Gagne Joshua J, Kesselheim Aaron S, Choudhry Niteesh K, Polinski Jennifer M, Hutchins David, Matlin Olga S, Brennan Troyen A, Avorn Jerry, Shrank William H
Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Epilepsy Behav. 2015 Nov;52(Pt A):14-8. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.08.014. Epub 2015 Sep 19.
The objective of this study was to compare treatment persistence and rates of seizure-related events in patients who initiate antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy with a generic versus a brand-name product.
We used linked electronic medical and pharmacy claims data to identify Medicare beneficiaries who initiated one of five AEDs (clonazepam, gabapentin, oxcarbazepine, phenytoin, zonisamide). We matched initiators of generic versus brand-name versions of these drugs using a propensity score that accounted for demographic, clinical, and health service utilization variables. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to compare rates of seizure-related emergency room (ER) visit or hospitalization (primary outcome) and ER visit for bone fracture or head injury (secondary outcome) between the matched generic and brand-name initiators. We also compared treatment persistence, measured as time to first 14-day treatment gap, between generic and brand-name initiators.
We identified 19,760 AED initiators who met study eligibility criteria; 18,306 (93%) initiated a generic AED. In the matched cohort, we observed 47 seizure-related hospitalizations and ER visits among brand-name initiators and 31 events among generic initiators, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.96). Similar results were observed for the secondary clinical endpoint and across sensitivity analyses. Mean time to first treatment gap was 124.2 days (standard deviation [sd], 125.8) for brand-name initiators and 137.9 (sd, 148.6) for generic initiators.
Patients who initiated generic AEDs had fewer adverse seizure-related clinical outcomes and longer continuous treatment periods before experiencing a gap than those who initiated brand-name versions.
本研究的目的是比较使用通用名抗癫痫药物(AED)与品牌名产品开始抗癫痫药物治疗的患者的治疗持续性及癫痫相关事件发生率。
我们使用关联的电子医疗和药房报销数据,识别开始使用五种AED(氯硝西泮、加巴喷丁、奥卡西平、苯妥英、唑尼沙胺)之一的医疗保险受益人。我们使用倾向评分匹配这些药物通用名和品牌名版本的起始使用者,该倾向评分考虑了人口统计学、临床和卫生服务利用变量。我们使用Cox比例风险模型比较匹配的通用名和品牌名起始使用者之间癫痫相关急诊室(ER)就诊或住院率(主要结局)以及骨折或头部受伤的ER就诊率(次要结局)。我们还比较了通用名和品牌名起始使用者之间的治疗持续性,以首次出现14天治疗间隔的时间来衡量。
我们识别出19,760名符合研究纳入标准的AED起始使用者;18,306名(93%)开始使用通用名AED。在匹配队列中,我们观察到品牌名起始使用者中有47例癫痫相关住院和ER就诊,通用名起始使用者中有31例事件,相应的风险比为0.53(95%置信区间,0.30至0.96)。在次要临床终点和敏感性分析中观察到类似结果。品牌名起始使用者首次治疗间隔的平均时间为124.2天(标准差[sd],125.8),通用名起始使用者为137.9天(sd,148.6)。
与开始使用品牌名AED的患者相比,开始使用通用名AED的患者癫痫相关不良临床结局更少,且在出现治疗间隔前的连续治疗期更长。