| Title |
Comparative effectiveness and costs of generic and brand-name gabapentin and venlafaxine in patients with neuropathic pain or generalized anxiety disorder in Spain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceor.s85756 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antoni Sicras-Mainar, Javier Rejas-Gutiérrez, Ruth Navarro-Artieda |
| Abstract |
To explore adherence/persistence with generic gabapentin/venlafaxine versus brand-name gabapentin/venlafaxine (Neurontin(®)/Vandral(®)) in peripheral neuropathic pain (pNP) or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), respectively, and whether it is translated into different costs and patient outcomes in routine medical practice. A retrospective, new-user cohort study was designed. Electronic medical records (EMR) of patients included in the health plan of Badalona Serveis Assistencials SA, Barcelona, Spain were exhaustively extracted for analysis. Participants were beneficiaries aged 18+ years, followed between 2008 and 2012, with a pNP/GAD International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code, who initiated treatment with generic or brand-name gabapentin or venlafaxine. Assessments included 1-year treatment persistence and adherence (medication possession ratio), health care costs, and reduction in severity of pain and anxiety symptoms. A total of 2,210 EMR were analyzed; 1,369 on gabapentin (brand 400; generic 969) and 841 on venlafaxine (brand 370 and generic 471). Brand-name gabapentin and venlafaxine were both significantly associated with longer persistence than generic: 7.3 versus 6.3 months, P<0.001; and 8.8 versus 8.1 months, P<0.05, respectively. Brand-name was associated with higher adherence: 86.5% versus 81.3%, P<0.001; and 82.1% versus 79.0%, P<0.05, respectively. Adjusted average costs were higher with generic compared with brand: €1,277 versus €1,057 (difference of €220 per patient; P<0.001) for gabapentin; and €1,110 versus €928 (difference of €182 per patient; P=0.020) for venlafaxine, both because of more use of medical visits and concomitant medication. Compared with generic, brand-name was associated with higher reduction in pain (7.8%; P<0.001) and anxiety (13.2%; P<0.001). Patients initiating brand-name gabapentin or venlafaxine were more likely to adhere and persist on treatment of pNP or GAD, have lower health care costs, and show further reduction of pain and anxiety symptoms than with generic drugs in routine medical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 28% |
| Psychology | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 June 2015.
All research outputs
#15,799,182
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#291
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,806
of 281,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#8
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.