Explore the vast range of titles available.

Generic medications offer substantial potential cost savings to health systems compared to their branded counterparts. In Europe and the US, they are only approved if they are bioequivalent to the respective originator product. Nevertheless, the lack of clinical outcomes is sometimes used as the reason for hesitancy in prescribing generics. We performed an observational retrospective study on 17 branded vs. generic pharmaceutical substances for the treatment of hypertension/heart failure, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus in a dataset of 9,413,620 insured persons, representing nearly the full population of Austria, from 2007 to 2012. We compared generic vs. branded medications using hazard ratios for all-cause death and major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events (MACCE) as outcomes of interest. Using patient demographics, health characteristics from hospitalization records, and pharmacy records as covariates, we controlled for confounding in Cox models through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using high-dimensional propensity scores. We observed that the unadjusted hazard ratios strongly favor generic drugs for all three pooled treatment indications (hypertension/heart failure, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus), but were attenuated towards unity with increasingly larger covariate sets used for confounding control. We found that after IPTW adjustment the generic formulation was associated with significantly fewer deaths in 10 of 17 investigated drugs, and with fewer MACCE in 11 of 17 investigated drugs. This result favoring generic drugs was also present in a number of sub-analyses based on gender, prior disease status, and treatment discontinuation. E-value sensitivity analyses suggested that only strong unmeasured confounding could fully explain away the observed results. In conclusion, generic medications were at least similar, and in some cases superior, to their branded counterparts regarding mortality and major cardiovascular events.

Background Healthcare systems spend considerable proportions of their budgets on pharmaceutical treatment of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus. From data on almost all residents of Austria, a country with mandatory health insurance and universal health coverage, we estimated potential cost savings by substituting prescribed medicines with the cheapest medicines that were of the same chemical substance and strength, and available during the same time. Methods Data from 8.3 million persons (98.5 % of the total Austrian insured population) from 2009–2012 were analyzed. Real prescription costs for antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and hypoglycemic medicines achievable by same-substance, same-strength drug substitution were computed for each active ingredient, and per gender and 1-year age category of patients. Results In 2012, health insurance providers spent €231.3 million, €77.8 million, and €91.9 million for antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and diabetes medications, of which €52.2 million (22.6 %), €15.9 million (20.5 %), and €4.1 million (4.5 %), respectively, could have been saved by same-substance drug substitution. Highest potential savings were calculated for amlodipine (€8.0 million, 65.4 %), simvastatin (€12.2 million, 59.3 %), and metformin (€2.4 million, 54.6 %), respectively. Higher savings for men than for women resulted from differing prescribed cumulative dosages and proportions of patients with co-payment waiver. Potential cost savings in antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs increased from 2009–2012. Conclusion Our study highlights the cost-savings potential from arguably the most acceptable of interventions, simply switching to the cheapest available same-substance, same-strength product. In 2012, this strategy could have reduced costs for antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and hypoglycemic treatment by up to 18.0 %.