTER: Lin SY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8609409 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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: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.
| S-EPMC6415809 | 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:ImportanceWhether the use of generic vs brand levothyroxine affects thyrotropin levels remains unclear.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of generic vs brand levothyroxine in achieving and maintaining normal thyrotropin levels among new users.Design, setting, and participantsThis 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.ExposurePatients received generic or brand-name levothyroxine.Main outcomes and measuresProportion 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.ResultsA 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 relevanceInitiation 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.
| S-EPMC7527873 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The approach to the use of generic antiepileptic drugs has recently evolved from major concern to general acceptance, but the evidence related specifically to the safety of switching from brand-name to generic levetiracetam (LEV) is scarce. The aim of the study was to assess the risk of increased frequency of seizures or other adverse events after replacement of a brand-name LEV with a generic one.This retrospective analysis included 159 patients treated with LEV in a tertiary outpatient epilepsy clinic. We included all patients diagnosed with epilepsy who were treated with LEV as at March 1, 2013. Most patients were forced to switch to the generic LEV because of the sudden rise in cost of the branded LEV. We recorded data on age, sex, age at onset of epilepsy, type of epilepsy, and its treatment. We analyzed data from one visit before potential switching and from two visits after the potential switching. The interval between visits was typically 3 months. We registered an increase in the frequency of seizures and in the occurrence of adverse events.Among 151 subjects who switched to generic LEV after March 1, 2013, increased frequency of seizures was noted in 9 patients (6%) during the first follow-up visit. Patients with increased frequency of seizures did not differ from other patients regarding sex, age, age at the onset of epilepsy, and the median dose of LEV before switching or the median duration of treatment with LEV before switching. Two patients returned to brand-name LEV. Adverse events were noted in six other patients (4%) and included somnolence, irritability, or dizziness.Switching from brand-name to generic LEV is generally safe.
| S-EPMC5546726 | biostudies-other
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:In the United States, generic substitution of levothyroxine (L-T(4)) by pharmacists is permitted if the formulations are deemed to be bioequivalent by the Federal Drug Administration, but there is widespread concern that the pharmacokinetic standard used is too insensitive.We aimed to evaluate the bioequivalence of a brand-name L-T(4) (Synthroid) and an AB-rated generic formulation (Sandoz, Princeton, NJ) in children with severe hypothyroidism.This was a prospective randomized crossover study in which patients received 8 weeks of one L-T(4) formulation followed by 8 weeks of the other.The setting was an academic medical center.Of 31 children with an initial serum TSH concentration >100 mU/L, 20 had congenital hypothyroidism (CH), and 11 had autoimmune thyroiditis.The primary endpoint was the serum TSH concentration. Secondary endpoints were the free T(4) and total T(3) concentrations.The serum TSH concentration was significantly lower after 8 weeks of Synthroid than after generic drug (P = .002), but thyroid hormone levels did not differ significantly. Subgroup analysis revealed that the difference in TSH was restricted to patients with CH (P = .0005). Patients with CH required a higher L-T(4) dose (P < .0004) and were younger (P = .003) but were not resistant to thyroid hormone; 15 of 16 CH patients had severe thyroid dysgenesis or agenesis on imaging. The response to generic vs brand-name preparation remained significant when adjusted for age.Synthroid and an AB-rated generic L-T(4) are not bioequivalent for patients with severe hypothyroidism due to CH, probably because of diminished thyroid reserve. It would therefore seem prudent not to substitute L-T(4) formulations in patients with severe CH, particularly in those <3 yr of age. Our results may have important implications for other severely hypothyroid patients in whom precise titration of L-T(4) is necessary.
| S-EPMC3565118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBisphosphonates are the first-line therapy for the treatment of osteoporosis. In the province of Ontario, the Ontario Drug Benefit Program funds medications for patients aged 65 years and older. The Ontario Drug Benefit Program has a generic substitution policy that requires lower-cost generic drugs to be dispensed when they are available. However, there is controversy surrounding the efficacy and tolerability of generic bisphosphonates. The objective of this study was to describe patterns in the use of brand-name versus generic formulations when dispensing oral bisphosphonate over a 13-year period.MethodsWe identified all osteoporotic preparations for alendronate and risedronate that were dispensed through the Ontario Drug Benefit Program from 2001 to 2014. We stratified our sample into community-dwelling residents and residents in long-term care facilities. The number of prescriptions dispensed per month were plotted to illustrate trends over time.ResultsWe found a rapid switch from brand-name to generic bisphosphonate equivalents immediately after the generic became available on the Ontario Drug Benefit formulary, with generics accounting for > 88% of dispensed drug within 2 months. We also observed a reduction in the number of generic drugs dispensed each time a new brand-name alternative (e.g., monthly risedronate, weekly alendronate plus vitamin D) was introduced to the formulary. The dispensing trends were similar in the community and long-term care settings.InterpretationThe Ontario Drug Benefit Program generic substitution policy resulted in rapid uptake of generic oral bisphosphonates among seniors in Ontario. However, there was a switch away from generic medications to new brand-name alternatives whenever they were introduced to the formulary. Therefore, some patients continued to use brand-name bisphosphonate despite the availability of generic options.
| S-EPMC4382038 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGeneric drugs are used by millions of patients for economic reasons, so their evaluation must be highly transparent.ObjectiveTo assess the quality of reporting of bioequivalence trials comparing generic to brand-name drugs.Methodology/principal findingsPubMed was searched for reports of bioequivalence trials comparing generic to brand-name drugs between January 2005 and December 2008. Articles were included if the aim of the study was to assess the bioequivalency of generic and brand-name drugs. We excluded case studies, pharmaco-economic evaluations, and validation dosage assays of drugs. We evaluated whether important information about funding, methodology, location of trials, and participants were reported. We also assessed whether the criteria required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) to conclude bioequivalence were reported and that the conclusions were in agreement with the results. We identified 134 potentially relevant articles but eliminated 55 because the brand-name or generic drug status of the reference drug was unknown. Thus, we evaluated 79 articles. The funding source and location of the trial were reported in 41% and 56% of articles, respectively. The type of statistical analysis was reported in 94% of articles, but the methods to generate the randomization sequence and to conceal allocation were reported in only 15% and 5%, respectively. In total, 65 articles of single-dose trials (89%) concluded bioequivalence. Of these, 20 (31%) did not report the 3 criteria within the limits required by the FDA and 11 (17%) did not report the 2 criteria within the limits required by the EMA.Conclusions/significanceImportant information to judge the validity and relevance of results are frequently missing in published reports of trials assessing generic drugs. The quality of reporting of such trials is in need of improvement.
| S-EPMC3157430 | 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