Case-control analysis of ambulance, emergency room, or inpatient hospital events for epilepsy and antiepileptic drug formulation changes

Association of first anti-seizure medication choice with injuries in older adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy incidence increases exponentially in older adults, who are also at higher risk of adverse drug effects. Anti-seizure medications (ASM) may be associated with sedation and injuries, but discontinuation can result in seizures. We sought to determine whether there was an association between prescribing non-guideline concordant ASM and subsequent injury as this could inform care models.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of adults 50 years or older with newly-diagnosed epilepsy in 2015-16, sampled from the MarketScan Databases. The outcome of interest was injury within 1-year of ASM prescription (e.g., burns, falls) and the exposure of interest was ASM category (recommended vs. not recommended by clinical guidelines). Descriptive statistics characterized covariates and a multivariable Cox-regression model was built to examine the association between ASM category and subsequent injury.

RESULTS

5,931 people with newly diagnosed epilepsy were prescribed an ASM within 1-year. The three most common ASMs were: levetiracetam (62.86%), gabapentin (11.73%), and phenytoin (4.45%). Multivariable Cox-regression found that medication category was not associated with injury; however, older age (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) 1.01/year), history of prior injury (AHR 1.77), traumatic brain injury (AHR 1.55) and ASM polypharmacy (AHR 1.32) were associated with increased hazard of injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Most older adults appear to be getting appropriate first prescriptions for epilepsy. However, a substantial proportion still receives medication that guidelines suggest avoiding. In addition, we show that ASM polypharmacy is associated with an increased hazard of injury within 1- year. Efforts to improve prescribing in older adults with epilepsy should consider how to reduce. both polypharmacy and exposure to medications that guidelines recommend avoiding.

Shortages of antiseizure medications in Australia and the association with patient switching, and adherence in a community setting

PURPOSE

To quantify sponsor-reported shortages of oral antiseizure medications in Australia, estimate the number of patients impacted, and the association between shortages and brand or formulation switching, and changes in adherence.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of sponsor-reported shortages (defined as where the supply of a medicine will not or will not be likely to meet the demand over a 6-month period) of antiseizure medications reported to the Medicine Shortages Reports Database (Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia); cross-referencing shortages to the IQVIA-NostraData Dispensing Data (LRx) database, a deidentified, population-level dataset collecting longitudinal dispensation data on individual patients from ∼75% of Australian community pharmacy scripts.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven sponsor-reported ASM shortages were identified between 2019 and 2020; of those, 90 (93%) were shortages of generic ASM brands. Of 1,247,787 patients dispensed ≥1 ASMs, 242,947 (19.5%) were impacted by shortages. Sponsor-reported shortages occurred more frequently before the COVID-19 pandemic versus during the pandemic, however, shortages were estimated to affect more patients during the pandemic than before the pandemic. An estimated 330,872 patient-level shortage events were observed, and 98.5% were associated with shortages of generic ASM brands. Shortages occurred at a rate of 41.06 shortages per 100 person-years in patients on generic ASM brands versus 0.83 shortages per 100 person-years in patients on originator ASM brands. In patients taking a formulation of levetiracetam affected by a shortage, 67.6% switched to a different levetiracetam brand or formulation during shortages compared with 46.6% in non-shortage periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 20% of patients on ASMs were estimated to have been impacted by an ASM shortage in Australia. The rate of patient-level shortages was approximately 50 times higher for patients on generic ASM brands versus originator brands. Shortages of levetiracetam were associated with formulation and brand switching. Improved supply chain management amongst sponsors of generic ASMs is needed to maintain the continuity of supply in Australia.

Barriers to Generic Antiseizure Medication Use: Results of a Global Survey by the International League Against Epilepsy Generic Substitution Task Force

The objective of this study was to identify and quantify barriers to generic substitution of antiseizure medications (ASM). A questionnaire on generic ASM substitution was developed by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Task Force on Generic Substitution. Questions addressed understanding of bioequivalence, standards for generic products, experiences with substitution, and demographic data. The survey was web‐based and distributed to ILAE chapters, their membership, and professional colleagues of task force members. Comparisons in responses were between ILAE regions and country income classification. A total of 800 individuals responded, with 44.2% being from the Asia‐Oceania ILAE Region and 38.6% from European Region. The majority of respondents had little or no education in generic substitution or bioequivalence. Many respondents indicated lack of understanding aspects of generic substitution. Common barriers to generic substitution included limited access, poor or inconsistent quality, too expensive, or lack of regulatory control. Increase in seizures was the most common reported adverse outcome of substitution. Of medications on the World Health Organization Essential Medication list, problems with generic products were most frequent with carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and valproic acid. Several barriers with generic substitution of ASM revolved around mistrust of regulatory control and quality of generic ASM. Lack of education on generic substitution is also a concern. Generic ASM products may be the only option in some parts of the world and efforts should address these issues. Efforts to address these barriers should improve access to medications in all parts of the world.

Effects of generic exchange of solid oral dosage forms in neurological disorders: a systematic review

Background Generic drug exchange is common practice in most healthcare systems. While generics certainly contribute to economic savings, the altered drug formulation might be associated with potential therapeutic problems. Given the narrow therapeutic windows in neurologic indications, any detrimental effect on the therapy can lead to significant consequences. Aim of the review This review aims to investigate potential problems related to a switch from brand-name to generic or from generic to generic drug products in patients with neurologic diseases. Method The review was conducted following the PICO framework and the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched for articles published in English and German language between January 1, 1995 and October 17, 2018. Studies included in this review were randomized controlled studies, reviews, systematic reviews, overviews, cohort studies and case-control studies. Studies excluded were letters, comments, authors view, congress or seminar papers and studies with a focus on economic impact or costs. Results were synthesized qualitatively. The primary outcomes were pharmacokinetic parameters such as the area under the curve (AUC), the peak serum concentration (c_max) or the time at which c_max is observed (t_max). Results The search identified 67 studies with a great variety of endpoints and study designs. The leading indication was epilepsy. Two small RCTs were found on lamotrigine switch. Analysis of the other studies found no significant differences in pharmacokinetic parameters when switching to generic drugs. A more heterogeneous picture was revealed regarding hospitalizations, breakthrough seizures, failure of therapy, adherence and patient concerns. Conclusion While most reports were of poor quality, lamotrigine was the drug with the best available data. Summarizing the results of the available studies, pharmacokinetic parameters of antiepileptic drugs show low deviation. In contrast, data on clinical parameters are less consistent. Some studies found increased seizure frequencies and adverse-drug events, while others showed no complications. Adherence and patient satisfaction seemed to be impaired. In daily practice, generic exchange in epilepsy should be a carefully balanced decision, conducted with great caution. Further research is needed, especially regarding neurologic indications other than epilepsy.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Antiepileptic Drugs in Epilepsy: A 2018 Update

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of epilepsy treatment. Since 1989, 18 new AEDs have been licensed for clinical use and there are now 27 licensed AEDs in total for the treatment of patients with epilepsy. Furthermore, several AEDs are also used for the management of other medical conditions, for example, pain and bipolar disorder. This has led to an increasingly widespread application of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of AEDs, making AEDs among the most common medications for which TDM is performed. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the indications for AED TDM, to provide key information for each individual AED in terms of the drug's prescribing indications, key pharmacokinetic characteristics, associated drug-drug pharmacokinetic interactions, and the value and the intricacies of TDM for each AED. The concept of the reference range is discussed as well as practical issues such as choice of sample types (total versus free concentrations in blood versus saliva) and sample collection and processing.

METHODS

The present review is based on published articles and searches in PubMed and Google Scholar, last searched in March 2018, in addition to references from relevant articles.

RESULTS

In total, 171 relevant references were identified and used to prepare this review.

CONCLUSIONS

TDM provides a pragmatic approach to epilepsy care, in that bespoke dose adjustments are undertaken based on drug concentrations so as to optimize clinical outcome. For the older first-generation AEDs (carbamazepine, ethosuximide, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, and valproic acid), much data have accumulated in this regard. However, this is occurring increasingly for the new AEDs (brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine acetate, felbamate, gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, piracetam, pregabalin, rufinamide, stiripentol, sulthiame, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, and zonisamide).

Healthcare utilization and costs with fixed-source versus variable-source tacrolimus in patients receiving a kidney transplant

AIMS

Switching drug manufacturers in transplant patients may require an increased intensity of therapeutic monitoring, leading to additional healthcare visits, associated laboratory tests, and perhaps hospitalizations. As real-world studies examining the interchangeability of tacrolimus from different manufacturers are limited, the purpose of this study was to examine the healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and economic impact of tacrolimus-switching in kidney transplantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional, retrospective study examined HRU and healthcare costs (HCCs) among patients with a kidney transplant who were prescribed tacrolimus from fixed-source (FS) vs variable-source (VS) manufacturers using claims data from the large US health plan Humana from October 1, 2012, to December 31, 2013.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,024 patients were identified (FS: n = 674, 66%; VS: n = 350, 34%). The number of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) events for the VS group was 13% greater than for the FS group after controlling for demographics, comorbidity score, and number of medications (incidence rate ratio = 1.13, p = .033). Adjusted total HCCs were 9% lower for VS (US$28,054 vs US$30,823, p = .045). In the unadjusted analysis, VS had greater emergency department (ED) utilization (45% vs 35%, p < .002). In the VS group, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) number of days from manufacturer switch to first outpatient visit was 23.8 (33.6), and the number of days (SD) to first TDM event was 43.6 (56.2).

LIMITATIONS

Study limitations include the lack of availability of many transplant-specific variables within the Humana database, potential errors/omissions in claims coding, and restriction of cross-sectional data examination to a 1-year period.

CONCLUSIONS

VS patients had greater TDM and lower total HCCs. Further research is warranted to understand the drivers of ED use among the VS group, and to determine factors associated with delayed TDM after regimen modification. Opportunities may exist to improve the quality of care for patients receiving immunosuppressant treatment with tacrolimus.

Generic antiepileptic drugs-Safe or harmful in patients with epilepsy?

Generic antiepileptic drugs (AED) are significantly cheaper than brand name drugs, and may reduce overall health care expenditures. Regulatory bodies in Europe and North America require bioequivalence between generic and innovator drugs with regard to area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and peak plasma concentration (C_max ); strict cutoff values have been defined. The main issue is if bioequivalence ensures therapeutic equivalence. Are switches from brand to generic, or between generic AEDs entirely safe or potentially harmful in patients with epilepsy? We summarized and evaluated the available evidence from bioequivalence, health care utilization, and clinical studies on safety of generic AEDs. In most cases, variations in AUC and C_max were negligible when comparing innovator and generic AEDs. Due to interindividual pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability, measured differences between innovator and generic drugs may be the same as differences between different lots of the same brand. Studies from several countries based on insurance data have reported an increase in health care usage after switch from brand to generic AEDs; switchback rates are significantly higher for AEDs compared to other compounds. Patients may be confused, and nonadherence may increase, when AEDs are switched between manufacturers, perhaps due to changes in medication shape and color. But clinical studies do not report changes in seizure frequency and tolerability attributable to generics. Sufficient evidence indicates that most generics are bioequivalent to innovator AEDs; they do not pose a relevant risk for patients with epilepsy. However, some patients are reluctant towards variations in color and shape of their AEDs which may result in nonadherence. We recommend administering generics when a new AED is initiated. Switches from brand to generic AEDs for cost reduction and between generics, which is rarely required, generally seem to be safe, but should be accompanied by thorough counseling of patients on low risks.

Studies on drug switchability showed heterogeneity in methodological approaches: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Several drugs share the same therapeutic indication, including those undergoing patent expiration. Concerns on the interchangeability are frequent in clinical practice, challenging the evaluation of switchability through observational research. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review of observational studies on drug switchability to identify methodological strategies adopted to deal with bias and confounding.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (updated January 31, 2017) to identify studies evaluating switchability in terms of effectiveness/safety outcomes or compliance. Three reviewers independently screened studies extracting all characteristics. Strategies to address confounding, particularly previous drug use and switching reasons, were considered. All findings were summarized in descriptive analyses.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies, published in the last 10 years, met the inclusion criteria. Epilepsy, cardiovascular, and rheumatology were the most frequently represented clinical areas. Seventy-five percent of the studies reported data on effectiveness/safety outcomes. The most frequent study design was cohort (65.6%) followed by case-control (21.9%) and self-controlled (12.5%). Case-control and case-crossover studies showed homogeneous methodological strategies to deal with bias and confounding. Among cohort studies, the confounding associated with previous drug use was addressed introducing variables in multivariate model (47.3%) or selecting only adherent patients (14.3%). Around 30% of cohort studies did not report reasons for switching. In the remaining 70%, clinical parameters or previous occurrence of outcomes was measured to identify switching connected with lack of effectiveness or adverse events.

CONCLUSION

This study represents a starting point for researchers and administrators who are approaching the investigation and assessment of issues related to interchangeability of drugs.

Generic Versions of Narrow Therapeutic Index Drugs: A National Survey of Pharmacists' Substitution Beliefs and Practices

Small changes in bioavailability of narrow therapeutic index (NTI) drugs can alter clinical outcomes, raising concern over generic NTI substitution. We surveyed pharmacists to identify their perceptions of generic NTI drugs, their frequency of performing generic NTI substitution, and predictors of this behavior. Of 710 respondents (33% response rate), 87% perceived generic NTI drugs as effective as their brand-name versions and 94% as safe. Whereas 82% almost always performed generic NTI substitution for initial prescriptions, only 60% did for refills. Pharmacists in non-chain settings (odds ratio (OR) = 2.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.40-4.02), in practice longer (per year OR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.02-1.06), in states with affirmative patient consent laws (OR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.06-3.32), and in states with NTI-specific substitution requirements (OR = 1.95; 95% CI = 1.16-3.26) were more likely not to substitute initial prescriptions. Education of non-chain and veteran pharmacists and elimination of affirmative patient consent and NTI-specific substitution requirements could increase generic NTI substitution.

Safety of switching from brand-name to generic levetiracetam in patients with epilepsy

Purpose

The approach to the use of generic antiepileptic drugs has recently evolved from major concern to general acceptance, but the evidence related specifically to the safety of switching from brand-name to generic levetiracetam (LEV) is scarce. The aim of the study was to assess the risk of increased frequency of seizures or other adverse events after replacement of a brand-name LEV with a generic one.

Patients and methods

This retrospective analysis included 159 patients treated with LEV in a tertiary outpatient epilepsy clinic. We included all patients diagnosed with epilepsy who were treated with LEV as at March 1, 2013. Most patients were forced to switch to the generic LEV because of the sudden rise in cost of the branded LEV. We recorded data on age, sex, age at onset of epilepsy, type of epilepsy, and its treatment. We analyzed data from one visit before potential switching and from two visits after the potential switching. The interval between visits was typically 3 months. We registered an increase in the frequency of seizures and in the occurrence of adverse events.

Results

Among 151 subjects who switched to generic LEV after March 1, 2013, increased frequency of seizures was noted in 9 patients (6%) during the first follow-up visit. Patients with increased frequency of seizures did not differ from other patients regarding sex, age, age at the onset of epilepsy, and the median dose of LEV before switching or the median duration of treatment with LEV before switching. Two patients returned to brand-name LEV. Adverse events were noted in six other patients (4%) and included somnolence, irritability, or dizziness.

Conclusion

Switching from brand-name to generic LEV is generally safe.

Association between switching antiepileptic drug products and healthcare utilization: A systematic review

AIMS

There is ongoing concern whether switching between different antiepileptic drug (AED) products may compromise patient care. We systematically reviewed changes in healthcare utilization following AED switch.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (1980-October 2016) for studies that assessed the effect of AED switching in patients with epilepsy on outpatient visits, emergency room visits, hospitalization and hospital stay duration.

RESULTS

A total of 14 articles met the inclusion criteria. All were retrospective studies. Four provided findings for specific AEDs only (lamotrigine, topiramate, phenytoin and divalproex), 9 presented pooled findings from multiple AEDs, and 1 study provided both specific (lamotrigine, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, and levetiracetam) and pooled findings. Three studies found an association between a switch of topiramate and an increase in healthcare utilization. Another three studies found that a brand-to-generic lamotrigine switch was not associated with an increased risk of emergently treated events (ambulance use, ER visits or hospitalization). The outcomes of the pooled AED switch studies were inconsistent; 5 studies reported an increased healthcare utilization while 5 studies did not.

CONCLUSION

Studies that have examined the association between an AED switch and a change in healthcare utilization report conflicting findings. Factors that may explain these inconsistent outcomes include inter-study differences in the type of analysis undertaken (pooled vs individual AED data), the covariates used for data adjustment, and the type of switch examined. Future medical claim database studies employing a prospective design are encouraged to address these and other factors in order to enhance inter-study comparability and extrapolation of findings.

Welfare cost of childhood- and adolescent-onset epilepsy: A controlled national study

OBJECTIVES

Epilepsy is associated with a significant burden to patients and society. We calculated the factual excess in direct and indirect costs associated with childhood- and adolescent-onset epilepsy.

METHODS

Using records from the Danish National Patient Registry (1998-2002), we identified 3123 and 5018 patients with epilepsy aged 0-5years and 6-20years at the time of diagnosis, respectively. The two age groups of patients with epilepsy were matched to 6246 and 10,036 control persons without epilepsy, respectively, by gender, age, and geography. The controls were randomly chosen from the Danish Civil Registration System. Welfare costs included outpatient services, inpatient admissions, and emergency room visits based on the Danish National Patient Registry and information from the primary health-care sector based on data from the Danish Ministry of Health. This allowed the total health-care cost of epilepsy to be estimated. The use and costs of drugs were based on data from the Danish Medicines Agency. The frequencies of visits to outpatient clinics and hospitalizations and costs from primary sectors were based on data obtained from the National Patient Registry.

RESULTS

Children with epilepsy had higher welfare costs than controls. The highest cost was found one year after diagnosis, with higher costs up to 10years after diagnosis compared with controls. Children aged 0-5years incurred greater health-care costs than those aged 6-20years.

CONCLUSION

Epilepsy has major socioeconomic consequences for the individual person with epilepsy and for society.

Medicare Part D payments for neurologist-prescribed drugs

OBJECTIVE

To describe neurologists' Medicare Part D prescribing patterns and the potential effect of generic substitutions and price negotiation, which is currently prohibited.

METHODS

The 2013 Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use and Summary files were used. Payments for medications were aggregated by provider and drug (brand or generic). Payment, proportion of generic claims or day's supply, and median payment per monthly supply of medication were calculated by physician specialty and drug. Savings from generic substitution were estimated for brand drugs with a generic available. Medicare prices were compared to drug prices negotiated by the federal government with pharmaceutical manufacturers for the Veterans Administration (VA).

RESULTS

Neurologists comprised 13,060 (1.2%) providers with $5.0 billion (4.8%) in total payments, third highest of all specialties, with a median monthly payment of $141 (interquartile range $85-225). Multiple sclerosis drugs had the highest payments ($1.8 billion). Within neurologic disease groups ($3.4 billion in payments), 54.2%-91.8% of monthly supplies were generic, but 11.9%-71.3% of the payment was for generic medications. Generic substitution resulted in a $269 million (6.5%) payment decrease. VA pricing resulted in $1.5 billion (44.5% of $3.4 billion) in savings.

CONCLUSIONS

High payment per monthly supply of medication underlies the high total neurology drug payments and is driven by multiple sclerosis drugs. Lowering drug expenditures by Medicare should focus on drug prices.

Generic-to-generic lamotrigine switches in people with epilepsy: the randomised controlled EQUIGEN trial

BACKGROUND

Patients and clinicians share concerns that generic drug substitution might lead to loss of efficacy or emergence of adverse events. In this trial, we assessed US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bioequivalence standards by studying the effects of switching between two disparate generic immediate-release lamotrigine products in patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

The Equivalence among Generic Antiepileptic Drugs (EQUIGEN) chronic-dose study was a randomised, double-blind, crossover study that enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with epilepsy from six epilepsy centres at academic institutions across the USA who were receiving immediate-release lamotrigine dosed at 100 mg, 200 mg, 300 mg, or 400 mg twice daily. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to one of two treatment sequences (sequence 1 or sequence 2), comprising four study periods of 14 days each. During each 14-day treatment period, patients received balanced doses of an oral generic lamotrigine product every 12 h (200-800 mg total, identical to lamotrigine dose prior to study enrolment); after each 14-day period, patients were crossed over to receive the other generic product. Computer-based randomisation was done using random permuted blocks of size two or four for each site to prevent sequence predictability. Both patients and study personnel were masked to the generic products selected, their predicted exposure (ie, "high" vs "low"), and their group allocation. The primary outcome of this trial was bioequivalence between the generic products, which was assessed at the end of the study through a comparison of maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) for each product in the analysis population (all patients who completed all four treatment periods). Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CIs of the ratios of these two parameters for the two products were within equivalence limits (80-125%) in the analysis population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov\, number NCT01713777.

FINDINGS

Between April 25, 2013, and Aug 12, 2014, 35 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment sequence 1 (n=15) or treatment sequence 2 (n=20). 33 patients completed all four treatment periods and were included in the primary outcome analysis. The 90% CIs of the ratios of both Cmax and AUC were within equivalence limits (AUC 90% CI 98-103, Cmax 90% CI 99-105), showing that lamotrigine exposures were equivalent between the generic products. No significant changes in seizure frequency or adverse events were recorded. No deaths, study-related serious adverse events, or changes in clinical laboratory values or vital signs occurred during this study.

INTERPRETATION

Disparate generic lamotrigine products in patients with epilepsy showed bioequivalence with no detectable difference in clinical effects, confirming that US Food and Drug Administration bioequivalence standards are appropriate.

FUNDING

American Epilepsy Society, Epilepsy Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration.

A comparison of the intrasubject variation in drug exposure between generic and brand-name drugs: a retrospective analysis of replicate design trials

AIMS

The aim of the present study was to investigate whether differences in total and peak drug exposure upon generic substitution are due to differences between formulations or to intrasubject pharmacokinetic variability of the active substance.

METHODS

The study was designed as a retrospective reanalysis of existing studies. Nine replicate design bioequivalence studies representing six drug classes - i.e. for alendronate, atorvastatin, cyclosporin, ebastine, exemestane, mycophenolate mofetil, and ropinirole - were retrieved from the Dutch Medicines Regulatory Authority.

RESULTS

In most studies, the intrasubject variability in total and peak drug exposure was comparable for the brand-name [in the range 0.01-0.24 for area under the concentration-time curve (AUCt ) and 0.02-0.29 for peak plasma concentration (Cmax ) on a log scale] and generic (0.01-0.23 for AUCt and 0.08-0.33 for Cmax ) drugs, and was comparable with the intrasubject variability upon switching between those drugs (0.01-0.23 for AUCt and 0.06-0.33 for Cmax ). The variance related to subject-by-formulation interaction could be considered negligible (-0.069 to 0.047 for AUCt and -0.091 to 0.02 for Cmax ).

CONCLUSION

In the investigated studies, the variation in total and peak exposure seen when a patient is switched from a brand-name to a generic drug is comparable with that seen following repeated administration of the brand-name drug in the patient. Only the intrasubject variability seems to play a crucial and decisive role in the variation in drug exposure seen; no additional formulation-dependent variation in exposure is observed upon switching. Thus, our data support that, for the medicines that were included in the present investigation, from a clinical pharmacological perspective, the benefit-risk balance of a generic drug is comparable with that of the brand-name drug.

Comparative effectiveness of generic versus brand-name antiepileptic medications

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare treatment persistence and rates of seizure-related events in patients who initiate antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy with a generic versus a brand-name product.

METHODS

We used linked electronic medical and pharmacy claims data to identify Medicare beneficiaries who initiated one of five AEDs (clonazepam, gabapentin, oxcarbazepine, phenytoin, zonisamide). We matched initiators of generic versus brand-name versions of these drugs using a propensity score that accounted for demographic, clinical, and health service utilization variables. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to compare rates of seizure-related emergency room (ER) visit or hospitalization (primary outcome) and ER visit for bone fracture or head injury (secondary outcome) between the matched generic and brand-name initiators. We also compared treatment persistence, measured as time to first 14-day treatment gap, between generic and brand-name initiators.

RESULTS

We identified 19,760 AED initiators who met study eligibility criteria; 18,306 (93%) initiated a generic AED. In the matched cohort, we observed 47 seizure-related hospitalizations and ER visits among brand-name initiators and 31 events among generic initiators, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.96). Similar results were observed for the secondary clinical endpoint and across sensitivity analyses. Mean time to first treatment gap was 124.2 days (standard deviation [sd], 125.8) for brand-name initiators and 137.9 (sd, 148.6) for generic initiators.

SIGNIFICANCE

Patients who initiated generic AEDs had fewer adverse seizure-related clinical outcomes and longer continuous treatment periods before experiencing a gap than those who initiated brand-name versions.

Clinical and economic burden of breakthrough seizures

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to measure health-care resource utilization and costs in treatment-adherent, previously seizure-free patients with epilepsy who were treated in the inpatient/emergency room (ER) setting for new-onset seizures, compared with matched controls.

METHODS

The study used a retrospective case/control study design using administrative claims from the IMS PharMetrics™ database. We identified adult patients with epilepsy with 1+ ER visit/hospitalization with primary diagnosis of epilepsy between 1/1/2006 and 3/31/2011, preceded by 6months of seizure-free activity and antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment adherence (≥80% of days covered by any AED); the first observed seizure defined the "breakthrough" seizure/index event. Treatment-adherent patients with epilepsy without any ER/hospital admission for seizures served as controls: an outpatient epilepsy-related medical claim within the selection window was chosen at random as the index date. The following were continuous enrollment requirements for all patients: ≥12-month pre- and ≥6-month postindex. Each case matched 1:1 to a control using propensity score matching. All-cause and epilepsy-related (epilepsy/convulsion diagnosis, AED pharmacy) resource utilization and unadjusted and adjusted direct health-care costs (per person, 2012 US dollars (USD)) were assessed in a 6-month follow-up period.

PRINCIPAL RESULTS

There were 5729 cases and 14,437 controls eligible. The final sample comprised 5279 matched case/control pairs. In unadjusted analyses, matched cases had significantly higher rates of all-cause hospitalization and ER visits compared to controls and significantly higher total all-cause direct health-care costs (median $12,714 vs. $5095, p<0.001) and total epilepsy-related costs among cases vs. controls (median $7293 vs. $1712, p<0.001), driven by higher inpatient costs. Among cases, costs increased with each subsequent seizure (driven by inpatient costs). Cases had 2.3 times higher adjusted all-cause costs and 8.1 times higher adjusted epilepsy-related costs than controls (both p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Inpatient/ER-treated breakthrough seizures occurred among 28.4% of our treatment-adherent study sample and were associated with significant incremental health-care utilization and costs, primarily driven by hospitalizations. Our findings suggest the need for better seizure control via optimal patient management and the use of effective AED therapy, which can potentially lower health-care costs.

[Original preparations versus generics--latanoprost: how similar is different?]

BACKGROUND

To test the interchangeability of the commercially available (in Germany) latanoprost drugs and their generics respectively, the concentration of the active substance was tested. Guidelines of the European Medicines Agency postulate a sufficient bioequivalence, if the range of the agent is within 80-125% of the original drug.

METHODS

All compounds of latanoprost were procured registered. The concentration of latanoprost and benzalkoniumchloride was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) in a validated reference labroratory for 23 generics. In addition, the mean volume of drops and the pH of the formulation were measured. The packaging label and the readability of the enclosed information leaflet were checked.

RESULTS

All products contained less than 50 μg/ml latanoprost. The deviating reduction of the active substance (mean: - 7.39%, ± 2.8%) was accompanied by fluctions of the eyedrops' mass (mean: 0.03 g, ± 0.002 g). The concentration of benzalkonium chloride was mostly increased (median: 5.45%, min: - 2.5%, max: 11.5%). The pH of the original drug and the generics (median 6.78, min: 6.62, max: 6.81) was similar to the original drug, but was significantly different from an unpreserved formulation (pH 7.18). Due to type size, the packaging leaflet was illegible for humans with impaired vision.

CONCLUSIONS

Before prescribing generics in ophthalmology, different factors have to be considered, which might influence the amount of IOP lowering in effect. In the absence of healthcare research it is still unclear, how different bottle forms of eyedrops--such as appearance (e.g. Cyrillic characters) or pressure point (administration)--reduce the adherence of glaucoma patients.

Factors associated with seizure recurrence in epilepsy patients treated with antiepileptic monotherapy: A retrospective observational cohort study using US administrative insurance claims

BACKGROUND

Few studies examine predictors of seizures in medically treated patients with epilepsy receiving antiepileptic monotherapy using a large patient population.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to identify clinical, medication, and demographic factors associated with seizure recurrence in medically treated patients with epilepsy receiving one of four antiepileptic monotherapy regimens: lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Innovus Invision™ Data Mart paid medical and prescription US commercial insurance claims data from January 2007 to September 2010.

METHODS

Patients aged 18-64 years with a primary or secondary diagnosis of epilepsy and one or more prescription claim for an antiepileptic drug (AED) pre-index were included. The primary outcome was incidence of a seizure or seizure-related event, defined as an emergency room visit, ambulance service use, or inpatient hospitalization medical claim with a primary or secondary diagnosis of epilepsy during the 1-year follow-up. The factors included AED adherence, somatic comorbidity (measured via Charlson Comorbidity Index), mental health comorbidity, pre-index seizure, type of epilepsy diagnosis, presence of AED-interacting medications and any bioequivalent AED switch. The covariates included age, gender, and geographic region of residence.

RESULTS

A total of 5.3 % (166/3,140) of patients on AED monotherapy had experienced a seizure or a seizure-related event requiring urgent care at 1-year follow-up. The multivariate analysis of the combined cohort showed that pre-index seizures/seizure-related events (odds ratio [OR] 4.23; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.77-6.46), any mental health comorbidity (OR 3.50; 95 % CI 2.14-5.70), and Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥1 (OR 2.91; 95 % CI 1.98-4.28) were significantly associated with post-index seizures/seizure-related events. Patients residing in Northeastern USA had a higher likelihood of a post-index seizure (OR 1.90; 95 % CI 1.17-3.08) than patients residing in the Southern region of the USA. Bioequivalent AED switch, type of epilepsy diagnosis, AED adherence, and presence of AED-interacting medications were not associated with seizure recurrence in the combined cohort analysis (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Epilepsy patients with comorbid conditions (both mental and somatic diseases) and prior seizures were more likely to experience seizures at 1-year follow-up. Non-adherent patients and patients with bioequivalent AED switches appeared to show no increased likelihood of seizure at follow-up. Clinicians may consider these findings before starting or transitioning to an AED monotherapy.

The impact on health outcomes and healthcare utilisation of switching to generic medicines consequent to reference pricing: the case of lamotrigine in New Zealand

BACKGROUND

Many countries have implemented generic reference pricing and substitution as methods of containing pharmaceutical expenditure. However, resistance to switching between medicines is apparent, especially in the case of anti-epileptic medicines.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to exploit a nation-wide policy intervention on generic reference pricing in New Zealand to evaluate the health outcomes of patients switching from originator to generic lamotrigine, an anti-epileptic medicine.

METHODS

A retrospective study using the national health collections and prescription records was conducted comparing patients who switched from originator brand to generic lamotrigine with patients who remained on the originator brand. Primary outcome measures included switch behaviour, changes in utilisation of healthcare services at emergency departments, hospitalisations and use of specialist services, and mortality.

RESULTS

Approximately one-quarter of all patients using the originator brand of lamotrigine switched to generic lamotrigine, half of whom made the switch within 60 days of the policy implementation. Multiple switches (three or more) between generic and brand products were evident for around 10% of switchers. Switch-back rates of 3% were apparent within 30 days post-switch. No difference in heath outcome measures was associated with switching from originator lamotrigine to a generic equivalent and hence no increased costs could be found for switchers.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from brand to generic lamotrigine is largely devoid of adverse health outcomes; however, creating an incentive to ensure a greater proportion of patients switch to generic lamotrigine is required to achieve maximal financial savings from a policy of generic reference pricing.

Bioequivalent antiepileptic drug switching and the risk of seizure-related events

BACKGROUND

Older antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are known to have a narrow therapeutic index. As a consequence, switching between bioequivalent AEDs remains controversial in the management of epilepsy. We investigated the association between A-rated switching of each class of currently available AED and emergent treatment for a seizure-related event.

METHODS

We used a case-control method and claims data from the 2010 to 2011 Truven Health MarketScan(®) Commercial Claims Database to estimate the risk of seizure following a medication switch. Cases and controls with an epilepsy diagnosis were identified by emergency/inpatient or outpatient visit claims, respectively. Cases and controls (N=9110) were matched 1:1 by age, epilepsy diagnosis category and seizure medication. The exposure was defined as a switch between A-rated AEDs during the 90 days prior to index date. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the association, adjusting for gender, baseline Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index (0, 1, 2, or 3+), region (Northeast, Central, South, and West), and total AED medications.

RESULTS

A switch between A-rated AEDs occurred in 1053 (23.2%) cases and 827 (18.1%) matched controls. The unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of a seizure-related event for switching were 1.38 (95% CI: 1.25-1.52) and 1.27 (95% CI: 1.14-1.41), respectively. The independent risk of an event also increased with each category increase in the Charlson score (CCI=1: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.02-1.33; CCI=2: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.09-1.62; CCI=3+: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.64-2.41). Older AEDs had infrequent switches compared to newer agents and were not associated with events.

DISCUSSION

We found a modest association between AED switching and seizure-related events. Our analysis suggests that the behavior of switching alone may lead to seizure-related events regardless of the medication or type of switch. Other disease or environmental characteristics may contribute to this association. Based on these and other findings, health care professionals and patients should be cautious about switching bioequivalent AEDs.

Rational use of generic psychotropic drugs

For economic reasons, the generic substitution of branded medications is common and welcome. These replacements are based on the concept of bioequivalence, which is considered equal to therapeutic equivalence. Regulatory standards for bioequivalence require the 90 % confidence intervals of group averages of pharmacokinetic measures of a generic and the original drug to overlap within ±20 %. However, therapeutic equivalence has been challenged for several psychotropic agents by retrospective studies and case reports. To evaluate the degree of bioequivalence and therapeutic equivalence of branded and generic psychotropic drugs, we performed an electronic search (from database inception until 24 May 2012 and without language restrictions) in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Search terms were "(generic) AND (psychotropic OR psychoactive OR antipsychotic OR antiepileptic OR antidepressant OR stimulant OR benzodiazepine)" or the respective individual substances. We included clinical studies, regardless of design, comparing branded with generic psychotropic drug formulations, identifying 35 such studies. We also included case reports/series reporting on outcomes after a switch between brand and generic psychotropics, identifying 145 clinical cases. Bioequivalence studies in healthy controls or animals, in-vitro studies, and health economics studies without medical information were excluded. An overview of the few randomized controlled studies supports that US FDA regulations assure clinically adequate drug delivery in the majority of patients switched from brand to generic. However, with a growing number of competing generic products for one substance, and growing economic pressure to substitute with the currently cheapest generic, frequent generic-generic switches, often unbeknownst to prescribing clinicians, raise concerns, particularly for antiepileptics/mood stabilizers. Generic-generic switches may vary by more than ±20 % from each other in individual patients since the pharmacokinetic properties of each generic may differ from the innovator drug in opposing directions. Ideally, therapeutic equivalence studies in addition to pharmacokinetic equivalence studies would be performed for each generic, reflecting the full variability of clinical responses due to changes of pharmacokinetic properties related to age, sex, ethnicity, genetic factors, and body mass index. This is particularly relevant, as bioequivalence studies are based on single-dose studies in healthy controls who are likely not representative of the patients who are prescribed the psychotropic medications. Additionally, individual case reports suggest potential clinical effects during brand-generic switches. Knowledge and consideration of intra-individual variations can help guide the clinical management during brand-generic or generic-generic switch periods. To optimize outcomes, clinicians need to consider that when using generic psychotropic medications, a change in the patient's clinical status can be related to psychological, interactional, physiological, and pharmacological factors that may or may not be related to the change to a generic drug. In addition, throughout all treatment periods, clinicians need to be aware of the currently dispensed product (i.e., branded or exact generic formulation), particularly when evaluating clinical changes in efficacy, tolerability, and adherence. If clinical problems occur, the first response should be an assessment of adherence and a careful dose adjustments of the generic drug rather than an immediate switch back to the originator.

Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs: What's a clinician to do?

Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs remains a controversial area without a clear consensus to guide clinicians. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires rigorous testing of generic products and states that all approved products are interchangeable. FDA studies involve single doses in normal subjects so may not represent the performance of generic products in people with epilepsy. Physician surveys, case reports, and retrospective pharmacy database analyses suggest that antiepileptic drug generic substitution is associated with more health problems and high switchback rates, but these studies have insufficient detail on seizure control and blood levels. Several ongoing prospective randomized trials with rigorous pharmacokinetic methods aim to provide more data for decision-making.

Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs--a survey of patients' perspectives in Germany and other German-speaking countries

In this study, we sought to determine the patients' attitudes towards generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and their experiences with the usage of generic antiepileptic drugs in Germany and other German-speaking countries. A questionnaire was designed for a cross-sectional study. Two thousand copies of the questionnaire were delivered with a magazine edited by a patients' organization. Additionally, the questionnaire was placed on the internet platform of another patients' organization. Thirty-two percent of the patients who already experienced a switch to generic AEDs complained of problems with the switch. Patients who answered the magazine survey worried significantly more about generic substitution of AEDs than patients who answered the internet version. Patients who had never switched were more concerned about generic substitution than those who had already switched. Moreover, patients' beliefs differed between the use of generic drugs in acute medical conditions such as pain and infections and the use of generic AEDs in epilepsy.

Generic antiepileptic drug prescribing: a cross-sectional study

The use of generic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in patients with epilepsy is controversial. The purpose of this study is to identify patient characteristics associated with increased odds of receiving a generic AED product. A large commercial database was used to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of epilepsy who were prescribed an AED during a three-month window. Data analysis found that those ≥65 years old had 15.7% greater odds of receiving a generic AED (OR = 1.157; 95% CI = 1.056-1.268). Patients with Medicaid were found to have 2.44 times the odds of having had a generic AED prescription (OR = 2.44; CI = 2.168-2.754). Patients residing in the Northeast had 12.6% decreased odds of receiving a generic AED (OR = 0.874; C I= 0.821-0.931). These patient characteristics could signify certain health care disparities and may represent potential confounders to future observational studies.

Generic substitution of lamotrigine among medicaid patients with diverse indications: a cohort-crossover study

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists about the safety of substituting generic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Lamotrigine, the prototypical newer AED, is often used for psychiatric and neurological conditions other than epilepsy. The safety of generic substitution of lamotrigine in diverse populations of AED users is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate potential associations between generic substitution of lamotrigine and adverse consequences in a population of diverse users of this drug.

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a retrospective cohort-crossover design using state Medicaid claims data from July 2006 through June 2009.

METHODS

Subjects were included in the cohort if they converted from brand to generic lamotrigine and had 2 years of lamotrigine use prior to conversion. The frequency of emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations and condition-specific ED visits or hospitalizations were recorded in the 60 days immediately following the conversion to generic lamotrigine, then compared with the incidence of the same events during a randomly selected time period indexed to one of the patient's past refills of branded lamotrigine. Multivariate conditional logistic regression was used to quantify the association between generic conversion and health services utilization while controlling for changes in lamotrigine dose and concurrent drug use.

RESULTS

Of the 616 unique subjects included in this analysis, epilepsy was the most common diagnosis (41%), followed by bipolar disorder (32%), pain (30%) and migraine (18%). Conversion to generic lamotrigine was not associated with a statistically significant increase in the odds of an ED visit (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92, 1.97), hospitalization (AOR = 1.21; 95% CI 0.60, 2.50) or condition-specific encounter (AOR 1.75; 95 CI 0.87, 3.51).

CONCLUSIONS

A statistically significant increase in ED visits, hospitalizations or condition-specific encounters was not observed following the switch from brand to generic lamotrigine, although a type II error cannot be ruled out.

Efficacy and safety of innovator versus generic drugs in patients with epilepsy: a systematic review

Generic antiepileptic drugs achieve blood concentrations similar to those of innovator drugs in healthy volunteers, but their comparative effectiveness has not been well evaluated. Thus, we assessed the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of innovator versus generic antiepileptic drugs. We searched the MEDLINE database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science for studies that evaluated innovator and generic antiepileptic drugs in patients with epilepsy and reported data on prespecified outcomes. We extracted data on study design, interventions, quality criteria, study population, baseline characteristics, and outcomes. Compared with initiation of innovator antiepileptic drugs, initiation of generic antiepileptic drugs did not significantly alter seizure occurrence (relative risk [RR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.18; strength of evidence: low) or frequency (standardized mean difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.08-0.14; strength of evidence: low), withdrawals due to lack of efficacy (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.41-2.54; strength of evidence: low) or adverse events (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.28-2.20; strength of evidence: low), pharmacokinetic concentrations (maximum, minimum, or area under the curve [strength of evidence: low]), or a myriad of adverse events (strength of evidence: low or insufficient) in clinical trials. In qualitatively evaluated observational studies, switching between forms of antiepileptic drug (innovator to generic, generic to generic) may increase the risk of hospitalization (strength of evidence: low), hospital stay duration (strength of evidence: low), and a composite end point of medical service utilization (strength of evidence: insufficient) but may not increase outpatient service utilization (strength of evidence: low). Data are limited predominantly to carbamazepine, phenytoin, and valproic acid. Clinical trials are limited by small sample size, short-term nature, and lack of specification of A-rated generic products (generics that the United States Food and Drug Administration has deemed bioequivalent to the innovator drug). Observational trials lack full accounting for confounders and have inherent limitations. With a low strength of evidence, it appears that initiating an innovator or generic antiepileptic drug will provide similar efficacy, tolerability, and safety but that switching from one form to the other may be associated with more hospitalizations and longer hospital stays.

Clinical outcomes associated with brand-to-generic phenytoin interchange

BACKGROUND

Concerns that antiepileptic brand-to-generic interchange results in disruption of seizure control are widespread. However, little within-patient evidence exists examining such interchanges.

OBJECTIVE

To compare within-patient seizure control before and after the interchange of a branded to a single-source generic phenytoin among patients with seizures in a managed care organization.

METHODS

This was a pre-post, self-controlled, retrospective study. Adults with a history of seizure who used Dilantin Kapseals 100 mg extended phenytoin sodium, USP, capsules and whose therapy was interchanged to Taro Pharmaceuticals' AB-rated generic extended phenytoin sodium capsules, USP, 100 mg between July 2007 and May 2008 were included. Study outcomes included the comparisons of the proportions of patients with at least emergency department (ED) visit/inpatient hospitalization and medical office visit/nonoffice consultation for acute seizure in the 6 months before and after interchange. Outcomes were confirmed with manual chart reviews and adjusted for potential confounding medication use.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were included in the study. Patients were primarily middle-aged (mean 56 years), equally mixed by sex (47% female); most had nonintractable seizures. The majority of patients (~70%) were on phenytoin as monotherapy and had equivalent rates of purchases for potentially confounding medications in both pre- and postinterchange time periods (all p > 0.05). Low serum concentrations were detected more often in the postinterchange study period (adjusted p < 0.001). Despite this, there were low proportions of patients with confirmed seizure events that resulted in an ED visit/inpatient hospitalization in both pre- and postinterchange periods (both 6.3%, adjusted p = 0.937). The proportion of patients with confirmed seizure events diagnosed at a medical office visit was not significantly different between the preinterchange and postinterchange periods (12.2% vs 11.3%, adjusted p = 0.545).

CONCLUSIONS

No increased proportion of seizures was observed within patients when branded phenytoin was interchanged to an AB-rated, single-source, generic equivalent. More rigorous studies should be conducted to more thoroughly evaluate patient tolerability and drug efficacy when antiepileptic drugs are interchanged from brand to generic formulations.

Generic Substitution of Antiepileptic Drugs: A Systematic Review of Prospective and Retrospective Studies

Objective:

To systematically review the literature on generic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), evaluate the efficacy and safety of generic AED substitution, and perform pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis using the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) scheme to classify evidence.

Data Sources:

PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature searches from January 1, 1980, to October 15, 2010, were performed using the search terms anticonvulsant, antiepileptic drug, carbamazepine, divalproex, ethosuximide, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, phénobarbital, Phenytoin, primidone, topiramate, valproate, valproic acid, and zonisamide; bioavailability, bioequivalence, bioequivalency, bioequivalent, and substitution; and generic.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

Retrospective and prospective controlled studies of generic substitution of AEDs were included in the review. Non-English-language articles and uncontrolled clinical studies were excluded, Published articles were categorized using the AAN criteria for systematic reviews.

Data Synthesis:

We identified 156 articles. Of these, 20 met our inclusion criteria; 7 were retrospective studies, 6 were prospective studies in patients with epilepsy, and 7 were prospective studies in healthy subjects. All articles were rated Class I to Class III, using AAN criteria. The retrospective studies were categorized as Class III and showed a significant relationship between generic substitution and increased use of health care resources because of seizures or AED toxicity. Prospective studies were categorized as Class I, II, and III. Prospective studies in patients showed no differences between brand and generic drugs in PK parameters of bioequivalence. Three prospective studies in healthy subjects reported significant differences in maximum drug concentrations. Comparison of brand and generic drugs revealed no significant difference in seizure frequency; however, some prospective studies showed significant differences in PK parameters, primarily those not used for bioequivalence determinations.

Conclusions:

There is inconsistency between retrospective and prospective studies of generic AED substitution. The highest levels of evidence indicate that there should not be a problem with generic substitution, although some patients are more prone to problems with the generic products. Some evidence suggests that switches between multiple generic AED products in certain individuals may be problematic.

Clinical and pharmacy utilization outcomes with brand to generic antiepileptic switches in patients with epilepsy

PURPOSE

To determine if switching from select branded to generic equivalent antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in patients with epilepsy is associated with adverse outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using a large health insurance plan claims database comparing patients with epilepsy who switched from brand to generic equivalent phenytoin, lamotrigine, or divalproex after 6 months (switch cohorts) to matched patients who remained on the brand (nonswitch cohorts). Primary outcomes measured include the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of discontinuation of the index AED; change in dose of index AED or addition of another AED; and the event rate ratio (ERR) of the composite of all-cause emergency department (ED) visits or hospitalizations.

KEY FINDINGS

Lamotrigine and divalproex showed no differences in AED utilization changes between the switchers and nonswitchers [IRR for lamotrigine 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.19; IRR for divalproex 1.02, 95% CI, 0.88-1.42]. Compared with nonswitchers, the phenytoin switch cohort had greater incidence of AED utilization changes (IRR 1.85, 95% CI 1.50-2.29). The switch versus nonswitch cohorts did not demonstrate differences in ED visits or hospitalizations for the studied AEDs (ERR for phenytoin 0.96, 95% CI 0.80-1.16; ERR for lamotrigine 0.97, 95% CI 0.80-1.17; ERR for divalproex 0.83, 95% CI 0.66-1.06).

SIGNIFICANCE

Brand to generic switching of phenytoin was not associated with more clinical events but was associated with increased index drug discontinuations, dose changes, or therapy augmentations. Lamotrigine or divalproex brand to generic switching was not associated with increased incidence of events or utilization changes compared with patients remaining on the branded product. Changes in AED utilization may be more sensitive than ED visits and hospitalizations for detecting adverse outcomes.

Switching from brand-name to generic psychotropic medications: a literature review

Generic medications do not undergo the rigorous approval process required of original medications. Their effectiveness and safety is expected to be equal to that of their more expensive counterparts. However, several case reports and studies describe clinical deterioration and decreased tolerability with generic substitution. Pubmed was searched from January 1, 1974 to March 1, 2010. The MeSH term "generic, drugs" was combined with "anticonvulsants," "mood stabilizers," "lithium," "antidepressants," "antipsychotics," "anxiolytics," and "benzodiazepines." Additional articles were obtained by searching the bibliographies of relevant references. Articles in English, French, or Spanish were considered if they discussed clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name medications, generic substitution, or issues about effectiveness, tolerability, compliance, or economics encountered with generics. Clinical deterioration, adverse effects, and changes in pharmacokinetics are described with generic substitution of several anticonvulsants/mood stabilizers (carbamazepine, valproate, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, lithium), antidepressants (amitriptyline, nortriptyline, desipramine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, citalopram, sertraline, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, bupropion), antipsychotics (risperidone, clozapine), and anxiolytics (clonazepam, alprazolam). Generics do not always lead to the anticipated monetary savings and also raise compliance issues. Although the review is limited by publication bias and heterogeneity of the studies in the literature, we believe there is enough concern to advise generic switching on an individual basis with close monitoring throughout the transition. Health professionals should be aware of the stakes around generic substitution especially when health economics promote universal use of generics.

Refilling and switching of antiepileptic drugs and seizure-related events

We sought to estimate the risk of seizure-related events associated with refilling prescriptions for antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and to estimate the effect of switching between brand-name and generic drugs or between two generic versions of the same drug. We conducted a case-crossover study using health-care databases from British Columbia, Canada, among AED users who had an emergency room visit or hospitalization for seizure (index seizure-related event), defined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9) codes 345.xx (epilepsy and recurrent seizures) and 780.3x (convulsions), between 1997 and 2005. AED prescription refilling itself was associated with 2.3-fold elevated odds of seizure-related events when the refill occurred within 21 days before the index event (odds ratio (OR) 2.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56-3.44). The OR was 2.75 (95% CI 0.88-8.64) for refills that involved switching, yielding a refill-adjusted OR for switching of 1.19 (95% CI 0.35-3.99). Refilling the same AED prescription was associated with an elevated risk of seizure-related events whether or not the refill involved switching from a brand-name to a generic product.

Economic burden associated with the use of generic antiepileptic drugs in the United States

This study quantifies the economic burden associated with generic-versus-branded use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the United States. Adult patients with epilepsy receiving carbamazepine, gabapentin, phenytoin, primidone, or zonisamide were selected from the PharMetrics database. By use of an open-cohort design, patients were classified into mutually exclusive periods of generic-versus-branded AED use. Annualized cost differences (CDs) between periods were estimated using multivariate regressions. Results were stratified into stable versus unstable epilepsy and newer-generation versus older-generation AEDs. A total of 33,625 patients (52% male, mean age=51 years) were observed. Periods of generic AED treatment were associated with higher medical service costs (adjusted CD [95% CI]=$3186 [$2359; $4012]), stable pharmacy costs ($69 [$-34; $171]), and greater total costs ($3254 [$2403; $4105]) versus brand use. Epilepsy-related costs represented 30% of incremental costs. Similar findings were observed for patients with stable and unstable epilepsy and users of newer-generation and older-generation AEDs. Significantly higher health care costs were observed during generic AED use across seizure control and AED subgroups.

Seizure outcomes following the use of generic versus brand-name antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The automatic substitution of bioequivalent generics for brand-name antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) has been linked by anecdotal reports to loss of seizure control. To evaluate studies comparing brand-name and generic AEDs, and determine whether evidence exists of superiority of the brand-name version in maintaining seizure control. English-language human studies identified in searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1984 to 2009). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing seizure events or seizure-related outcomes between one brand-name AED and at least one alternative version produced by a distinct manufacturer. We identified 16 articles (9 RCTs, 1 prospective nonrandomized trial, 6 observational studies). We assessed characteristics of the studies and, for RCTs, extracted counts for patients whose seizures were characterized as 'controlled' and 'uncontrolled'. Seven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The aggregate odds ratio (n = 204) was 1.1 (95% CI 0.9, 1.2), indicating no difference in the odds of uncontrolled seizure for patients on generic medications compared with patients on brand-name medications. In contrast, the observational studies identified trends in drug or health services utilization that the authors attributed to changes in seizure control. Although most RCTs were short-term evaluations, the available evidence does not suggest an association between loss of seizure control and generic substitution of at least three types of AEDs. The observational study data may be explained by factors such as undue concern from patients or physicians about the effectiveness of generic AEDs after a recent switch. In the absence of better data, physicians may want to consider more intensive monitoring of high-risk patients taking AEDs when any switch occurs.