Comparative effectiveness of generic and brand-name medication use: A database study of US health insurance claims

Abstract

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 ...

A Cost Variation Analysis of Drugs Available in the Indian Market for the Management of Thromboembolic Disorders

“…Another alternative is to promote generic medicines. Some studies based on the comparative effectiveness of generic versus brand-name medications have found the clinical outcomes associated with both quite comparable; this should instill more confidence in the patients and healthcare providers on the quality of generic medicines [22,23]. However, in India, patients have a negative perception of generic medicines.…”

Multiscale classification of heart failure phenotypes by unsupervised clustering of unstructured electronic medical record data

“…Figure 3B shows the same t-SNE visualization found in Fig. 2, with cluster assignment colored for values of Kǫ [2,4,8,15] . This allows us to visualize the same information contained in the dendrogram for selected values of K.…”

“…Classification schemes for HF help clinicians determine the disease phenotype, select appropriate treatments, and define study populations for randomized controlled trials (RCT) of HF interventions. Such schemes are typically defined in a top-down manner based on HF etiology [4][5][6] , functional assessments (e.g., the New York Heart Association Functional Classification), imagingbased lab values (such as ejection fraction) and biomarkers (e.g. NT-proBNP, cardiac troponin) 1,3,7 .…”

European Headache Federation recommendations for placebo and nocebo terminology

“…Appendix Table 2 Environmental factors and stimuli modifying placebo/nocebo effects Modifiable Non-modifiable Patient's expectations [13] Previous experiences [14] Pre-treatment verbal and non-verbal suggestions [15,16] Patient's personality [17] Speed of treatment titration [18] Cultural factors [19,20] Safety profile of treatment [21] Age [22] Patient-doctor relation/communication [23] Social Media and Internet information [24] Investigator/physician status [15] Gender [25] Affective and cognitive traits [26] Level of patients' education [22] Generic formulations [27,28] Genetics [29] The appearance of drugs or medical devices, e.g. packaging, color, price, drug taste, etc.…”