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>

Evaluation of Switch‐to‐Brand Rates as a Potential Signal for Therapeutic Equivalency of Generic Antidepressants: A Real‐World Retrospective Cohort Study

Economic Impact of Therapeutic Substitution of a Brand Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor with an Alternative Generic Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

Drug Brand Response and Its Impact on Compliance and Efficacy in Depression Patients.

What is associated with increased side effects and lower perceived efficacy following switching to a generic medicine? A New Zealand cross-sectional patient survey

Impact of Brand-Name Drug Worship and Expectation Psychology on Antidepressant Efficacy.

Brand vs. Generic: Addressing Non-Adherence, Secular Trends, and Non-Overlap

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

Differences in rates of switchbacks after switching from branded to authorized generic and branded to generic drug products: cohort study

Healthcare utilization and costs incurred by patients with major depression after being switched from escitalopram to another SSRI for non-medical reasons.

Antidepressant switching as a proxy phenotype for drug non-response: investigating clinical, demographic and genetic characteristics

Pharmacoeconomic implications of preference toward reference- versus generic-brand antidepressants in primary care

Antidepressant therapeutic strategies and health care utilization in patients with depression

Relationship of pharmaceutical promotion to antidepressant switching and adherence: a retrospective cohort study

Comparative responses to 17 different antidepressants in major depressive disorder: Results from a 2‐year long‐term nation‐wide population‐based study emulating a randomized trial

A target trial emulation comparing the antidepressant effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) highlighting the importance of patent‐related confounding by indication

Comparative effectiveness of generic versus brand-name antiepileptic medications

A large-scale observational comparison of antidepressants and their effects

Initial antidepressant choice by non-psychiatrists: Learning from large-scale electronic health records

Treatment persistence, healthcare utilisation and costs in adult patients with major depressive disorder: a comparison between escitalopram and other SSRI/SNRIs.

Medication-Induced Weight Change Across Common Antidepressant Treatments : A Target Trial Emulation Study

Medication changes after switching from CONCERTA® brand methylphenidate HCl to a generic long-acting formulation: A retrospective database study