Richard A Hansen1, Jingjing Qian1, Richard Berg2, James Linneman2, Enrique Seoane-Vazquez3, Sarah K Dutcher4, Saeid Raofi4, C David Page5,6, Peggy Peissig2. 1. Department of Health Outcomes Research and Policy, Auburn University, Harrison School of Pharmacy, Auburn, Alabama. 2. Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Biomedical Informatics Research Center, Marshfield, Wisconsin. 3. Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, International Center for Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Office of Generic Drugs, Silver Spring, Maryland. 5. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. 6. Department of Computer Science, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Generic drugs contain identical active ingredients as their corresponding brand drugs and are pharmaceutically equivalent and bioequivalent, whereas authorized generic drugs (AGs) contain both identical active and inactive ingredients as their corresponding brand drugs but are marketed as generics. This study compares generic-to-brand switchback rates between generic and AGs. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. DATA SOURCE: Claims and electronic health record data from a regional U.S. health care system. PATIENTS: The full cohort consisted of 5542 unique patients who received select branded drugs during the 6 months prior to their generic drug market availability (between 1999 and 2014) and then were switched to an AG or generic drug within 30 months of generic drug entry. For these patients, 5929 unique patient-drug combinations (867 with AGs and 5062 with generic drugs) were evaluated. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Ten drugs with AGs and generics marketed between 1999 and 2014 were evaluated. The date of the first generic prescription was considered the index date for each drug, and it marked the beginning of follow-up to evaluate the occurrence of generic-to-brand switchback patterns over the subsequent 30 months. Switchback rates were compared between patients receiving AGs versus those receiving generics using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, controlling for individual drug effects, age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Score, pre-index drug use characteristics, and pre-index health care utilization. Among the 5542 unique patients who switched from brand to generic or brand to AG, 264 (4.8%) switched back to the brand drug. Overall switchback rates were similar for AGs compared with generics (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.15). The likelihood of switchback was higher for alendronate (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20-2.23) and simvastatin (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.30-2.54) and lower for amlodipine (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17-0.42) compared with the other drugs evaluated. CONCLUSION: Overall switchback rates were similar between AG and generic drug users, indirectly supporting similar efficacy and tolerability profiles for brand and generic drugs. Reasons for differences in switchback rates among specific products need to be explored further.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Generic drugs contain identical active ingredients as their corresponding brand drugs and are pharmaceutically equivalent and bioequivalent, whereas authorized generic drugs (AGs) contain both identical active and inactive ingredients as their corresponding brand drugs but are marketed as generics. This study compares generic-to-brand switchback rates between generic and AGs. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. DATA SOURCE: Claims and electronic health record data from a regional U.S. health care system. PATIENTS: The full cohort consisted of 5542 unique patients who received select branded drugs during the 6 months prior to their generic drug market availability (between 1999 and 2014) and then were switched to an AG or generic drug within 30 months of generic drug entry. For these patients, 5929 unique patient-drug combinations (867 with AGs and 5062 with generic drugs) were evaluated. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Ten drugs with AGs and generics marketed between 1999 and 2014 were evaluated. The date of the first generic prescription was considered the index date for each drug, and it marked the beginning of follow-up to evaluate the occurrence of generic-to-brand switchback patterns over the subsequent 30 months. Switchback rates were compared between patients receiving AGs versus those receiving generics using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, controlling for individual drug effects, age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Score, pre-index drug use characteristics, and pre-index health care utilization. Among the 5542 unique patients who switched from brand to generic or brand to AG, 264 (4.8%) switched back to the brand drug. Overall switchback rates were similar for AGs compared with generics (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.15). The likelihood of switchback was higher for alendronate (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20-2.23) and simvastatin (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.30-2.54) and lower for amlodipine (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17-0.42) compared with the other drugs evaluated. CONCLUSION: Overall switchback rates were similar between AG and generic drug users, indirectly supporting similar efficacy and tolerability profiles for brand and generic drugs. Reasons for differences in switchback rates among specific products need to be explored further.
Authors: F DeStefano; E D Eaker; S K Broste; D L Nordstrom; P L Peissig; R A Vierkant; K A Konitzer; R L Gruber; P M Layde Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Joshua J Gagne; Jennifer M Polinski; Wenlei Jiang; Sarah K Dutcher; Jing Xie; Joyce Lii; Lisa A Fulchino; Aaron S Kesselheim Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Aaron S Kesselheim; Joshua J Gagne; Wesley Eddings; Jessica M Franklin; Kathryn M Ross; Lisa A Fulchino; Eric G Campbell Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Sara C Erickson; Lisa Le; Scott D Ramsey; Brian K Solow; Armen Zakharyan; Karen M Stockl; Ann S M Harada; Bradford Curtis Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2011-06-21 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: William H Shrank; Emily R Cox; Michael A Fischer; Jyotsna Mehta; Niteesh K Choudhry Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Joshua J Gagne; Jennifer R Popovic; Michael Nguyen; Sukhminder K Sandhu; Patty Greene; Rima Izem; Wenlei Jiang; Zhong Wang; Yueqin Zhao; Andrew B Petrone; Anita K Wagner; Sarah K Dutcher Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Justine Alderfer; Jyoti Aggarwal; Kim Gilchrist; Jose Maria Jimenez Alvir; Joseph Cook; Sang Hee Park; Jennifer M Stephens Journal: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2022-04-27
Authors: Daniel Fife; M Soledad Cepeda; Alan Baseman; Henry Richards; Peter Hu; H Lynn Starr; Anthony G Sena Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-28 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 Connolly; Michael A Fischer; Aaron S Kesselheim; Joshua J Gagne Journal: BMJ Date: 2018-04-03