Substitution of generic warfarin for Coumadin in an HMO setting

Fully printed prothrombin time sensor for point-of-care testing

With an increasing number of patients relying on blood thinners to treat medical conditions, there is a rising need for rapid, low-cost, portable testing of blood coagulation time or prothrombin time (PT). Current methods for measuring PT require regular visits to outpatient clinics, which is cumbersome and time-consuming, decreasing patient quality of life. In this work, we developed a handheld point-of-care test (POCT) to measure PT using electrical transduction. Low-cost PT sensors were fully printed using an aerosol jet printer and conductive inks of Ag nanoparticles, Ag nanowires, and carbon nanotubes. Using benchtop control electronics to test this impedance-based biosensor, it was found that the capacitive nature of blood obscures the clotting response at frequencies below 10 kHz, leading to an optimized operating frequency of 15 kHz. When printed on polyimide, the PT sensor exhibited no variation in the measured clotting time, even when flexed to a 35 mm bend radius. In addition, consistent PT measurements for both chicken and human blood illustrate the versatility of these printed biosensors under disparate operating conditions, where chicken blood clots within 30 min and anticoagulated human blood clots within 20-100 s. Finally, a low-cost, handheld POCT was developed to measure PT for human blood, yielding 70% lower noise compared to measurement with a commercial potentiostat. This POCT with printed PT sensors has the potential to dramatically improve the quality of life for patients on blood thinners and, in the long term, could be incorporated into a fully flexible and wearable sensing platform.

Are Generic Drugs Used in Cardiology as Effective and Safe as their Brand-name Counterparts? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews (2008; 2016) concluded similarity in outcomes between brand-name and generic drugs in cardiology, but they included ≥ 50% comparative bioavailability studies, not designed or powered to detect a difference in efficacy or safety between drug types. We aimed to summarise best-evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of generic versus brand-name drugs used in cardiology.

METHODS

For this systematic review of the literature, scientific databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched from January 1984 to October 2018. Original research reports comparing the clinical impact of brand-name versus generic cardiovascular drugs on humans treated in a real-life setting, were selected. Meta-analyses and subgroup analyses were performed. Heterogeneity (I²) and risk of bias were tested.

RESULTS

Among the 3148 screened abstracts, 72 met the inclusion criteria (n ≥ 1,000,000 patients, mean age 65 ± 10 years; 42% women). A total of 60% of studies showed no difference between drug types, while 26% concluded that the brand-name drug was more effective or safe, 13% were inconclusive and only 1% concluded that generics did better. The overall crude risk ratio of all-cause hospital visits for generic versus brand-name drug was 1.14 (95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.23; I²: 98%), while it was 1.05 (0.98-1.14; I²: 68%) for cardiovascular hospital visits. The crude risk ratio was not statistically significant for randomised controlled trials only (n = 4; 0.92 [0.63-1.34], I²: 35%).

CONCLUSION

The crude risk of hospital visits was higher for patients exposed to generic compared to brand-name cardiovascular drugs. However, the evidence is insufficient and too heterogeneous to draw any firm conclusion regarding the effectiveness and safety of generic drugs in cardiology.

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

The anticoagulant response to warfarin, a narrow therapeutic index drug, increases with age, which may make older patients susceptible to adverse outcomes resulting from small differences in bioavailability between generic and brand products. Using US Medicare claims linked to electronic medical records from two large hospitals in Boston, we designed a cohort study of ≥ 65-year-old patients. Patients were followed for a composite effectiveness outcome of ischemic stroke or venous thromboembolism, a composite safety outcome, including major hemorrhage, and a 1-year all-cause mortality outcome. After propensity score fine-stratification and weighting to account for > 90 confounders, hazard ratios comparing brand vs. generic warfarin initiators (95% confidence intervals) for the effectiveness, safety, and all-cause mortality outcomes, were 0.97 (0.65-1.46), 0.94 (0.65-1.35), and 0.84 (0.62-1.13), respectively. Results from subgroup analyses of patients with atrial fibrillation, CHADS-VASc score ≥ 3, and HAS-BLED score ≥ 3 were consistent with the primary analysis.

The Impact of Generic Substitution on Health and Economic Outcomes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Generic drugs are considered therapeutically equivalent to their original counterparts and lower in acquisition costs. However, the overall impact of generic substitution (GS) on global clinical and economic outcomes has not been conclusively evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To test whether (1) generics and original products yield the same health outcomes, and (2) generic therapies save economic resources versus original therapies.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify original studies that examine clinical or economic outcomes of GS. After standardized data extraction, reported outcomes were categorized as supporting or rejecting the hypotheses. Each reported outcome was assessed and accounted for supporting and opposing GS. One publication could provide multiple outcome comparisons.

RESULTS

We included 40 studies across ten therapeutic areas. Fourteen studies examined patients on de novo therapy; 24 studies investigated maintenance drug therapy, and two studies considered both settings. Overall, 119 outcome comparisons were examined. Of 97 clinical outcome comparisons, 67% reported no significant difference between generic drugs and their off-patent counterparts. Of 22 economic comparisons, 64% suggested that GS increased costs. Consequently, hypothesis (1) was supported but hypothesis (2) was not. We found no major differences among studies that investigated clinical outcomes with de novo or maintenance therapy.

CONCLUSION

The review suggests that clinical effects are similar after GS. However, economic savings are not guaranteed. More systematic research comparing clinical and economic outcomes with or without GS is needed to inform policy on the use of generic substitution.

Resource Use and Cost Implications of Switching Among Warfarin Formulations in Atrial Fibrillation Patients

Background:

Despite the uncertainty surrounding the safety of switching warfarin formulations, limited data exist on the resource use and costs associated with this switching pattern.

Objective:

To evaluate health care resource use and costs associated with switching warfarin formulations among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in a managed care organization.

Methods:

Patients diagnosed with AF (ICD-9 427.31) between July 2004 and August 2008 and who received warfarin therapy were identified in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database and categorized into 3 groups: users of generic warfarin formulations from a single drug manufacturer (generic-only group), users of branded warfarin formulations only (brand-only group), and patients who used generic and branded warfarin therapy interchangeably or who may have used generic drugs from 1 or more manufacturers (generic/brand switching group). Patients were followed 12 months or longer after their index warfarin prescription date to compare all-cause resource use and costs using multivariable regression analysis.

Results:

The analysis included 12,908 patients: 71.82% were in the generic-only group, 9.61% were in the brand-only group, and 18.57% were in the generic/brand switching group. Patients in the generic/brand switching group were more likely to be hospitalized (relative risk [RR] = 1.43, p < 0.0001) or to use emergency department services (RR = 1.20, p < 0.01), compared to the brand-only users. Hospitalizations were more likely (RR = 1.26, p < 0.001) to occur among generic-only users versus brand-only users. Adjusted mean pharmacy costs per member per month were lower in the generic/brand switching group compared to the brand-only group ($257 vs $273, p = 0.038), but inpatient costs were higher ($1250 vs $972, p < 0.001), resulting in higher ($2125 vs $1847, p < 0.001) total costs. Generic-only users had lower pharmacy costs compared to brand-only users ($246 vs $273, p < 0.001), but total health care costs trended to be higher in the generic-only group ($1957 vs $1847, p = 0.053).

Conclusions:

The use of both generic and branded formulations of warfarin interchangeably, or the use of generics from more than 1 manufacturer, was associated with increased use of all-cause health care resources and total costs in patients with AF.

Brand name versus generic warfarin: a systematic review of the literature

The use of generic drugs has become increasingly common in clinical practice. However, for drugs with a narrow therapeutic index, such as warfarin, there may be some concern regarding the definition of bioequivalence. Clinical studies that compared brand name and generic warfarin products provided conflicting results. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of the literature to better assess the characteristics of each generic warfarin product. Several sources were searched, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, electronic records of meetings' abstracts, and reference lists of included articles. Articles were considered relevant if they were original studies, enrolled patients receiving oral anticoagulant treatment, and compared any approved generic warfarin with brand name warfarin in at least one clinical, laboratory, or management outcome. Eleven studies, with a total of more than 40,000 patients, were included; five were randomized controlled trials, and six were observational studies. In three crossover trials evaluating the mean difference of the international normalized ratio (INR) after switching to the alternate formulation of warfarin, no statistically significant difference was found between patients randomly assigned to receive brand name or generic warfarin. The two other randomized trials found no significant differences in the magnitude or number of dosage changes between patients switched to brand name or generic warfarin. The results of the observational studies are more conflicting, suggesting different features for different generic warfarin products. In these observational studies, the time in the therapeutic range and the number of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications were similar in studies that compared the anticoagulation control before and after the switch to a generic warfarin product. In one observational study, however, a change in therapeutic INR control after the switch to generic warfarin was reported at the individual patient level. The results of our systematic review suggest that generic warfarin products may be as safe and effective as brand name products and that patients may be safely treated with these products. However, closer monitoring may be reasonable when switching brands, as variations in individual INR response may be seen.

Hemorrhagic and thrombotic events associated with generic substitution of warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Substitution of generic warfarin for imprint warfarin (Coumadin; DuPont/Bristol-Myers Squibb) has been a controversial issue due to bioavailability and bioequivalence concerns.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic events following substitution of warfarin formulations in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

Historical cohort analysis was performed using a commercial insurance claims database. Adults with a diagnosis of AF between January 2003 and December 2007, with 16 or more months of continuous eligibility, a warfarin prescription within 30 days after index AF diagnosis, and at least 3 warfarin prescription fills during the follow-up period were included. Individuals with AF diagnosis or warfarin prescription during the pre-index period were excluded. Cox proportional hazard regression models controlling for sex and baseline comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index, CCI) were used to evaluate the risks of thrombotic and hemorrhagic events following warfarin formulation switches.

RESULTS

Of 37,756 subjects included in the analysis (mean age 70.96 years, 42.3% females), 12,996 (34.4%) switched warfarin formulations, 20,292 (53.7%) used only 1 generic product, and 4468 (11.8%) used only Coumadin during follow-up. Compared with continued use of Coumadin, switching from that product to the generic formulation was associated with a significantly higher risk of thrombotic events (HR = 1.81; 95% CI 1.42 to 2.31). Similar findings were observed for switching from generic warfarin to Coumadin (HR = 1.76; 95% CI 1.35 to 2.30), and from 1 generic to another generic product (HR = 1.89; 95% CI 1.57 to 2.29). Similarly, switching from Coumadin to generic warfarin (HR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.93), generic warfarin to Coumadin (HR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.23 to 2.1), and from 1 generic to another generic product (HR = 1.74; 95% CI 1.45 to 2.11) were associated with significantly higher risk of hemorrhage than remaining on Coumadin.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching warfarin formulations exposed patients with AF to a higher risk of bleeding events compared to remaining on a single product. Maintaining patients on a product with consistent bioavailability may optimize the risk-benefit balance of anticoagulation therapy.

Substituting Warfarin Products: What's the Source of the Problem?

Many clinicians have expressed concerns about the bioequivalence of warfarin products, and data suggest that substituting warfarin products may increase the risk of major bleeding and thromboembolic complications. Anecdotal reports and some retrospective studies have reported differences in anticoagulation control after a warfarin product substitution. But the best available evidence—prospective, randomized, blinded clinical trials—has failed to validate these observations. Indeed, interpatient and intrapatient variability in anticoagulation control observed before and after warfarin product substitution is very similar. So, while differences in product standardization, bioavailability, and bioequivalence make a convenient explanation, the problem lies elsewhere. Perhaps poor communication, fractionated systems of care, and errors are the culprits.

Improved Stability in INR with Coumadin for a Patient Requiring Very Low Warfarin Doses

Objective:

To describe a patient who required very low doses of warfarin but who could not achieve therapeutically stable anticoagulation until treatment was switched from generic to branded warfarin.

Case Summary:

A 53-year-old male with a history of hypertension, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and mild renal insufficiency was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation during a routine examination. Anticoagulation was started with warfarin 5 mg daily. The patient presented to the anticoagulation clinic 2 days later with an international normalized ratio (INR) of 5.4 and no signs or symptoms of bleeding. Warfarin was held for 3 days until the INR was <3. Warfarin was then restarted at 2.5 mg daily. Over the next week his INR rose to 4.8; warfarin was again held and restarted at 1.5 mg/day. Although the warfarin dose was eventually titrated to 6.5 mg/wk, the INR never stabilized and the patient only had consecutive therapeutic INRs twice in 1 year and only one 3-month period with therapeutic INRs not requiring any dosage adjustments. The decision was made to switch from the generic product to Coumadin to try to improve stability. Several dosage adjustments were made over the 6 weeks following the switch before the INR was stabilized with 7 mg/wk. Subsequent INRs ranged from 2.0 to 2.2 in the 3 months after the switch, during which time INRs were measured at least weekly. Over 14 months after the switch, the patient did not have an INR outside of the therapeutic range.

Discussion:

Many patients are able to take generic warfarin without problems. However, case reports have documented occasional patients who have had problems after switching to a generic product. Large cohorts have been switched to generic warfarin without experiencing significant changes in therapeutic control. However, 1 cohort study found that patients who required very low warfarin dosages had significant changes in their INR after switching to a generic product.

Conclusions:

Patients who require very low warfarin dosages to consistently maintain therapeutic anticoagulation may experience less therapeutic stability while on a generic product.

Comparing Generic and Innovator Drugs: A Review of 12 Years of Bioequivalence Data from the United States Food and Drug Administration

Background:

In the US, manufacturers seeking approval to market a generic drug product must submit data demonstrating that the generic formulation provides the same rate and extent of absorption as (ie, is bioequivalent to) the innovator drug product. Thus, most orally administered generic drug products in the US are approved based on results of one or more clinical bioequivalence studies.

Objective:

To evaluate how well the bioequivalence measures of generic drugs approved in the US over a 12-year period compare with those of their corresponding innovator counterparts.

Methods:

This retrospective analysis compared the generic and innovator bioequivalence measures from 2070 single-dose clinical bioequivalence studies of orally administered generic drug products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1996 to 2007 (12 y). Bioequivalence measures evaluated were drug peak plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma drug concentration versus time curve (AUC), representing drug rate and extent of absorption, respectively. The generic/innovator Cmax and AUC geometric mean ratios (GMRs) were determined from each of the bioequivalence studies, which used from 12 to 170 subjects. The GMRs from the 2070 studies were averaged. In addition, the distribution of differences between generic means and innovator means was determined for both Cmax and AUC.

Results:

The mean ± SD of the GMRs from the 2070 studies was 1.00 ± 0.06 for Cmax and 1.00 ± 0.04 for AUC. The average difference in Cmax and AUC between generic and innovator products was 4.35% and 3.56%, respectively. In addition, in nearly 98% of the bioequivalence studies conducted during this period, the generic product AUC differed from that of the innovator product by less than 10%.

Conclusions:

The criteria used to evaluate generic drug bioequivalence studies support the FDA's objective of approving generic drug formulations that are therapeutically equivalent to their innovator counterparts.

Evaluating the impact of study-level factors on warfarin control in U.S.-based primary studies: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The effect of study-level factors on the proportion of time spent with International Normalized Ratio (INR) values inside the therapeutic range in patients treated with warfarin in the United States was evaluated.

METHODS

Studies evaluated in a previous meta-analysis were screened for potential inclusion, in addition to a systematic literature search of databases from January 2005 through February 2008. Studies were included if they (1) contained at least one warfarin dosing group that enrolled >25 patients for whom INR control was monitored for at least three weeks, (2) included only patients treated in the United States, (3) used a patient-time approach to report outcomes, and (4) reported proportion of time spent in the therapeutic INR range. Analyses included determining how study-level factors, such as study setting, year of study publication, INR interpolation method, study design, and presence of self-management, affected outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies, including a total of 43 unique warfarin groups, were included in the analysis. Overall, patients spent 57% of their time in the therapeutic range (95% confidence interval [CI], 55-59%). Compared with anticoagulation clinics, community management resulted in less time (-13%; 95% CI, -18% to -7.9%) and prospective studies resulted in more time (7.3%; 95% CI, 1.5-13.1%) spent in the therapeutic range than retrospective studies. When studies from both the United States and Canada were included, similar results to those in the base-case analysis were seen; however, study year and interpolation method were also found to be significant modifiers of INR control.

CONCLUSION

Patients included in the meta-analysis maintained INR values within the therapeutic range 57% of the time, although the use of anticoagulation clinic services appeared to be superior to standard community care in this regard. However, patients treated in anticoagulation clinics had INR values within the therapeutic range less than two thirds of the time.

Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Use of generic drugs, which are bioequivalent to brand-name drugs, can help contain prescription drug spending. However, there is concern among patients and physicians that brand-name drugs may be clinically superior to generic drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize clinical evidence comparing generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease and to assess the perspectives of editorialists on this issue.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic searches of peer-reviewed publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from January 1984 to August 2008.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies compared generic and brand-name cardiovascular drugs using clinical efficacy and safety end points. We separately identified editorials addressing generic substitution.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted variables related to the study design, setting, participants, clinical end points, and funding. Methodological quality of the trials was assessed by Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa scores, and a meta-analysis was performed to determine an aggregate effect size. For editorials, we categorized authors' positions on generic substitution as negative, positive, or neutral.

RESULTS

We identified 47 articles covering 9 subclasses of cardiovascular medications, of which 38 (81%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Clinical equivalence was noted in 7 of 7 RCTs (100%) of beta-blockers, 10 of 11 RCTs (91%) of diuretics, 5 of 7 RCTs (71%) of calcium channel blockers, 3 of 3 RCTs (100%) of antiplatelet agents, 2 of 2 RCTs (100%) of statins, 1 of 1 RCT (100%) of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and 1 of 1 RCT (100%) of alpha-blockers. Among narrow therapeutic index drugs, clinical equivalence was reported in 1 of 1 RCT (100%) of class 1 antiarrhythmic agents and 5 of 5 RCTs (100%) of warfarin. Aggregate effect size (n = 837) was -0.03 (95% confidence interval, -0.15 to 0.08), indicating no evidence of superiority of brand-name to generic drugs. Among 43 editorials, 23 (53%) expressed a negative view of generic drug substitution.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas evidence does not support the notion that brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease are superior to generic drugs, a substantial number of editorials counsel against the interchangeability of generic drugs.

Effect of setting, monitoring intensity and patient experience on anticoagulation control: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the relationship between time spent in the recommended target International Normalised Ratio (INR) range and the setting and intensity of anti coagulant monitoring, in both treatment-experienced and treatment-naive atrial fibrillation (AF) patients receiving oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy for the prevention of ischaemic stroke.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Systematic review of published studies on participants with atrial fibrillation on anticoagulation therapy. We compared frequent monitoring (well-controlled, according to a strict protocol) versus infrequent monitoring (frequency representative of routine clinical practice), specialised care versus usual care, and naive versus prior anticoagulant use. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

36 studies were included, 22 (primary data) of AF patients managed in line with the consensus guidelines target INR range of 2.0-3.0, and 14 studies (secondary data) of mixed patient groups, including AF, with an INR target of 2.0-3.5. Both data sets were combined for sensitivity analysis. Pooled mean time in INR range was 59.1% (95% CI: 55.5, 62.8%) and 64.3% (95% CI: 60.5, 68.0%) for infrequent monitoring and frequent monitoring, respectively. Significantly more time was spent in range in specialist care settings compared to usual care: +11.3% (95% CI: 0.1-21.7%). Naive OAC users spent less time in range 56.5% (95% CI: 45.5-67.5%) than existing users 61.2% (95% CI: 57.2-65.2%). All of these differences were found to be significant in the sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

INR control is variable and dependent on monitoring intensity and duration of anticoagulant therapy.

Monitoring patients using control charts: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the uses control charts to monitor clinical variables in individual patients.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase and five other databases yielded 74 studies, of which seven met our inclusion criteria of using control charts to monitor clinical variables for disease at an individual patient level.

REVIEW METHODS

Included articles were reviewed independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted on study design clinical condition or disease being monitored, clinical variable or marker, measurement method, outcome measure and any changes in clinical indicator identified in the articles.

RESULTS

Control charts were applied to four conditions--hypertension, asthma, renal function post-transplant and diabetes. Studies fell into two categories. Three studies sought to determine the 'performance' of control charts in comparison with existing 'gold standard methods' in terms of sensitivity and specificity based on moderate sample sizes (n = 35-45). This category of studies found control charts to be simple, low-cost, effective tools with good sensitivity and specificity characteristics and concluded in favour of control charts. The other four studies were individual patient case-studies in which the use of control charts to monitor clinical variables was associated with a positive impact on patient and carer experience albeit anecdotally and with varying degrees of attention.

CONCLUSIONS

Control charts appear to have a promising but largely under-researched role in monitoring clinical variables in individual patients. Furthermore, rigorous evaluation of control charts is required.

Effect of Study Setting on Anticoagulation Control

BACKGROUND

For patients receiving therapy with oral anticoagulants (OACs), the proportion of time spent in the therapeutic range (ie, anticoagulation control) is strongly associated with bleeding and thromboembolic risk. The effect of study-level factors, especially study setting, on anticoagulation control is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

Describe anticoagulation control achieved in the published literature. We also used metaregressive techniques to determine which study-level factors significantly influenced anticoagulation control.

STUDIES

All published randomized or cohort studies that measured international normalized ratios (INRs) serially in anticoagulated patients and reported the proportion of time between INRs ranging from 1.8 to 2.0 and 3.0 to 3.5.

RESULTS

We identified 67 studies with 123 patient groups having 50,208 patients followed for a total of 57,154.7 patient-years. A total of 68.3% of groups were from anticoagulation clinics, 7.3% were from clinical trials, and 24.4% were from community practices. Overall, patients were therapeutic 63.6% of time (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.6 to 65.6). In the metaregression model, study setting had the greatest effect on anticoagulation control with studies in community practices having significantly lower control than either anticoagulation clinics or clinical trials (-12.2%; 95% CI, -19.5 to -4.8; p < 0.0001). Self-management was associated with a significant improvement of time spent in the therapeutic range (+7.0%; 95% CI, 0.7 to 13.3; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who have received anticoagulation therapy spend a significant proportion of their time with an INR out of the therapeutic range. Patients from community practices showed significantly worse anticoagulation control than those from anticoagulation clinics or clinical trials. This should be considered when interpreting the results of, and generalizing from, studies involving OACs.

A novel approach to managing variation: outpatient therapeutic monitoring of calcineurin inhibitor blood levels in liver transplant recipients

OBJECTIVE

To apply the principles of statistical process control (SPC) to manage calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) blood levels. We hypothesized that the use of SPC would increase the proportion of CNI blood levels in the target range.

STUDY DESIGN

The study population consisted of 217 patients more than 3 months after liver transplantation. After demonstration of proof of concept using the rapid cycle improvement process, SPC was applied to the entire population. The change package included definition of target ranges for CNI, implementation of a web-based tool that displayed CNI blood levels on a control chart, and implementation of a protocol and a checklist for management of CNI blood levels. The principal outcome measure was the proportion of CNI blood levels in the target range.

RESULTS

In the pilot study, the proportion of CNI blood levels in the target range increased from 50% to 85%. When the protocol was spread to the entire population, the proportion of drug levels in the target range increased to 77% from 50% (P < .001), whereas the range of CNI levels decreased. The rate of allograft rejection did not change.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of SPC increased the proportion of CNI blood levels in target range. These observations may be applicable to the care of other chronic healthcare problems.

Pharmacy utilization and the Medicare Modernization Act

To control expenditures and use medications appropriately, the Medicare drug coverage program has established pharmacy utilization management (PUM) measures. This article assesses the effects of these strategies on the care of seniors. The literature suggests that although caps on drug benefits lower pharmaceutical costs, they may also increase the use of other health care services and hurt health outcomes. Our review raises concerns regarding the potential unintended effects of the Medicare drug program's PUM policies for beneficiaries. Therefore, the economic and clinical impact of PUM measures on seniors should be studied further to help policymakers design better drug benefit plans.

Venous thromboembolism and malignancy

The association between venous thromboembolism (VTE) and malignancy was first recognized more than 135 years ago. Since then, a markedly increased incidence of VTE has been found in patients with malignant disease. Numerous clinical studies have demonstrated that malignancy or its treatment are major risk factors for VTE. Recent developments in moleculobiological studies have indicated that the high risk of VTE in malignancy is attributed to the hypercoagulable state caused by the disease and its treatments. Diagnostic approaches to clinically suspected VTE continue to evolve, making the diagnosis easier and more accurate. Recent advances in clinical studies have refined the management strategies for the prophylaxis and treatment of VTE in patients with or without cancer. In this paper, recent clinical studies will be reviewed, current understanding of the pathogenesis of thrombosis in malignancy described, and clinical implications discussed.

Efficacy of substituting innovator propafenone for its generic formulation in patients with atrial fibrillation

The clinical outcomes of 114 patients with atrial fibrillation who had been treated with the innovator propafenone, and in whom the drug was then replaced with generic propafenone because of cost containment, were compared. The generic formulation was found to be at least as safe and effective as the innovator drug, with regard to atrial fibrillation recurrence, emergency room and hospital admissions, and necessity for concomitant therapy.

Warfarin in the secondary prevention of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation: impact of bioavailability on costs and outcomes

BACKGROUND

The bioavailability of warfarin is an important factor affecting the achievement of therapeutic anticoagulation. It is uncertain whether less expensive generic preparations of warfarin would compromise prevention of thromboembolism or increase bleeding risk in patients with atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost effectiveness of strategies using warfarin products with variable bioavailability in patients with a prior stroke or transient ischaemic attack related to atrial fibrillation.

DESIGN

A Markov decision-analytic model simulating health and economic outcomes over 1 year using the perspective of a government provincial payer was created. Four strategies were compared (where F = 1 is the assumed bioavailability of the branded/reference product): (i) warfarin F = 1; (ii) warfarin F = 1.25; (iii) warfarin F = 0.80; and (iv) alternating warfarin F = 1.25 and 0.80 every other month. Direct medical costs for drugs, physician fees, laboratory testing and hospitalisation for morbid events were obtained from a government payer, a local accounting system and the medical literature. The cost of warfarin F = 1 was equivalent to the cost of the brand name warfarin and the cost of warfarin F not equal 1 was equivalent to generic warfarin.

RESULTS

In our institution, warfarin F = 1 was similar in cost to the other three strategies (Can dollars 1361 vs Can dollars 1334-1613) and may be more effective than switching between generic preparations which have bioavailabilities at the extremes of acceptable limits (thromboembolism and bleeds 7. 1% vs 9.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with atrial fibrillation and a prior ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, the use of one warfarin agent within the range of acceptable bioavailability can be considered economically attractive from the healthcare perspective.

Evaluation of the clinical and economic impact of a brand name-to-generic warfarin sodium conversion program

BACKGROUND

Substitution of generic warfarin initially was discouraged because of concerns regarding therapeutic failure or toxicity. Although subsequent research with AB-rated (i.e., bioequivalent) warfarin did not confirm initial concerns, the issue is not settled for all clinicians.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to provide additional information regarding the clinical and economic impact of warfarin conversion by analyzing a real-life sample of patients receiving long-term anticoagulation therapy who were switched from brand name to generic warfarin.

METHODS

Patients who had been taking warfarin for at least 180 days and had received uninterrupted oral anticoagulation 90 days before and 90 days after switching to generic warfarin were included. The switch date was based on the first time generic warfarin was dispensed from our pharmacies. The primary end point was the calculated amount of time each patient's international normalized ratio (INR) values were within the patient-specific target INR range in the 90 days before and after the switch. Data regarding adverse events and medical resource utilization were also collected. Pharmacoeconomic analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The analysis included 2299 patients. The overall difference in calculated time INR values were below (22.6% before vs 26.1% after switch, p<0.0001) and within (65.9% before vs 63.3% after switch, p=0.0002) the therapeutic INR range was statistically but not clinically significant. Only 28.0% of patients experienced a change in therapeutic INR control of 10% or less, 33.1% experienced INR control that improved by greater than 10%, and 38.9% experienced INR control that worsened by more than 10%. The difference in total treatment costs associated with brand name and generic warfarin was 3128 dollars/100 patient-years in favor of the generic product. Sensitivity analyses revealed that cost savings associated with warfarin conversion in this health care system were highly dependent on the difference between warfarin costs and cost of treating anticoagulation-related adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of these patients were successfully switched from brand name to generic warfarin. However, supplemental INR monitoring is warranted when one warfarin product is substituted for another to allow timely detection of those patients who experience significant changes in anticoagulation response.