Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aaserud M, Dahlgren AT, Kosters JP, Oxman AD, Ramsay C, Sturm H. Pharmaceutical policies: effects of reference pricing, other pricing, and purchasing policies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD005979. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD5979.
Simoens S. Generic and therapeutic substitution: ethics meets health economics. Int J Clin Pharm. 2011;33(3):469–70.
Cumming J, Mays N, Daubé J. How New Zealand has contained expenditure on drugs. Br Med J. 2010;340(7758):1224.
Babar ZU, Stewart J, Reddy S, Alzaher W, Vareed P, Yacoub N, et al. An evaluation of consumers’ knowledge, perceptions and attitudes regarding generic medicines in Auckland. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32(4):440–8.
Dunne S, Shannon B, Hannigan A, Dunne C, Cullen W. Physician and pharmacist perceptions of generic medicines: what they think and how they differ. Health Policy. 2014;116(2–3):214–23.
Babar ZU, Polwin A, Kan SW, et al. Exploring pharmacists’ opinions regarding PHARMAC’s interventions in promoting brand changes. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2014.03.002. [Epub ahead of print].
Berg MJ, Gross RA, Haskins LS, Zingaro WM, Tomaszewski KJ. Generic substitution in the treatment of epilepsy: patient and physician perceptions. Epilepsy Behav. 2008;13(4):693–9.
Hensler K, Uhlmann C, Porschen T, Benecke R, Rosche J. Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs—a survey of patients’ perspectives in Germany and other German-speaking countries. Epilepsy Behav. 2013;27(1):135–9.
Wilner AN. Therapeutic equivalency of generic antiepileptic drugs: results of a survey. Epilepsy Behav. 2004;5(6):995–8.
Berg MJ. Generic AEDs: current standards and recommendations. Adv Stud Med. 2008;8(7):217–22.
Zhang X, Zheng N, Lionberger RA, Yu LX. Innovative approaches for demonstration of bioequivalence: the US FDA perspective. Ther Deliv. 2013;4(6):725–40.
Davit B, Nwakama P, Buehler G, Conner D, Haidar S, Patel D, et al. Comparing generic and innovator drugs: a review of 12 years of bioequivalence data from the United States Food and Drug Administration. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43(10):1583–97.
Position statement on the coverage of anticonvulsant drugs for the treatment of epilepsy. 2006. Available from: http://www.aan.com/uploadedFiles/Website_Library_Assets/Documents/6.Public_Policy/1.Stay_Informed/2.Position_Statements/3.PDFs_of_all_Position_Statements/anticonv.pdf.
Andermann F, Duh MS, Gosselin A, Paradis PE. Compulsory generic switching of antiepileptic drugs: high switchback rates to branded compounds compared with other drug classes. Epilepsia. 2007;48(3):464–9.
Duerden MG, Hughes DA. Generic and therapeutic substitutions in the UK: are they a good thing? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;70(3):335–41.
New Zealand Legislation. Medicines regulations 1984. Section 42 dispensing of prescription medicines. 2011;4:42–44.
Christensen TP, Kirking DM, Ascione FJ, Welage LS, Gaither CA. Drug product selection: legal issues. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash). 2001;41(6):868–74.
Yamada M, Welty TE. Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review of prospective and retrospective studies. Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45(11):1406–15.
Talati R, Scholle JM, Phung OP, Baker EL, Baker WL, Ashaye A, et al. Efficacy and safety of innovator versus generic drugs in patients with epilepsy: a systematic review. Pharmacotherapy. 2012;32(4):314–22.
Kesselheim AS, Stedman MR, Bubrick EJ, Gagne JJ, Misono AS, Lee JL, et al. Seizure outcomes following the use of generic versus brand-name antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drugs. 2010;70(5):605–21.
The Pharmaceutical Management Agency. Annual review 1995. In: PHARMAC. Wellington: New Zealand Government; 1995.
The Pharmaceutical Management Agency. New Zealand Pharmaceutical Schedule. PHARMAC. Wellington: New Zealand Government; 2003.
The Pharmaceutical Management Agency. New Zealand Pharmaceutical Schedule. PHARMAC. Wellington: New Zealand Government; 2007.
The Pharmaceutical Management Agency. Annual review 2007. PHARMAC. Wellington: New Zealand Government; 2007.
The Pharmaceutical Management Agency. New Zealand Pharmaceutical Schedule. PHARMAC. Wellington: New Zealand Government; 2008.
The Pharmaceutical Management Agency. New Zealand pharmaceutical Schedule. Wellington: New Zealand Government; 2013.
Tomlin A, Hall J. Linking primary and secondary healthcare databases in New Zealand. NZ Med J. 2004;117(1191):U816.
Salmond C, Crampton P. Development of New Zealand’s deprivation index (NZDep) and its uptake as a national policy tool. Can Public Health Assoc. 2012;103(Suppl 2):S7–11.
Baser O, Palmer L, Stephenson J. The estimation power of alternative comorbidity indices. Value Health. 2008;11(5):946–55.
de Groot V, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. How to measure comorbidity: a critical review of available methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(3):221–9.
Huntley AL, Johnson R, Purdy S, Valderas JM, Salisbury C. Measures of multimorbidity and morbidity burden for use in primary care and community settings: a systematic review and guide. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(2):134–41.
Clark DO, Von Korff M, Saunders K, Baluch WM, Simon GE. A chronic disease score with empirically derived weights. Med Care. 1995;33(8):783–95.
Fishman PA, Shay DK. Development and estimation of a pediatric chronic disease score using automated pharmacy data. Med Care. 1999;37(9):874–83.
George J, Vuong T, Bailey MJ, Kong DC, Marriott JL, Stewart K. Development and validation of the medication-based disease burden index. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40(4):645–50.
Vitry A, Wong SA, Roughead EE, Ramsay E, Barratt J. Validity of medication-based co-morbidity indices in the Australian elderly population. Aust NZ J Public Health. 2009;33(2):126–30.
Von Korff M, Wagner EH, Saunders K. A chronic disease score from automated pharmacy data. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(2):197–203.
Perkins AJ, Kroenke K, Unutzer J, Katon W, Williams JW Jr, Hope C, et al. Common comorbidity scales were similar in their ability to predict health care costs and mortality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(10):1040–8.
Schneeweiss S, Wang PS, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Improved comorbidity adjustment for predicting mortality in Medicare populations. Health Serv Res. 2003;38(4):1103–20.
New Zealand population indicators. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand. Available from: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/pop-indicators.aspx.
New Zealand data sheet: Lamictal® dispersible/chewable tablets. 2013. Available from: http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datasheet/l/Lamictalchewtab.pdf.
Hartung DM, Middleton L, Svoboda L, McGregor JC. Generic substitution of lamotrigine among Medicaid patients with diverse indications: a cohort-crossover study. CNS Drugs. 2012;26(8):707–16.
Erickson SC, Le L, Ramsey SD, Solow BK, Zakharyan A, Stockl KM, et al. Clinical and pharmacy utilization outcomes with brand to generic antiepileptic switches in patients with epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2011;52(7):1365–71.
LeLorier J, Duh MS, Paradis P, Lefebvre P, Weiner JMPA, Manjunath RMSPH, et al. Clinical consequences of generic substitution of lamotrigine for patients with epilepsy. Neurology. 2008;70(22 Part 2 of 2):2179–86.
Zachry I, Woodie M. Doan QD, Clewell JD, Smith BJ. Case-control analysis of ambulance, emergency room, or inpatient hospital events for epilepsy and antiepileptic drug formulation changes. Epilepsia. 2009;50(3):493–500.
Gagne JJ, Avorn J, Shrank WH, Schneeweiss S. Refilling and switching of antiepileptic drugs and seizure-related events. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;88(3):347–53.
Hansen RN, Nguyen HP, Sullivan SD. Bioequivalent antiepileptic drug switching and the risk of seizure-related events. Epilepsy Res. 2013;106(1–2):237–43.
Makus KG, McCormick J. Identification of adverse reactions that can occur on substitution of generic for branded lamotrigine in patients with epilepsy. Clin Ther. 2007;29(2):334–41.
Boylan LS. Clinical consequences of generic substitution of lamotrigine for patients with epilepsy. Neurology. 2009;72(21):1876 (author reply 1876–7).
Carius A, Schulze-Bonhage A. Changing lamotrigine preparations in epilepsy patients. Experiences of a university epilepsy outpatient centre. Nervenarzt. 2010;81(4):423–34.
Krauss GL, Caffo B, Chang Y, Hendrix CW, Chuang K. Assessing bioequivalence of generic antiepilepsy drugs. Ann Neurol. 2011;70(2):221–8.
GlaxoSmithKline. Clinical study register. Available from: http://ctr.gsk.co.uk/Summary/lamotrigine/I-US51.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2013.
Patel V, Cordato DJ, Dias M, Beran RG. Changed constitution without change in brand name—the risk of generics in epilepsy. Epilepsy Res. 2012;98(2–3):269–72.
Buck TC, Schmedes A, Brandslund I. Does generic lamotrigine lead to larger variations in plasma concentrations? Ugeskr Laeger. 2007;169(21):2013–5.
Girolineto BM, Alexandre V Jr, Queiroz RH, Feletti F, Sakamoto AC, Pereira LR. Interchangeability among therapeutics equivalents of lamotrigine in the treatment of refractory epilepsy patients: risks and benefits. Rev Neurol. 2010;51(6):330–6.
Schneeweiss S, Avorn J. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(4):323–37.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):344–9.
Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 4: sample size calculations. Crit Care. 2002;6(4):335–41.
Norris P, Horsburgh S, Padukkage P, Baik NY, Kim D, Fussell A, et al. Coverage and accuracy of ethnicity data on three Asian ethnic groups in New Zealand. Aust NZ J Public Health. 2010;34(3):258–61.
Paschal AM, Rush SE, Sadler T. Factors associated with medication adherence in patients with epilepsy and recommendations for improvement. Epilepsy Behav. 2014;31:346–50.
Schneeweiss S. Reference drug programs: effectiveness and policy implications. Health Policy. 2007;81(1):17–28.
Meyer J, Fardo D, Fleming ST, Hopenhayn C, Gokun Y, Ryan M. Generic antiepileptic drug prescribing: a cross-sectional study. Epilepsy Behav. 2013;26(1):1–6.
Vazquez B. Monotherapy in epilepsy: role of the newer antiepileptic drugs. Arch Neurol. 2004;61(9):1361–5.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Information Analysts in the New Zealand Ministry of Health’s Health Statistics section in the data retrieval process, and the assistance of Joanna Stewart (Epidemiology and Biostatistics Section, School of Population Health, University of Auckland) with earlier drafts of the manuscript and the reviewers for their comments. This study was conducted as part of the requirements towards the attainment of a PhD, and the candidate (CL) has received a University of Auckland Scholarship. CL was the primary developer of the study design and data analysis. All authors reviewed and discussed the study results, and contributed to writing and editing the manuscript. CL is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. The final version is approved by all authors, who declare they having no conflict of interests.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lessing, C., Ashton, T. & Davis, P. The Impact on Health Outcomes and Healthcare Utilisation of Switching to Generic Medicines Consequent to Reference Pricing: The Case of Lamotrigine in New Zealand. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 12, 537–546 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-014-0110-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-014-0110-0