In vitro inhibition of platelets aggregation with generic form of clopidogrel versus branded in patients with stable angina pectoris

Clinical outcomes of generic versus brand-name clopidogrel for secondary prevention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A nationwide cohort study

Skepticism exists among healthcare workers and patients regarding the efficacy and safety of generic medication, despite its potential to lower healthcare costs. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of a generic clopidogrel and its brand-name counterpart for secondary prevention in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, we identified 49,325 patients who were hospitalized for AMI between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2013 and prescribed either generic or brand-name clopidogrel. Among them, 2419 (4.9%) were prescribed the generic clopidogrel. After propensity score matching, both the generic and brand-name groups consisted of 2382 patients. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, ischemic stroke, and all-cause death. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding requiring hospitalization. At a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, the generic and brand-name clopidogrel groups had comparable risks of primary efficacy outcome (41.9% vs. 42%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.04), and the risks of the individual components were also similar. There were no significant differences between the two groups in major bleeding (7.9% vs. 7.9%; HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81-1.21). Subgroup analyses also revealed no statistically significant interactions between the treatment effect and various subgroups. In this retrospective database analysis, the generic clopidogrel was comparable to its brand-name counterpart regarding cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes for the treatment of patients with AMI.

Toward Personalized DAPT: Is There an Inter-Manufacturer Difference in Generic Clopidogrel Response?

OBJECTIVE

To compare rates of clopidogrel response among patients receiving medication produced by 2 different manufacturers after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

This quality-improvement project included 515 adult patients receiving clopidogrel for ACS or ischemic heart disease and referred for coronary angiography/ percutaneous coronary intervention. The project was divided into 2 phases: (1) retrospective collection of baseline data (April 2019-October 2020); and (2) two 12-week, prospective phases in which all clopidogrel in the hospital was restricted to a single manufacturer at a time (November 2020-May 2021). The primary outcome was clopidogrel response measured by platelet function testing, defined as adenosine diphosphate (ADP) response <40% on light transmission aggregometry.

RESULTS

Of 515 total patients included in both phases (mean age, 64.5 ± 11.4 years; 351 men [68.2%]; 450 with ACS [87.4%]), 52% were found to be clopidogrel responders based on results of platelet function testing. Among 135 patients in the prospective phase, there was a significantly lower proportion of patients who were clopidogrel responders in the Manufacturer 1 group compared with the Manufacturer 2 group (34.8% vs 55.1%, respectively; P=.03). After adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, aspirin response, therapeutic hypothermia, left heart catheterization indication, clopidogrel loading dose, time between loading dose and lab measurement, and manufacturer, aspirin response (odds ratio 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-0.97; P<.001) and manufacturer (odds ratio, 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-5.22; P=.02) were associated with clopidogrel response.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large public hospital, we observed that pharmacodynamic response to clopidogrel varied by drug manufacturer. Further investigation and/or regulation is needed to minimize inter-manufacturer variability.

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.

[Clinical and economic consequences in patients initiating therapy with clopidogrel brand-name vs. generic: A real-life retrospective study]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the adherence to treatment, resource use, and costs in subjects initiating treatment with brand-name versus generic clopidogrel for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Observational, retrospective study based on the medical records of patients aged ≥18 years who initiated treatment with clopidogrel (brand-name vs. generic) between 4 April 2015 and 31 March 2017. Four study groups were compared, and the follow-up was one year. The main measurements were: comorbidity, treatment adherence, medication possession ratio (MPR), resource use, and costs. The results were analysed using multivariate analysis. The level of statistical significance was P<.05.

RESULTS

Four groups were compared: a) ACS: brand-name clopidogrel (N=1,067) vs. generic (N=3,504), and b) PAD: brand-name clopidogrel (N=425) vs. generic (N=994). In the ACS comparison (mean age: 69.7 years, 61.4% male), adherence (65.3% vs. 61.0%, P<.001), adjusted hazard ratio 0.85 and MPR (89.8% vs. 86.7%, P=.045) were more superior with brand-name clopidogrel than with the generic and with a lower mean cost per unit (€2,890 vs. €3,865, P=.001). In the PAD comparison, similar results were observed: persistence (64.7% vs. 58.9%, P=.039); adjusted hazard-ratio 0.86 and MPR (88.6% vs. 81.7%; P=.013) were more superior with brand-name clopidogrel than for the generic, with a lower mean cost per unit (€2,880 vs. €3,532, P=.044).

CONCLUSIONS

There was better treatment adherence in patients initiating treatment with brand-name compared with generic clopidogrel for ACS and PAD, resulting in lower health costs for the Spanish National Health System.