Advertisement

A Survey of Patients’ Perceptions of Pill Appearance and Responses to Changes in Appearance for Four Chronic Disease Medications

  • Ameet Sarpatwari
  • Joshua J. Gagne
  • Zhigang Lu
  • Eric G. Campbell
  • Wendy J. Carman
  • Cheryl L. Enger
  • Sarah K. Dutcher
  • Wenlei Jiang
  • Aaron S. Kesselheim
Original Research

Abstract

Background

Generic versions of a drug can vary in appearance, which can impact adherence.

Objective

To assess the preferences, perceptions, and responses of patients who experienced a change in the appearance of a generic medication.

Design

Cross-sectional survey of patients from a large commercial health plan.

Participants

Adults receiving generic versions of lisinopril, fluoxetine, lamotrigine, or simvastatin who experienced a change in the color or shape of their pills between March 2014 and November 2015.

Main Measures

Likert-scale responses to questions concerning perceptions of generic drug safety and effectiveness, reliance on and preferences for pill appearance, and responses to pill appearance changes. Multivariable logistic regression-modeled predictors of seeking advice and adjusting use following a pill appearance change.

Key Results

Of 814 respondents (response rate = 41%), 72% relied on pill appearance to ensure they took the correct medication. A similar percentage wanted their pills to remain the same color (72%), shape (71%), and size (75%) upon refill, but 58% would not have paid a $1 premium on a $5 co-pay to ensure such consistency. Most respondents (86%) wanted their pharmacists to notify them about pill appearance changes, but only 37% recalled such notification; 21% thought they received the wrong medication, and 8% adjusted medication use. Younger respondents (18–33 vs. 50–57 years) were more likely to seek advice (odds ratio [OR] = 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.02–3.59), and respondents with lower household income (< $30,000 vs. > $100,000) were more likely to adjust medication use (OR = 3.40; 95% CI,1.09–10.67).

Conclusions

Requiring uniform pill appearance may help increase adherence but presents challenges. Standardized pharmacy notification and education policies may be a more feasible short-term solution.

KEY WORDS

pill appearance medication adherence chronic diseases survey 

Notes

Funding

This study was supported by the FDA Office of Generic Drugs and Office of Chief Scientist (HHSF223201310232C).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The Partners HealthCare Institutional Review Board and the New England Independent Review Board approved this study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Disclaimer

Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does any mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government.

Supplementary material

11606_2018_4791_MOESM1_ESM.docx (118 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 117 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Generic drug access and savings in the US. Association for Accessible Medicines. https://accessiblemeds.org/resources/blog/2017-generic-drug-access-and-savings-us-report. Published 2017. Accessed October 30, 2018.
  2. 2.
    Sarpatwari A, Kesselheim AS. The case for reforming drug naming: should brand name trademark protections expire upon generic entry?. PLoS Med. 2016;13(2):e1001955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shrank WH, Hoang T, Ettner SL, Glassman PA, Nair K, DeLapp D, et al. The implications of choice: prescribing generic or preferred pharmaceuticals improves medication adherence for chronic conditions. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(3):332–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gagne JJ, Choudhry NK, Kesselheim AS, Polinski JM, Hutchins D, Matlin OS, et al. Comparative effectiveness of generic and brand-name statins on patient outcomes: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(6):400–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gagne JJ, Kesselheim AS, Choudhry NK, Polinski JM, Hutchins D, Matlin OS, et al. Comparative effectiveness of generic versus brand-name antiepileptic medications. Epilepsy Behav. 2015;52(Pt A):14–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davit BM, Nwakama PE, Buehler GJ, Conner DP, Haidar SH, Patel DT, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gagne JJ, Avorn J, Shrank WH, Schneeweiss S. Refilling and switching of antiepileptic drugs and seizure-related events. Clinical Pharmacol Ther. 2010;88(3):347–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hellfritzsch M, Rathe J, Stage TB, Thirstrup S, Grove EL, Damkier P, et al. Generic switching of warfarin and risk of excessive anticoagulation: a Danish nationwide cohort study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25(3):336–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kesselheim AS, Bykov K, Gagne JJ, Wang SV, Choudhry NK. Switching generic antiepileptic drug manufacturer not linked to seizures: a case-crossover study. Neurology. 2016;87(17):1796–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kesselheim AS, Misono AS, Lee JL, Stedman MR, Brookhart MA, Choudhry NK, et al. Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(21):2514–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ting TY, Jiang W, Lionberger R, Wong J, Jones JW, Kane MA, et al. Generic lamotrigine versus brand-name Lamictal bioequivalence in patients with epilepsy: a field test of the FDA bioequivalence standard. Epilepsia. 2015;56(9):1415–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Privitera MD, Welty TE, Gidal BE, Diaz FJ, Krebill R, Szaflarski JP, et al. Generic-to-generic lamotrigine switches in people with epilepsy: the randomised controlled EQUIGEN trial. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15(4):365–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kesselheim AS, Bykov K, Avorn J, Tong A, Doherty M, Choudhry NK. Burden of changes in pill appearance for patients receiving generic cardiovascular medications after myocardial infarction: cohort and nested case-control studies. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(2):96–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greene JA, Kesselheim AS. Why do the same drugs look different? Pills, trade dress, and public health. New Engl J Med. 2011;365(1):83–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kesselheim AS, Misono AS, Shrank WH, Greene JA, Doherty M, Avorn J, et al. Variations in pill appearance of antiepileptic drugs and the risk of nonadherence. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(3):202–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. American Association for Public Opinion Research. http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/Standard-Definitions20169theditionfinal.pdf. Revised 2016. Accessed October 30, 2018.
  18. 18.
    Kesselheim AS, Gagne JJ, Eddings W, Franklin JM, Ross KM, Fulchino LA, et al. Prevalence and predictors of generic drug skepticism among physicians: results of a national survey. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(6):845–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kesselheim AS, Gagne JJ, Franklin JM, Eddings W, Fulchino LA, Avorn J, et al. Variations in patients’ perceptions and use of generic drugs: results of a national survey. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(6):609–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berg M, Welty TE, Gidal BE, Diaz FJ, Krebill R, Szaflarski JP, et al. Bioequivalence between generic and branded lamotrigine in people with epilepsy: the EQUIGEN randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol. 2017;74(8):919–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sarpatwari A, Lee MP, Gagne JJ, Lu Z, Dutcher SK, Jiang W, Campbell EG, Kesselheim AS. Generic versions of narrow therapeutic index drugs: a national survey of pharmacists’ substitution beliefs and practices. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;103(6):1093–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Qualitex v. Jacobsen Products, 514 U.S. 159; 1995.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ives Laboratories v. Darby Drug, 488 F. Supp. 394; 1980.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shire US v. Barr Laboratories, 329 F.3d 348; 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ameet Sarpatwari
    • 1
  • Joshua J. Gagne
    • 1
  • Zhigang Lu
    • 1
  • Eric G. Campbell
    • 2
  • Wendy J. Carman
    • 3
  • Cheryl L. Enger
    • 3
  • Sarah K. Dutcher
    • 4
  • Wenlei Jiang
    • 4
  • Aaron S. Kesselheim
    • 1
  1. 1.Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of MedicineBrigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Bioethics and HumanitiesUniversity of ColoradoDenverUSA
  3. 3.Epidemiology, OptumAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Office of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and ResearchFood and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA

Personalised recommendations