Clinical outcomes of generic versus brand‐name clopidogrel for secondary prevention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A nationwide cohort study

Abstract Skepticism exists among healthcare workers and patients regarding the efficacy and safety of generic medication, despite its potential to lower healthcare costs. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of a generic clopidogrel and its brand‐name counterpart for secondary prevention in pati...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Cze Ci Chan, Ying‐Chang Tung, Kuang‐Tso Lee, Yi‐Hsin Chan, Pao‐Hsien Chu
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2023-09-01
Series:Clinical and Translational Science
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.13590
_version_ 1797687144574091264
author Cze Ci Chan
Ying‐Chang Tung
Kuang‐Tso Lee
Yi‐Hsin Chan
Pao‐Hsien Chu
author_facet Cze Ci Chan
Ying‐Chang Tung
Kuang‐Tso Lee
Yi‐Hsin Chan
Pao‐Hsien Chu
author_sort Cze Ci Chan
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Skepticism exists among healthcare workers and patients regarding the efficacy and safety of generic medication, despite its potential to lower healthcare costs. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of a generic clopidogrel and its brand‐name counterpart for secondary prevention in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, we identified 49,325 patients who were hospitalized for AMI between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2013 and prescribed either generic or brand‐name clopidogrel. Among them, 2419 (4.9%) were prescribed the generic clopidogrel. After propensity score matching, both the generic and brand‐name groups consisted of 2382 patients. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, ischemic stroke, and all‐cause death. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding requiring hospitalization. At a mean follow‐up of 2.5 years, the generic and brand‐name clopidogrel groups had comparable risks of primary efficacy outcome (41.9% vs. 42%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88–1.04), and the risks of the individual components were also similar. There were no significant differences between the two groups in major bleeding (7.9% vs. 7.9%; HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81–1.21). Subgroup analyses also revealed no statistically significant interactions between the treatment effect and various subgroups. In this retrospective database analysis, the generic clopidogrel was comparable to its brand‐name counterpart regarding cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes for the treatment of patients with AMI.
first_indexed 2024-03-12T01:14:02Z
format Article
id doaj.art-ca02031932934c8c84d61d7aaf25f736
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1752-8054
1752-8062
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-12T01:14:02Z
publishDate 2023-09-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Clinical and Translational Science
spelling doaj.art-ca02031932934c8c84d61d7aaf25f7362023-09-13T21:15:53ZengWileyClinical and Translational Science1752-80541752-80622023-09-011691594160510.1111/cts.13590Clinical outcomes of generic versus brand‐name clopidogrel for secondary prevention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A nationwide cohort studyCze Ci Chan0Ying‐Chang Tung1Kuang‐Tso Lee2Yi‐Hsin Chan3Pao‐Hsien Chu4Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Chang Gung University College of Medicine Taoyuan TaiwanDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Chang Gung University College of Medicine Taoyuan TaiwanDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Chang Gung University College of Medicine Taoyuan TaiwanDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Chang Gung University College of Medicine Taoyuan TaiwanDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Chang Gung University College of Medicine Taoyuan TaiwanAbstract Skepticism exists among healthcare workers and patients regarding the efficacy and safety of generic medication, despite its potential to lower healthcare costs. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of a generic clopidogrel and its brand‐name counterpart for secondary prevention in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, we identified 49,325 patients who were hospitalized for AMI between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2013 and prescribed either generic or brand‐name clopidogrel. Among them, 2419 (4.9%) were prescribed the generic clopidogrel. After propensity score matching, both the generic and brand‐name groups consisted of 2382 patients. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, ischemic stroke, and all‐cause death. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding requiring hospitalization. At a mean follow‐up of 2.5 years, the generic and brand‐name clopidogrel groups had comparable risks of primary efficacy outcome (41.9% vs. 42%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88–1.04), and the risks of the individual components were also similar. There were no significant differences between the two groups in major bleeding (7.9% vs. 7.9%; HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81–1.21). Subgroup analyses also revealed no statistically significant interactions between the treatment effect and various subgroups. In this retrospective database analysis, the generic clopidogrel was comparable to its brand‐name counterpart regarding cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes for the treatment of patients with AMI.https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.13590
spellingShingle Cze Ci Chan
Ying‐Chang Tung
Kuang‐Tso Lee
Yi‐Hsin Chan
Pao‐Hsien Chu
Clinical outcomes of generic versus brand‐name clopidogrel for secondary prevention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A nationwide cohort study
Clinical and Translational Science
title Clinical outcomes of generic versus brand‐name clopidogrel for secondary prevention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A nationwide cohort study
title_full Clinical outcomes of generic versus brand‐name clopidogrel for secondary prevention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A nationwide cohort study
title_fullStr Clinical outcomes of generic versus brand‐name clopidogrel for secondary prevention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A nationwide cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Clinical outcomes of generic versus brand‐name clopidogrel for secondary prevention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A nationwide cohort study
title_short Clinical outcomes of generic versus brand‐name clopidogrel for secondary prevention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A nationwide cohort study
title_sort clinical outcomes of generic versus brand name clopidogrel for secondary prevention in patients with acute myocardial infarction a nationwide cohort study
url https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.13590
work_keys_str_mv AT czecichan clinicaloutcomesofgenericversusbrandnameclopidogrelforsecondarypreventioninpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionanationwidecohortstudy
AT yingchangtung clinicaloutcomesofgenericversusbrandnameclopidogrelforsecondarypreventioninpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionanationwidecohortstudy
AT kuangtsolee clinicaloutcomesofgenericversusbrandnameclopidogrelforsecondarypreventioninpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionanationwidecohortstudy
AT yihsinchan clinicaloutcomesofgenericversusbrandnameclopidogrelforsecondarypreventioninpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionanationwidecohortstudy
AT paohsienchu clinicaloutcomesofgenericversusbrandnameclopidogrelforsecondarypreventioninpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionanationwidecohortstudy