Summary:Purpose: Compulsory generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may lead to adverse effects in epilepsy patients because of seizure recurrence or increased toxicity. The study objectives were (a) to quantify and compare the switchback rates from generic to brand-name AEDs versus nonAEDs, and (b) to assess clinical implications of switching from branded Lamictal to generic lamotrigine (LTG) and whether signals exist suggesting outcome worsening.Methods: By using a public-payer pharmacy-claims database from Ontario, Canada, switchback rates from generic to branded AEDs [Lamictal, Frisium (clobazam; CLB), and Depakene (VPA; divalproex)] were calculated and compared with non-AED long-term therapies, antihyperlipidemics and antidepressants, in January 2002 through March 2006. We then assessed pharmacy utilization and AED dosage among LTG patients switching back to branded Lamictal compared with those staying on generic formulation. Results:The 1,354 patients (403 monotherapy, 951 polytherapy) were prescribed generic LTG, of whom 12.9% switched back to Lamictal (11.7% monotherapy, 13.4% polytherapy). Switchback rates of other AEDs were ∼20% for CLB and VPA. The switchback rates for AEDs were substantially higher than for non-AEDs (1.5-2.9%). Significant increases in LTG doses were observed after generic substitution for those who did not switch back (6.2%; p < 0.0001). The average number of codispensed AEDs and non-AED drugs significantly increased (p < 0.0001) after LTG generic entry, especially in the generic group.Conclusions: These results reflect poor acceptance of switching AEDs to generic compounds. They may also indicate increased toxicity and/or loss of seizure control associated with generic AED use.

A higher propensity to switch back to branded medications was observed among antiepileptic drug users compared to users of antihypertensives and antihyperlipidemics, similar to findings from Andermann et al. Switch to generic lamotrigine was significantly associated with increased physician visits and hospitalizations.

Uncontrolled epilepsy in patients requiring ED visit or hospitalization was associated with significantly greater health care resource utilization and increased direct and indirect costs compared to well-controlled epilepsy in both publicly and privately insured settings.

Multiple-generic substitution of topiramate was significantly associated with negative outcomes, such as hospitalizations and injuries, and increased health care costs.

Generic antiepileptic drug use was associated with significantly greater medical utilization and risk of epilepsy-related medical events, compared to brand use. This relationship was observed even in patients characterized as stable. AED = antiepileptic drug; CI = confidence interval; ER = emergency room; HR = hazard ratio; ICD = International Classification of Diseases; IRR = incidence rate ratio.

Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may increase pharmacy utilization, thus counterbalancing per-pill savings. The purpose of our study was to analyze the economic impact of government-mandated switching from branded to generic lamotrigine. Patients in a Canadian public pharmacy claims database using branded lamotrigine (Lamictal GlaxoSmithKline, UK) in 2002 converted to generic lamotrigine in 2003 and were observed from July 2002 to March 2006. Patients used branded lamotrigine for >or=90 days pre-generic entry and had >or=1 claim for generic lamotrigine post-generic entry. For the generic period, observed per-patient monthly drug costs were calculated as the sum of costs for lamotrigine, other AEDs, and non-AEDs. Expected per-patient drug costs were estimated assuming lamotrigine dose and other prescription drug utilization in the generic period were identical to those observed during the brand period. Differences between observed and expected costs were compared. Among 1,142 branded lamotrigine users, overall average monthly drug costs per person were expected to decrease by $30.55 due to lower pill costs. Instead, they fell by $11.98 from the brand to the generic periods (p < 0.001). Because of dosage changes, lamotrigine costs decreased by $29.92 instead of the anticipated $33.87 (p < 0.001). Increased pharmacy utilization caused other AED costs to rise by $6.29 versus the expected $0.36 (p < 0.001), while non-AED drug cost increased by $11.64 rather than by $2.95 (p < 0.001). We concluded that conversion to generic lamotrigine resulted in lower than expected cost savings. Further research is necessary to determine whether this is due to reduced effectiveness and/or tolerability. Payers may weigh smaller-than-expected cost reductions against a possible decrease in effectiveness to assess the relevance of mandatory generic switching of lamotrigine.

No abstract

The standard and extended courses of varenicline are decidedly cost-effective treatment regimes compared with alternative smoking cessation interventions and can provide significant cost savings to the healthcare system.