Giovanni Corrao1, Davide Soranna2, Andrea Arfè3, Manuela Casula4, Elena Tragni4, Luca Merlino5, Giuseppe Mancia6, Alberico L Catapano7. 1. Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, Division of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: giovanni.corrao@unimib.it. 2. Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, Division of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy; IRCSS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, Division of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, Centre of Epidemiology and Preventive Pharmacology (SEFAP), University of Milano, Milan, Italy. 5. Operative Unit of Territorial Health Services, Region Lombardia, Milan, Italy. 6. IRCSS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy; Department of Health Science, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. 7. Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, Centre of Epidemiology and Preventive Pharmacology (SEFAP), University of Milano, Milan, Italy; IRCSS Multimedica, Sesto San Giovanni, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of generic drugs can help contain drug spending. However, there is concern among patients and physicians that generic drugs may be clinically inferior to brand-name ones. This study aimed to compare patients treated with generic and brand-name statins in terms of therapeutic interruption and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. METHODS: 13,799 beneficiaries of the health care system of Lombardy, Italy, aged 40 years or older who were newly treated with generic or brand-name simvastatin during 2008, were followed until 2011 for the occurrence of two outcomes: 1) therapeutic discontinuation and 2) hospitalization for CV events. Hazard ratios (HR) associated with use of generic or brand-name at starting therapy (intention-to-treat analysis) and during follow-up (as-treated analysis) were estimated by fitting proportional hazard Cox models. A Monte-Carlo sensitivity analysis was performed to account for unmeasured confounders. RESULTS: Patients who started on generic did not experience a different risk of discontinuation (HR: 0.98; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.02) nor of CV outcomes (HR: 0.98; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.22) from those starting on brand-name. Patients who spent >75% of time of follow-up with statin available on generics did not experience a different risk of discontinuation (HR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.01), nor of CV outcomes (HR: 1.06; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34), compared with those who mainly or only used brand-name statin. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not support the notion that in the real world clinical practice brand-name statins are superior to generics for keeping therapy and preventing CV outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Use of generic drugs can help contain drug spending. However, there is concern among patients and physicians that generic drugs may be clinically inferior to brand-name ones. This study aimed to compare patients treated with generic and brand-name statins in terms of therapeutic interruption and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. METHODS: 13,799 beneficiaries of the health care system of Lombardy, Italy, aged 40 years or older who were newly treated with generic or brand-name simvastatin during 2008, were followed until 2011 for the occurrence of two outcomes: 1) therapeutic discontinuation and 2) hospitalization for CV events. Hazard ratios (HR) associated with use of generic or brand-name at starting therapy (intention-to-treat analysis) and during follow-up (as-treated analysis) were estimated by fitting proportional hazard Cox models. A Monte-Carlo sensitivity analysis was performed to account for unmeasured confounders. RESULTS:Patients who started on generic did not experience a different risk of discontinuation (HR: 0.98; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.02) nor of CV outcomes (HR: 0.98; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.22) from those starting on brand-name. Patients who spent >75% of time of follow-up with statin available on generics did not experience a different risk of discontinuation (HR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.01), nor of CV outcomes (HR: 1.06; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34), compared with those who mainly or only used brand-name statin. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not support the notion that in the real world clinical practice brand-name statins are superior to generics for keeping therapy and preventing CV outcomes.
Authors: Jacob N Hunnicutt; Christine M Ulbricht; Stavroula A Chrysanthopoulou; Kate L Lapane Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2016-09-05 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Lamberto Manzoli; Maria Elena Flacco; Stefania Boccia; Elvira D'Andrea; Nikola Panic; Carolina Marzuillo; Roberta Siliquini; Walter Ricciardi; Paolo Villari; John P A Ioannidis Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Josephine Walker; Betty B Chaar; Numa Vera; Alvish S Pillai; Jessy S Lim; Lisa Bero; Rebekah J Moles Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Rishi J Desai; Ameet Sarpatwari; Sara Dejene; Nazleen F Khan; Joyce Lii; James R Rogers; Sarah K Dutcher; Saeid Raofi; Justin Bohn; John G Connolly; Michael A Fischer; Aaron S Kesselheim; Joshua J Gagne Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2019-03-13 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Cynthia A Jackevicius; Jack V Tu; Harlan M Krumholz; Peter C Austin; Joseph S Ross; Therese A Stukel; Maria Koh; Alice Chong; Dennis T Ko Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Rishi J Desai; Ameet Sarpatwari; Sara Dejene; Nazleen F Khan; Joyce Lii; James R Rogers; Sarah K Dutcher; Saeid Raofi; Justin Bohn; John Connolly; Michael A Fischer; Aaron S Kesselheim; Joshua J Gagne Journal: BMJ Date: 2018-04-03