Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mixed Approach Retrospective Analyses of Suicide and Suicidal Ideation for Brand Compared with Generic Central Nervous System Drugs

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Abstract

Introduction

Several different types of drugs acting on the central nervous system (CNS) have previously been associated with an increased risk of suicide and suicidal ideation (broadly referred to as suicide). However, a differential association between brand and generic CNS drugs and suicide has not been reported.

Objectives

This study compares suicide adverse event rates for brand versus generic CNS drugs using multiple sources of data.

Methods

Selected examples of CNS drugs (sertraline, gabapentin, zolpidem, and methylphenidate) were evaluated via the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) for a hypothesis-generating study, and then via administrative claims and electronic health record (EHR) data for a more rigorous retrospective cohort study. Disproportionality analyses with reporting odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used in the FAERS analyses to quantify the association between each drug and reported suicide. For the cohort studies, Cox proportional hazards models were used, controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics as well as the background risk of suicide in the insured population.

Results

The FAERS analyses found significantly lower suicide reporting rates for brands compared with generics for all four studied products (Breslow–Day P < 0.05). In the claims- and EHR-based cohort study, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was statistically significant only for sertraline (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.38–0.88).

Conclusion

Suicide reporting rates were disproportionately larger for generic than for brand CNS drugs in FAERS and adjusted retrospective cohort analyses remained significant only for sertraline. However, even for sertraline, temporal confounding related to the close proximity of black box warnings and generic availability is possible. Additional analyses in larger data sources with additional drugs are needed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization. America’s State of Mind Report 2011 [cited 2017 Feb 09]. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js19032en/.

  2. BBC. Research. Therapeutic Drugs for Central Nervous System (CNS) Disorders: Technologies and Global Markets 2010 [cited 2017 Feb 09]. http://www.bccresearch.com/market-research/pharmaceuticals/drugs-central-nervous-system-disorders-phm068a.html.

  3. Fischer MA, Avorn J. Potential savings from increased use of generic drugs in the elderly: what the experience of Medicaid and other insurance programs means for a Medicare drug benefit. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2004;13(4):207–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Haas JS, Phillips KA, Gerstenberger EP, Seger AC. Potential savings from substituting generic drugs for brand-name drugs: medical expenditure panel survey, 1997–2000. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(11):891–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Express Scripts. Drug Trend Report 2016 [cited 2017 Feb 09]. https://lab.express-scripts.com/lab/drug-trend-report.

  6. Gagne JJ, Choudhry NK, Kesselheim AS, Polinski JM, Hutchins D, Matlin OS, et al. Comparative effectiveness of generic and brand-name statins on patient outcomes: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(6):400–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shrank WH, Hoang T, Ettner SL, Glassman PA, Nair K, DeLapp D, et al. The implications of choice: prescribing generic or preferred pharmaceuticals improves medication adherence for chronic conditions. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(3):332–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Shrank WH, Cox ER, Fischer MA, Mehta J, Choudhry NK. Patients’ perceptions of generic medications. Health Aff. 2009;28(2):546–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brennan TA, Lee TH. Allergic to generics. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(2):126–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Crawford P, Feely M, Guberman A, Kramer G. Are there potential problems with generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs?: a review of issues. Seizure. 2006;15(3):165–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Desmarais JE, Beauclair L, Margolese HC. Switching from brand-name to generic psychotropic medications: a literature review. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2011;17(6):750–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kesselheim AS, Darrow JJ. Hatch–Waxman turns 30: do we need a re-designed approach for the modern era. Yale J Health Pol’y L Ethics. 2015;15:293.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Danzis SD. The Hatch–Waxman act: history, structure, and legacy. Antitrust Law J. 2003;71(2):585–608.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Del Tacca M, Pasqualetti G, Di Paolo A, Virdis A, Massimetti G, Gori G, et al. Lack of pharmacokinetic bioequivalence between generic and branded amoxicillin formulations. A post-marketing clinical study on healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;68(1):34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, Hansen R. Interchangeability, safety and efficacy of modified-release drug formulations in the USA: the case of opioid and other nervous system drugs. Clin Drug Investig. 2016;36(4):281–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Bupropion Hydrochloride Extended-Release 300 mg Bioequivalence Studies 2014 [cited 2017 Feb 09]. http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/postmarketdrugsafetyinformationforpatientsandproviders/ucm322161.htm.

  17. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Methylphenidate Hydrochloride Extended Release Tablets (generic Concerta) made by Mallinckrodt and Kudco 2014 [cited 2017 Feb 09]. http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/ucm422568.htm.

  18. Borgheini G. The bioequivalence and therapeutic efficacy of generic versus brand-name psychoactive drugs. Clin Ther. 2003;25(6):1578–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Collett GA, Song K, Jaramillo CA, Potter JS, Finley EP, Pugh MJ. Prevalence of central nervous system polypharmacy and associations with overdose and suicide-related behaviors in Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans in VA care 2010–2011. Drugs Real World Outcomes. 2016;3:45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Valuck RJ, Libby AM, Sills MR, Giese AA, Allen RR. Antidepressant treatment and risk of suicide attempt by adolescents with major depressive disorder. CNS Drugs. 2004;18(15):1119–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mosholder AD, Willy M. Suicidal adverse events in pediatric randomized, controlled clinical trials of antidepressant drugs are associated with active drug treatment: a meta-analysis. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2006;16(1–2):25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mihanovic M, Restek-Petrovic B, Bodor D, Molnar S, Oreskovic A, Presecki P. Suicidality and side effects of antidepressants and antipsychotics. Psychiatr Danub. 2010;22(1):79–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rihmer Z, Gonda X. Suicide behaviour of patients treated with antidepressants. Neuropsychopharmacol Hung. 2006;8(1):13–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fergusson D, Doucette S, Glass KC, Shapiro S, Healy D, Hebert P, et al. Association between suicide attempts and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005;330(7488):396.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lavigne JE, Au A, Jiang R, Wang Y, Good CP, Glassman P, et al. Utilization of prescription drugs with warnings of suicidal thoughts and behaviours in the USA and the US Department of Veterans Affairs, 2009. J Pharm Health Serv Res. 2012;3(3):157–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Los Angeles Times. Generic drugs' hidden downside [cited 16 March 2017]. Available from: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/17/news/OE-WAX17.

  27. Vergouwen A, Bakker A. Adverse effects after switching to a different generic form of paroxetine: paroxetine mesylate instead of paroxetine HCl hemihydrate. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2002;146(17):811–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Margolese HC, Wolf Y, Desmarais JE, Beauclair L. Loss of response after switching from brand name to generic formulations: three cases and a discussion of key clinical considerations when switching. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2010;25(3):180–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mofsen R, Balter J. Case reports of the reemergence of psychotic symptoms after conversion from brand-name clozapine to a generic formulation. Clin Ther. 2001;23(10):1720–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. What is FAERS 2016 [cited 2016 June 15]. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Surveillance/AdverseDrugEffects/default.htm.

  31. Sakaeda T, Tamon A, Kadoyama K, Okuno Y. Data mining of the public version of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. Int J Med Sci. 2013;10(7):796–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hansen RA, Qian J, Berg RL, Linneman JG, Seoane-Vazquez E, Dutcher S, et al. Comparison of outcomes following a switch from a brand to an authorized vs. independent generic drug. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpt.591.

  33. Ray WA. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158(9):915–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Activities MDfR. Standardised MedDRA Queries 2017 [cited 2017 June 25]. http://www.meddra.org/how-to-use/tools/smqs.

  35. Finley EP, Bollinger M, Noël PH, Amuan ME, Copeland LA, Pugh JA, et al. A national cohort study of the association between the polytrauma clinical triad and suicide-related behavior among US Veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(2):380–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Walkup JT, Townsend L, Crystal S, Olfson M. A systematic review of validated methods for identifying suicide or suicidal ideation using administrative or claims data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(Suppl 1):174–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Simon GE, Rutter CM, Peterson D, Oliver M, Whiteside U, Operskalski B, 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 

  38. Olfson M, Marcus SC, Tedeschi M, Wan GJ. Continuity of antidepressant treatment for adults with depression in the United States. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(1):101–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Faught E, Duh MS, Weiner JR, Guerin A, Cunnington MC. Nonadherence to antiepileptic drugs and increased mortality: findings from the RANSOM Study. Neurology. 2008;71(20):1572–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. van de Vrie-Hoekstra NW, de Vries TW, van den Berg PB, Brouwer OF, de Jong-van den Berg LT. Antiepileptic drug utilization in children from 1997–2005—a study from the Netherlands. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;64(10):1013–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43(11):1130–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Almenoff J, Tonning JM, Gould AL, Szarfman A, Hauben M, Ouellet-Hellstrom R, et al. Perspectives on the use of data mining in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 2005;28(11):981–1007.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Spruance SL, Reid JE, Grace M, Samore M. Hazard ratio in clinical trials. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48(8):2787–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J. Statistics review 12: survival analysis. Crit Care. 2004;8(5):389–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Shrank WH, Liberman JN, Fischer MA, Girdish C, Brennan TA, Choudhry NK. Physician perceptions about generic drugs. Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45(1):31–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Miller M. Questions & answers. I’ve been taking Zoloft Recently, my pharmacist filled my prescription with a generic form of the drug. Does the brand name matter? Harv Ment Health Lett Harv Med Sch. 2007;23(8):8.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lane RM. SSRI-induced extrapyramidal side-effects and akathisia: implications for treatment. J Psychopharmacol. 1998;12(2):192–214.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Bohn J, Kortepeter C, Muñoz 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 

  50. 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Outcomes Research and Policy, Harrison School of Pharmacy, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA

    Ning Cheng, Md. Motiur Rahman, Yasser Alatawi, Jingjing Qian & Richard A. Hansen

  2. Biomedical Informatics Research Center, Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, Marshfield, WI, USA

    Peggy L. Peissig & Richard L. Berg

  3. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

    C. David Page

  4. Department of Computer Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

    C. David Page

Authors
  1. Ning Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Md. Motiur Rahman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yasser Alatawi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jingjing Qian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peggy L. Peissig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Richard L. Berg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C. David Page
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Richard A. Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard A. Hansen.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

In the past 3 years, Richard A. Hansen has provided expert testimony for Daiichi Sankyo. Richard Hansen and Jingjing Qian also have received grant funding from US FDA Grant U01FD005272 and contract HHSF2232015101102C, and these grants are directly related to the general topic of this manuscript. Dr. Hansen also received funding from National Institute of Health grant 2R01GM097618-04, which is related to but did not directly fund this work. Ning Cheng, Md. Motiur Rahman, Yasser Alatawi, Jingjing Qian, Peggy L. Peissig, Richard L. Berg, and David Page have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study. Views expressed in written materials or publications and by speakers do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Department of Health and Human Services; nor does any mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organization imply endorsement by the United States Government.

Funding

This study was supported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration through Grant U01FD005272 and contract HHSF2232015101102C. A National Institute of Health Grant 2R01GM097618-04 provided related support but did not directly fund this study.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the Auburn University Institutional Review Board for research involving human subjects (protocol 14-465 EP1410).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheng, N., Rahman, M.M., Alatawi, Y. et al. Mixed Approach Retrospective Analyses of Suicide and Suicidal Ideation for Brand Compared with Generic Central Nervous System Drugs. Drug Saf 41, 363–376 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-017-0624-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-017-0624-0

Search

Navigation