Abstract:<div><p>by 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</p>Background <p>To 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.</p> Methods and findings <p>For 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.</p> Conclusions <p>In 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.</p></div>

Does the Offer of Free Prescriptions Increase Generic Prescribing?

How Low-Income Subsidy Recipients Respond to Medicare Part D Cost Sharing

Zero-Dollar Copayment Impact on Adherence Scores for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Star Ratings Generic Medications

Affordability and adherence gains for Medicare Part D low-income subsidy recipients when low-income subsidy benefits expanded in 2024

Variation in generic dispensing rates in Medicare Part D

Why higher copayments for opioids did not reduce use among Medicare beneficiaries

Association between industry payments and prescribing costly medications: an observational study using open payments and medicare part D data

Associations Between Annual Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy Loss and Prescription Drug Spending and Use

Association of formulary restrictions and initiation of an SGLT2i or GLP1-RA among Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes

Association between physician adoption of a new oral anti-diabetic medication and Medicare and Medicaid drug spending

Drug Pricing Stewardship from Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Generic Drug Program

Comparison of Diabetes Medications Used by Adults With Commercial Insurance vs Medicare Advantage, 2016 to 2019

Clinical Outcome and Medical Cost of Originator and Generic Antihypertensive Drugs: A Population-Based Study in Yinzhou, China

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

Evaluating the Effects of Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations on Medicare Part D Drug Spending and Utilization

How Did Zero-Markup Medicines Policy Change Prescriptions in the Eyes of Patients?—A Retrospective Quasi-Experimental Analysis

Effects of Adopting Preventive Drug Lists on Medication Costs and Disparities by Income Over 2 Years: A Natural Experiment for Translation in Diabetes (NEXT-D) Study

Using Data From Routine Care to Estimate the Effectiveness and Potential Limitations of Outcomes-Based Contracts for Diabetes Medications

Do cost containment policies save money and influence physicians’ prescribing behavior? Lessons from South Korea’s drug policy for diabetes medication

Does Good Medication Adherence Really Save Payers Money?

Manufacturer-sponsored drug coupon use and drug-switching behavior among patients with type 2 diabetes