Comparative Outcomes of Treatment Initiation With Brand vs. Generic Warfarin in Older Patients

Comparative Bleeding Risk of Brand Vs Generic Rivaroxaban in Elderly Inpatients with Atrial Fibrillation

Objective

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common abnormal heart rhythm in elderly patients. Rivaroxaban has been widely used for stroke prevention. The anticoagulant response to rivaroxaban increases with age, which may make elderly patients susceptible to adverse outcomes resulting from small differences in bioavailability between generic and brand products.

Methods

We designed a cohort study of ≥65-year-old inpatients with AF. Sociodemographic and laboratory measures of qualified patients who received brand or generic rivaroxaban for at least 72 hours at the study hospital from January 2021 to June 2023 were collected retrospectively. The primary outcome was the incidence of bleeding.

Results

A total of 1008 qualifying patients were included for analysis, with 626 (62.1%) receiving brand rivaroxaban and 382 (37.9%) receiving generic rivaroxaban. After propensity score matching and weighting to account for confounders, the odds ratios comparing brand vs generic rivaroxaban (95% confidence intervals) for the bleeding was 1.15 (0.72-1.82). Results from subgroup analyses of patients with age ≥85, HAS-BLED score ≥ 3, containment of antiplatelet drugs, and female patients were consistent with the primary analysis.

Conclusion

It provides evidence regarding the clinical safety outcome of generic rivaroxaban in the elderly AF population that may be particularly susceptible to adverse outcomes resulting from small allowable differences in pharmacokinetics.

Pharmacokinetics and Generic Drug Switching: A Regulator's View

There appears to be a mismatch between the assumed therapeutic equivalence of generic drugs, their interchangeability, and reported clinical discomfort following generic drug use and drug switches. In this article, we describe why we are of the opinion that the current regulatory approach to the evaluation of generic drugs based on average bioequivalence is sufficient to expect therapeutic equivalence in the clinical setting. This has often been debated, specifically as adverse drug reactions related to generic drug switches are regularly reported. We agree that clinical discomfort during a bioequivalent drug switch may indeed be caused by different exposures to the active substance. However, this difference in exposure is not a result of the characteristics or quality of generic drugs; it is caused by the pharmacokinetic within-subject variability of the active substance, i.e., the variability on the bioavailability of the active substance, when comparing two occasions of administration of the same drug product, to the same patient. Therefore, reported clinical discomfort following generic drug use and drug switches does not warrant a change in the regulatory approach to the evaluation of the bioequivalence of generic drugs. Switching from a brand-name drug to currently approved generic drugs, or between different generic drugs, will in principle result in comparable exposure, within boundaries determined by the within-subject variability of the pharmacokinetics of the active substance involved.