Generic levothyroxine initiation and substitution among Medicare and Medicaid populations: a new user cohort study

Understanding treatment patterns and patient-reported outcomes associated with the use of authorized generics and corresponding independent generics across multiple therapeutic areas

OBJECTIVES

To assess patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) associated with authorized generics (AGs) and independent generics (IGs) use.

METHODS

Prescription claims and National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data were linked. Adults with billable national drug code (AG or IG), NHWS completion from June 2015 to July 2019, AG or IG on-hand at NHWS completion, and continuous insurance eligibility in 12 months pre- and post-NHWS completion were included. To be included, all unique medication formulations had to have at least one AG and one IG observation. PRO index date was NHWS completion; claims index date was defined as the first prescription claim identified during the 180-day period prior to NHWS completion for the same active ingredient and formulation type that was on-hand at NHWS completion.

RESULTS

Patients (N = 20,229; 17.2% AG users) in six therapeutic areas (attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], antidepressants, beta blockers [BBs], calcium channel blockers [CCBs], statins, and thyroid) were included. Generally, AG (vs. IG) users were younger and differed in regional access and insurance type (all, p < .05). In multivariable analysis, significant differences were observed for presenteeism and overall work impairment (BBs), healthcare provider visits (BBs), and indirect costs (thyroid) (all, p < .05). AG and IG users differed in persistence (ADHD and statins; both, p < .05) and switch (BBs and CCBs; both, p < .01) rates.

CONCLUSIONS

PRO differences were often small in magnitude and varied by therapeutic area. The impact of switching should consider observed PRO differences, patient preferences, and market availability of AG and IG alternatives.

Cardiovascular outcomes and rates of fractures and falls among patients with brand-name versus generic L-thyroxine use

PURPOSE

To compare cardiovascular outcomes and rates of fractures and falls among patients with persistent brand-name versus generic L-thyroxine use.

METHODS

Retrospective, 1:1 propensity-matched longitudinal study using a national administrative claims database to examine adults (≥18 years) who initiated either brand or generic L-thyroxine between 2008 and 2018, censored at switch or discontinuation of L-thyroxine formulation or disenrollment from the health plan. Main outcome measures included rates of hospitalization for atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, stroke, spine and hip fractures, and rate of falls in the outpatient or inpatient setting. Hospitalizations for pneumonia were used as a negative control.

RESULTS

195,046 adults initiated treatment with L-thyroxine between 2008 and 2017: 87% generic and 13% brand formulations. They were mostly women (76%), young (94.6% under age 65), white (66%), and 47% had baseline thyroid stimulating hormone levels between 4.5 and 9.9 mIU/L. Among 35,667 propensity-matched patients, there were no significant differences between patients treated with brand versus generic L-thyroxine in atrial fibrillation (HR 0.96, 0.58-1.60), myocardial infarction (HR 0.66, 0.39-1.14), congestive heart failure (HR 1.30, 0.78-2.16), stroke (0.72, 0.49-1.06), spine (HR 0.87, 0.38-1.99) and hip fractures (HR 0.86, 0.26-2.82), or fall outcomes (HR 1.02, 0.14-7.32). Hospitalization rates for pneumonia (used as negative control) did not differ between groups (HR 0.85, 0.61-1.19). There were no interactions between brand versus generic L-thyroxine, these outcomes, and thyroid cancer, age, or L-thyroxine dose subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant differences in cardiovascular outcomes and rates of falls and fractures for patients who filled brand versus generic L-thyroxine.

Real world evidence in effectiveness, safety, and cost savings of generic levothyroxine: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Generic levothyroxine, approved through Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), is available for generic substitution. But ANDA does not require nonclinical or clinical data to establish safety and efficacy. Post-marketing evidence in generic equivalence for marketed levothyroxine products is limited. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize evidence in effectiveness, safety, and cost savings between patients using generic and branded levothyroxine.

METHODS

We systematically searched published literature from Medline, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL from inception through 04/18/2021. Included studies were limited to post-marketing empirical studies including patients who used levothyroxine products, with direct comparison between generic and brand levothyroxine, and published in English. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Institute of Health Study Quality Assessment Tools. Two reviewers independently extracted data and conducted quality assessment for included studies. Given that the nine studies are so diverse, a meta-analysis was not possible. Therefore we provided a narrative review of the included studies.

RESULTS

Of 349 studies identified, nine met the inclusion criteria. Six studies compared thyrotropin levels and adverse events between generic and brand users and provided mixed findings. In addition, generic users may generate prescription cost savings for payers but had suboptimal medication adherence than brand users.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this systematic review highlighted the limited and mixed evidence in real-world clinical and economic outcomes for generic levothyroxine. Continuous post-marketing monitoring and assessment of generic drugs are warranted to ensure treatment effectiveness, patient safety, and achieve financial savings in prescription costs.