Search

Background To the extent that outcomes are mediated through negative perceptions of generics (the nocebo effect), observational studies comparing brand-name and generic drugs are susceptible to bias favoring the brand-name drugs. We used authorized generic (AG) products, which are identical in composition and appearance to brand-name products but are marketed as generics, as a control group to address this bias in an evaluation aiming to compare the effectiveness of generic versus brand medications. Methods and findings For commercial health insurance enrollees from the US, administrative claims data were derived from 2 databases: (1) Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (years: 2004-2013) and (2) Truven MarketScan (years: 2003-2015). For a total of 8 drug products, the following groups were compared using a cohort study design: (1) patients switching from brand-name products to AGs versus generics, and patients initiating treatment with AGs versus generics, where AG use proxied brand-name use, addressing negative perception bias, and (2) patients initiating generic versus brand-name products (bias-prone direct comparison) and patients initiating AG versus brand-name products (negative control). Using Cox proportional hazards regression after 1:1 propensity-score matching, we compared a composite cardiovascular endpoint (for amlodipine, amlodipine-benazepril, and quinapril), non-vertebral fracture (for alendronate and calcitonin), psychiatric hospitalization rate (for sertraline and escitalopram), and insulin initiation (for glipizide) between the groups. Inverse variance meta-analytic methods were used to pool adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for each comparison between the 2 databases. Across 8 products, 2,264,774 matched pairs of patients were included in the comparisons of AGs versus generics. A majority (12 out of 16) of the clinical endpoint estimates showed similar outcomes between AGs and generics. Among the other 4 estimates that did have significantly different outcomes, 3 suggested improved outcomes with generics and 1 favored AGs (patients switching from amlodipine brand-name: HR [95% CI] 0.92 [0.88-0.97]). The comparison between generic and brand-name initiators involved 1,313,161 matched pairs, and no differences in outcomes were noted for alendronate, calcitonin, glipizide, or quinapril. We observed a lower risk of the composite cardiovascular endpoint with generics versus brand-name products for amlodipine and amlodipine-benazepril (HR [95% CI]: 0.91 [0.84-0.99] and 0.84 [0.76-0.94], respectively). For escitalopram and sertraline, we observed higher rates of psychiatric hospitalizations with generics (HR [95% CI]: 1.05 [1.01-1.10] and 1.07 [1.01-1.14], respectively). The negative control comparisons also indicated potentially higher rates of similar magnitude with AG compared to brand-name initiation for escitalopram and sertraline (HR [95% CI]: 1.06 [0.98-1.13] and 1.11 [1.05-1.18], respectively), suggesting that the differences observed between brand and generic users in these outcomes are likely explained by either residual confounding or generic perception bias. Limitations of this study include potential residual confounding due to the unavailability of certain clinical parameters in administrative claims data and the inability to evaluate surrogate outcomes, such as immediate changes in blood pressure, upon switching from brand products to generics. Conclusions In this study, we observed that use of generics was associated with comparable clinical outcomes to use of brand-name products. These results could help in promoting educational interventions aimed at increasing patient and provider confidence in the ability of generic medicines to manage chronic diseases., Author(s): Rishi J. Desai 1,*, Ameet Sarpatwari 1, Sara Dejene 1, Nazleen F. Khan 1, Joyce Lii 1, James R. Rogers 1, Sarah K. Dutcher 2, Saeid Raofi 3, Justin [...]

Background: Elevated serum uric acid (SUA) levels have been independently associated with cardiovascular disease. Stress myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography (PET) allows for measurement of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) and quantification of global left ventricular coronary flow reserve (CFR). A CFR <2.0 is considered impaired coronary vascular function, and it is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. We evaluated the relationship between SUA and PET-measured markers of coronary vascular function. Methods: We studied adults undergoing a stress myocardial perfusion PET on clinical grounds (1/2006-3/2014) who also had ≥1 SUA measurement within 180 days from the PET date. Multivariable linear regression estimated the association between SUA and PET-derived MBF and CFR. We also stratified analyses by diabetes status. Results: We included 382 patients with mean (SD) age of 68.4 (12.4) years and mean (SD) SUA level of 7.2 (2.6) mg/dl. 36% were female and 29% had gout. Median [IQR] CFR was reduced at 1.6 [1.2, 2.0] and median [IQR] stress MBF was 1.5 [1.1, 2.1] ml/min/g. In the adjusted analysis, SUA was inversely associated with stress MBF (β = -0.14, p = 0.01) but not with CFR. Among patients without diabetes (n = 215), SUA had a negative association with CFR (β = -0.15, p = 0.02) and stress MBF (β = -0.19, p = 0.01) adjusting for age, sex, extent of myocardial scar and ischemia, serum creatinine and gout. In diabetic patients (n = 167), SUA was not associated with either CFR or MBF. Conclusions: In this cross-sectional study, higher SUA is modestly associated with worse CFR and stress MBF among patients without diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Some evidence suggests that bisphosphonates may reduce atherosclerosis, while concerns have been raised about atrial fibrillation. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the effects of bisphosphonates on total adverse cardiovascular (CV) events, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and CV death in adults with or at risk for low bone mass. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE through July 2014 identified 58 randomized controlled trials with longer than 6 months in duration that reported CV events. Absolute risks and the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of total CV events, atrial fibrillation, MI, stroke, and CV death were estimated. Subgroup analyses by follow-up duration, population characteristics, bisphosphonate types, and route were performed. Results: Absolute risks over 25–36 months in bisphosphonate-treated versus control patients were 6.5% versus 6.2% for total CV events; 1.4% versus 1.5% for atrial fibrillation; 1.0% versus 1.2% for MI; 1.6% versus 1.9% for stroke; and 1.5% versus 1.4% for CV death. Bisphosphonate treatment up to 36 months did not have any significant effects on total CV events (14 trials; ORs [95% CI]: 0.98 [0.84–1.14]; I2 = 0.0%), atrial fibrillation (41 trials; 1.08 [0.92–1.25]; I2 = 0.0%), MI (10 trials; 0.96 [0.69–1.34]; I2 = 0.0%), stroke (10 trials; 0.99 [0.82–1.19]; I2 = 5.8%), and CV death (14 trials; 0.88 [0.72–1.07]; I2 = 0.0%) with little between-study heterogeneity. The risk of atrial fibrillation appears to be modestly elevated for zoledronic acid (6 trials; 1.24 [0.96–1.61]; I2 = 0.0%), not for oral bisphosphonates (26 trials; 1.02 [0.83–1.24]; I2 = 0.0%). The CV effects did not vary by subgroups or study quality. Conclusions: Bisphosphonates do not have beneficial or harmful effects on atherosclerotic CV events, but zoledronic acid may modestly increase the risk of atrial fibrillation. Given the large reduction in fractures with bisphosphonates, changes in osteoporosis treatment decision due to CV risk are not justified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]