Advertisement

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 537–546 | Cite as

The Impact on Health Outcomes and Healthcare Utilisation of Switching to Generic Medicines Consequent to Reference Pricing: The Case of Lamotrigine in New Zealand

  • Charon LessingEmail author
  • Toni Ashton
  • Peter Davis
Original Research Article

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.

Keywords

Lamotrigine Reference Price Generic Substitution Chronic Disease Score Originator Brand 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

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.

References

  1. 1.
    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.
  2. 2.
    Simoens S. Generic and therapeutic substitution: ethics meets health economics. Int J Clin Pharm. 2011;33(3):469–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cumming J, Mays N, Daubé J. How New Zealand has contained expenditure on drugs. Br Med J. 2010;340(7758):1224.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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].
  7. 7.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wilner AN. Therapeutic equivalency of generic antiepileptic drugs: results of a survey. Epilepsy Behav. 2004;5(6):995–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berg MJ. Generic AEDs: current standards and recommendations. Adv Stud Med. 2008;8(7):217–22.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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.
  14. 14.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    New Zealand Legislation. Medicines regulations 1984. Section 42 dispensing of prescription medicines. 2011;4:42–44.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yamada M, Welty TE. Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review of prospective and retrospective studies. Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45(11):1406–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    The Pharmaceutical Management Agency. Annual review 1995. In: PHARMAC. Wellington: New Zealand Government; 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    The Pharmaceutical Management Agency. New Zealand Pharmaceutical Schedule. PHARMAC. Wellington: New Zealand Government; 2003.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    The Pharmaceutical Management Agency. New Zealand Pharmaceutical Schedule. PHARMAC. Wellington: New Zealand Government; 2007.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    The Pharmaceutical Management Agency. Annual review 2007. PHARMAC. Wellington: New Zealand Government; 2007.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    The Pharmaceutical Management Agency. New Zealand Pharmaceutical Schedule. PHARMAC. Wellington: New Zealand Government; 2008.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    The Pharmaceutical Management Agency. New Zealand pharmaceutical Schedule. Wellington: New Zealand Government; 2013.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tomlin A, Hall J. Linking primary and secondary healthcare databases in New Zealand. NZ Med J. 2004;117(1191):U816.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    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.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baser O, Palmer L, Stephenson J. The estimation power of alternative comorbidity indices. Value Health. 2008;11(5):946–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fishman PA, Shay DK. Development and estimation of a pediatric chronic disease score using automated pharmacy data. Med Care. 1999;37(9):874–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Von Korff M, Wagner EH, Saunders K. A chronic disease score from automated pharmacy data. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(2):197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    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.
  40. 40.
    New Zealand data sheet: Lamictal® dispersible/chewable tablets. 2013. Available from: http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datasheet/l/Lamictalchewtab.pdf.
  41. 41.
    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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Boylan LS. Clinical consequences of generic substitution of lamotrigine for patients with epilepsy. Neurology. 2009;72(21):1876 (author reply 1876–7).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Carius A, Schulze-Bonhage A. Changing lamotrigine preparations in epilepsy patients. Experiences of a university epilepsy outpatient centre. Nervenarzt. 2010;81(4):423–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Krauss GL, Caffo B, Chang Y, Hendrix CW, Chuang K. Assessing bioequivalence of generic antiepilepsy drugs. Ann Neurol. 2011;70(2):221–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    GlaxoSmithKline. Clinical study register. Available from: http://ctr.gsk.co.uk/Summary/lamotrigine/I-US51.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2013.
  52. 52.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Buck TC, Schmedes A, Brandslund I. Does generic lamotrigine lead to larger variations in plasma concentrations? Ugeskr Laeger. 2007;169(21):2013–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 4: sample size calculations. Crit Care. 2002;6(4):335–41.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Schneeweiss S. Reference drug programs: effectiveness and policy implications. Health Policy. 2007;81(1):17–28.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Vazquez B. Monotherapy in epilepsy: role of the newer antiepileptic drugs. Arch Neurol. 2004;61(9):1361–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Systems Section, School of Population HealthUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations