8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Medication changes after switching from CONCERTA® brand methylphenidate HCl to a generic long-acting formulation: A retrospective database study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Observational studies of switching from branded to generic formulations of the same drug substance often lack appropriate comparators for the subjects who switched. Three generic formulations were deemed equivalent to Concerta: an authorized generic (AG) identical except for external packaging, and two other generics (EG).

          Objective

          Compare the incidence of a combined endpoint (switching back to Concerta, changing the use of immediate release methylphenidate (MPH), stopping all long-acting methylphenidate, or starting a new medication) among people switched from Concerta to the AG versus the EG.

          Methods

          Cohort study from the Truven CCAE database of people aged 6 to 65 diagnosed with ADHD, treated with Concerta, and switched to the EG or to the AG formulation.

          Results

          In the EG arm 24.6% and in the AG arm 19.7% of subjects switched back to Concerta. The proportion of subjects meeting the combined endpoint was 39.5% in the EG arm, 32.9% in the AG arm, a crude risk ratio of 1.20 (95% CI 0.94, 1.54). After adjustment by propensity score stratification, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 1.23 (95% CI 0.90, 1.70). In an unplanned analysis using a different method of adjustment, the adjusted OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.69, 1.44).

          Discussion

          This study did not detect a difference between the proportion of people who met the study endpoint in the two study arms, i.e. between those who switched to a generic formulation that was identical to Concerta except for external packaging and those who switched to the comparison generics. The high incidence of the combined endpoint in the AG arm demonstrates the need for an appropriate comparator in studies of this type.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02730572

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Placebo Effects in Medicine.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Altered placebo and drug labeling changes the outcome of episodic migraine attacks.

            Information provided to patients is thought to influence placebo and drug effects. In a prospective, within-subjects, repeated-measures study of 66 subjects with episodic migraine, we investigated how variations in medication labeling modified placebo and drug effects. An initial attack with no treatment served as a control. In six subsequent migraine attacks, each participant received either placebo or Maxalt (10-mg rizatriptan) administered under three information conditions ranging from negative to neutral to positive (told placebo, told Maxalt or placebo, told Maxalt) (N = 459 documented attacks). Treatment order was randomized. Maxalt was superior to placebo for pain relief. When participants were given placebo labeled as (i) placebo, (ii) Maxalt or placebo, and (iii) Maxalt, the placebo effect increased progressively. Maxalt had a similar progressive boost when labeled with these three labels. The efficacies of Maxalt labeled as placebo and placebo labeled as Maxalt were similar. The efficacy of open-label placebo was superior to that of no treatment. Relative to no treatment, the placebo, under each information condition, accounted for more than 50% of the drug effect. Increasing "positive" information incrementally boosted the efficacy of both placebo and medication during migraine attacks. The benefits of placebo persisted even if placebo was honestly described. Whether treatment involves medication or placebo, the information provided to patients and the ritual of pill taking are important components of care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Interpreting observational studies: why empirical calibration is needed to correct p-values

              Often the literature makes assertions of medical product effects on the basis of ‘ p < 0.05’. The underlying premise is that at this threshold, there is only a 5% probability that the observed effect would be seen by chance when in reality there is no effect. In observational studies, much more than in randomized trials, bias and confounding may undermine this premise. To test this premise, we selected three exemplar drug safety studies from literature, representing a case–control, a cohort, and a self-controlled case series design. We attempted to replicate these studies as best we could for the drugs studied in the original articles. Next, we applied the same three designs to sets of negative controls: drugs that are not believed to cause the outcome of interest. We observed how often p < 0.05 when the null hypothesis is true, and we fitted distributions to the effect estimates. Using these distributions, we compute calibrated p-values that reflect the probability of observing the effect estimate under the null hypothesis, taking both random and systematic error into account. An automated analysis of scientific literature was performed to evaluate the potential impact of such a calibration. Our experiment provides evidence that the majority of observational studies would declare statistical significance when no effect is present. Empirical calibration was found to reduce spurious results to the desired 5% level. Applying these adjustments to literature suggests that at least 54% of findings with p < 0.05 are not actually statistically significant and should be reevaluated. © 2013 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                28 February 2018
                2018
                : 13
                : 2
                : e0193453
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Epidemiology, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Titusville, NJ, United States of America
                [2 ] Global Medical Safety, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Horsham, PA, United States of America
                [3 ] Established Products, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Titusville, NJ, United States of America
                [4 ] Clinical Biostatistics, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Raritan, NJ, United States of America
                [5 ] Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Titusville, NJ, United States of America
                University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: At the time of the work, all authors were full-time employees of Janssen Research & Development, LLC, which markets Concerta, and as full-time employees the authors held stock or stock options. This does not alter the authors' adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6572-2990
                Article
                PONE-D-17-22549
                10.1371/journal.pone.0193453
                5831385
                29489906
                e80f32f1-b2ef-46ee-bf99-8f797a57328b
                © 2018 Fife et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 14 June 2017
                : 28 January 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 5, Pages: 12
                Funding
                This study was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC, who provided financial support for the work in the form of salaries for all the authors, and its commitment to pay the associated publishing fees. Janssen Research & Development, LLC's Standard Operating Procedures require publication of studies that, like this one, concern its products and were intended for publication when they were begun. For the present study, that intention is documented by its registration with ClinicalTrails.gov. The funding organization's Standard Operating Procedures also require that the study undergo a standard internal company review before it is submitted for publication. Internal company review is limited to roles not responsible for sales or marketing functions. Janssen Research & Development, LLC. did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of the authors are articulated in the 'author contributions' section.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Developmental Neuroscience
                Neurodevelopmental Disorders
                Adhd
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Neurology
                Neurodevelopmental Disorders
                Adhd
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Neuropsychiatric Disorders
                Adhd
                Engineering and Technology
                Electronics
                Comparators
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Retrospective Studies
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Critical Care and Emergency Medicine
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Patients
                Outpatients
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmaceutics
                Drug Therapy
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drugs
                Anxiolytics
                Custom metadata
                The data for these analyses were made available to the authors by third-party license from Truven MarketScan, a commercial data provider in the US, The authors have a license for analysis of the Truven MarketScan CCAE data. Under the licensing agreement, the authors cannot provide the raw data themselves. Other researchers could access the data by purchase through Truven MarketScan; and the inclusion criteria specified in the Methods section would allow them to identify the same cohort of patients we used for these analyses. Interested individuals may see http://truvenhealth.com/markets/life-sciences/products/data-tools/marketscan-databases for more information on accessing Truven MarketScan data. We confirm that no authors had special privileges to access data from Truven MarketScan via third-party license, and that other researchers would be able to access the data in the same manner as the authors.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article