Y Alatawi1, Md M Rahman1, N Cheng1, J Qian1, P L Peissig2, R L Berg2, C D Page3, R A Hansen1. 1. Department of Health Outcomes Research and Policy, Harrison School of Pharmacy, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. 2. Biomedical Informatics Research Center, Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, WI, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics and Computer Science, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Some public scepticism exists about generics in terms of whether brand and generic drugs produce identical outcomes. This study explores whether adverse event (AE) reporting patterns are similar between brand and generic drugs, using authorized generics (AGs) as a control for possible generic drug perception biases. METHODS: Events reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System from the years 2004-2015 were analysed. Drugs were classified as brand, AG or generic based on drug and manufacturer names. Reports were included if amlodipine, losartan, metoprolol extended release (ER) or simvastatin were listed as primary or secondary suspect drugs. Disproportionality analyses using the reporting odds ratio (ROR) assessed the relative rate of reporting labelled AEs compared to reporting these AEs with all other drugs. The Breslow-Day test compared RORs across brand, AG and generic. Interrupted time series analysis evaluated the impact of generic entry on reporting trends. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Generics accounted for significant percentages of total U.S. reports, but AGs accounted for smaller percentages of reports, including for amlodipine (14.26%), losartan (1.48%), metoprolol ER (0.35%) and simvastatin (0.70%). Whereas the RORs were significantly different for multiple brand vs generic comparisons, the AG vs generic comparisons yielded fewer statistically significant findings. Namely, only the ROR for AG differed from generic for amlodipine with peripheral oedema (P < .01). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Inconsistent reporting patterns were observed more between brand and generic compared with AG and generic. Use of AGs as a control for perception biases against generics is useful, but this approach can be limited by small AG report numbers. Requiring the manufacturer name to be printed on the prescription bottle or packaging could improve the accuracy of assignment for products being reported.
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Some public scepticism exists about generics in terms of whether brand and generic drugs produce identical outcomes. This study explores whether adverse event (AE) reporting patterns are similar between brand and generic drugs, using authorized generics (AGs) as a control for possible generic drug perception biases. METHODS: Events reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System from the years 2004-2015 were analysed. Drugs were classified as brand, AG or generic based on drug and manufacturer names. Reports were included if amlodipine, losartan, metoprolol extended release (ER) or simvastatin were listed as primary or secondary suspect drugs. Disproportionality analyses using the reporting odds ratio (ROR) assessed the relative rate of reporting labelled AEs compared to reporting these AEs with all other drugs. The Breslow-Day test compared RORs across brand, AG and generic. Interrupted time series analysis evaluated the impact of generic entry on reporting trends. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Generics accounted for significant percentages of total U.S. reports, but AGs accounted for smaller percentages of reports, including for amlodipine (14.26%), losartan (1.48%), metoprolol ER (0.35%) and simvastatin (0.70%). Whereas the RORs were significantly different for multiple brand vs generic comparisons, the AG vs generic comparisons yielded fewer statistically significant findings. Namely, only the ROR for AG differed from generic for amlodipine with peripheral oedema (P < .01). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Inconsistent reporting patterns were observed more between brand and generic compared with AG and generic. Use of AGs as a control for perception biases against generics is useful, but this approach can be limited by small AG report numbers. Requiring the manufacturer name to be printed on the prescription bottle or packaging could improve the accuracy of assignment for products being reported.
Authors: Melissa A Robb; Judith A Racoosin; Rachel E Sherman; Thomas P Gross; Robert Ball; Marsha E Reichman; Karen Midthun; Janet Woodcock Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Neil J Stone; Jennifer G Robinson; Alice H Lichtenstein; C Noel Bairey Merz; Conrad B Blum; Robert H Eckel; Anne C Goldberg; David Gordon; Daniel Levy; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Patrick McBride; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Karol Watson; Peter W F Wilson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 24.094
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: Genevieve M Gabb; Arduino A Mangoni; Craig S Anderson; Diane Cowley; John S Dowden; Jonathan Golledge; Graeme J Hankey; Faline S Howes; Les Leckie; Vlado Perkovic; Markus Schlaich; Nicholas A Zwar; Tanya L Medley; Leonard Arnolda Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Hae Reong Kim; MinDong Sung; Ji Ae Park; Kyeongseob Jeong; Ho Heon Kim; Suehyun Lee; Yu Rang Park Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 1.817
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