Skip to main content
Log in

Comment on: “Mixed Approach Retrospective Analyses of Suicide and Suicidal Ideation for Brand Compared with Generic Central Nervous System Drugs”

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Letter to the Editor to this article was published on 19 September 2018

The Original Article was published on 02 December 2017

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Cheng N, Rahman MM, Alatawi Y, Qian J, Peissig PL, Berg RL, Page CD, Hansen RA. Mixed approach retrospective analysis of suicide and suicidal ideation for brand compared with generic central nervous system drugs. Drug Saf. 2018;41(4):363–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. US FDA. Grant No. U01FD005272 “Post-market Authorized Generic Evaluation (PAGE)” awarded to Auburn University on 9 October 2014.

  3. FDA Adverse Event Reporting System Public Dashboard. https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Surveillance/AdverseDrugEffects/ucm070093.htm. Accessed 6 Apr 2018.

  4. Iyer G, Marimuthu SP, Segal JB, Singh S. An algorithm to identify generic drugs in the FDA adverse event reporting system. Drug Saf. 2017;40(9):799–808.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bohn J, Kortepeter C, Munoz M, Simms K, Montenegro S, Dal Pan G. Patterns in spontaneous adverse event reporting among branded and generic antiepileptic drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015;97(5):508–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Posner K, Oquendo MA, Gould M, Stanley B, Davies M, et al. Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (C-CASA): classification of suicidal events in the FDA’s pediatric suicidal risk analysis of antidepressants. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(7):1035–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stone M, Laughren T, Jones ML, Levenson M, Holland PC, Hughes A, Hammad TA, Temple R, Rochester G. Risk of suicidality in clinical trials of antidepressants in adults: analysis of proprietary data submitted to US Food and Drug Administration. BMJ. 2009;339:2880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McMillan KA, Enns MW, Asmundson GJ, Sareen J. The association between income and distress, mental disorders, and suicidal ideation and attempts: findings from the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Surveys. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010;71:1168–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Patrick AR, Miller M, Barber CW, et al. Identification of hospitalizations for intentional self-harm when E-codes are incompletely recorded. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19(12):1263–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Callahan ST, Fuchs DC, Shelton RC, et al. Identifying suicidal behavior among adolescents using administrative claims data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(7):769–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Simon GE, Rutter CM, Peterson D, et al. Does response on the PHQ-9 depression questionnaire predict subsequent suicide attempt or suicide death? Psychiatr Serv. 2013;64(12):1195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Anderson HD, Pace WD, Brandt E, et al. Monitoring suicidal patients in primary care using electronic health records. J Am Board Fam Med. 2015;28(1):65–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stanley B, Currier GW, Chesin M, et al. Suicidal behavior and non-suicidal self-injury in emergency departments underestimated by administrative claims data. Crisis. 2017;19:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000499 (epub ahead of print).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim HM, Smith EG, Stano CM, Ganoczy D, Zivin K, Walters H, Valenstein M. Validation of key behaviourally based mental health diagnoses in administrative data: suicide attempt, alcohol abuse, illicit drug abuse and tobacco use. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kristensen P. Bias from nondifferential but dependent misclassification of exposure and outcome. Epidemiology. 1992;3(3):210–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Courtney M. Suggs.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Courtney M. Suggs, Robert Levin, Andrew D. Mosholder, Richard S. Swain, and Liang Zhao have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this letter.

Funding

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this letter.

Additional information

This comment refers to the article available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-017-0624-0.

An author’s reply to this comment is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-018-0728-1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Suggs, C.M., Levin, R.L., Mosholder, A.D. et al. Comment on: “Mixed Approach Retrospective Analyses of Suicide and Suicidal Ideation for Brand Compared with Generic Central Nervous System Drugs”. Drug Saf 41, 1419–1421 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-018-0726-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-018-0726-3

Navigation