Variations in Pill Appearance of Antiepileptic Drugs and the Risk of Nonadherence | Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.204.227.34. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Generic Pharmaceutical Association.  Facts at a glance. http://gphaonline.org/about-gpha/about-generics/facts. Accessed October 4, 2012
2.
Harrison C. Patent watch: the patent cliff steepens.  Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(1):12-1321193859PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Kesselheim AS, Fischer MA, Avorn J. Extensions of intellectual property rights and delayed adoption of generic drugs: effects on Medicaid spending.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25(6):1637-164717102189PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Goldman DP, Joyce GF, Zheng Y. Prescription drug cost sharing: associations with medication and medical utilization and spending and health.  JAMA. 2007;298(1):61-6917609491PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
National Community Pharmacists Association.  Take as directed: a prescription not followed. http://www.ncpanet.org. Accessed August 3, 2012
6.
World Health Organization.  Adherence to long-term therapies: evidence for action. http://www.who.int/chp/knowledge/publications/adherence_introduction.pdf. Accessed August 3, 2012
7.
Cutler DM, Everett W. Thinking outside the pillbox: medication adherence as a priority for health care reform.  N Engl J Med. 2010;362(17):1553-155520375400PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Kesselheim AS, Misono AS, Lee JL,  et al.  Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  JAMA. 2008;300(21):2514-252619050195PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Food and Drug Administration.  Therapeutic equivalence of generic drugs: letter to health practitioners. 1998 Jan 28. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/ApprovalApplications/AbbreviatedNewDrugApplicationANDAGenerics/ucm073182.htm. Accessed August 3, 2012
10.
Engelberg AB. The case for standardizing the appearance of bioequivalent medications.  J Manag Care Pharm. 2011;17(4):321-32321534643PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Stinson N. Trademarks and “look-alike” drugs.  Indiana Law Rev. 1982;15(3):733-764Google Scholar
12.
Krieg M. Black Market Medicine. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1967
13.
Greene JA, Kesselheim AS. Why do the same drugs look different? pills, trade dress, and public health.  N Engl J Med. 2011;365(1):83-8921732842PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Cutler C, Kesselheim A, Gabardi S,  et al; American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.  Generic immunosuppressants in hematopoietic cell transplantation.  Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011;17(3):285-29021087678PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Greene JA. The substance of the brand.  Lancet. 2011;378(9786):120-12121748873PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Håkonsen H, Eilertsen M, Borge H, Toverud EL. Generic substitution: additional challenge for adherence in hypertensive patients?  Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(10):2515-252119708764PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
 Shire US Inc v Barr Laboratories Inc. 329 F.3d 348 (3rd Circuit, 2003). http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/329/348/576516/. Accessed October 4, 2012 
18.
 Glaxo whistle-blower lawsuit: bad medicine [transcript]. 60 minutes. CBS. December 29, 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/29/60minutes/main7195247_page2.shtml. Accessed August 3, 2012
19.
Kenagy JW, Stein GC. Naming, labeling, and packaging of pharmaceuticals.  Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2001;58(21):2033-204111715825PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Ngoh LN. Health literacy: a barrier to pharmacist-patient communication and medication adherence.  J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2009;49(5):e132-e14619748861PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Radley DC, Finkelstein SN, Stafford RS. Off-label prescribing among office-based physicians.  Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(9):1021-102616682577PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Manjunath R, Davis KL, Candrilli SD, Ettinger AB. Association of antiepileptic drug nonadherence with risk of seizures in adults with epilepsy.  Epilepsy Behav. 2009;14(2):372-37819126436PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Schmidt D. AED discontinuation may be dangerous for seizure-free patients.  J Neural Transm. 2011;118(2):183-18621165660PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Rubenstein S. Industry fights switch to generics for epilepsy. Wall Street Journal. July 13, 2007: A1
25.
Cramer JA, Roy A, Burrell A,  et al.  Medication compliance and persistence: terminology and definitions.  Value Health. 2008;11(1):44-4718237359PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Kesselheim AS, Darby DL, Studdert DM, Glynn RJ, Levin RL, Avorn J. False Claims Act prosecution did not deter off-label drug use in the case of neurontin.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(12):2318-232722147859PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Petersen ML, Wang Y, van der Laan MJ, Guzman D, Riley E, Bangsberg DR. Pillbox organizers are associated with improved adherence to HIV antiretroviral therapy and viral suppression: a marginal structural model analysis.  Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(7):908-91517806060PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Huang HY, Maguire MG, Miller ER III, Appel LJ. Impact of pill organizers and blister packs on adherence to pill taking in two vitamin supplementation trials.  Am J Epidemiol. 2000;152(8):780-78711052557PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Miller FG, Colloca L, Kaptchuk TJ. The placebo effect: illness and interpersonal healing.  Perspect Biol Med. 2009;52(4):518-53919855122PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC. Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD00397420091554PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Colloca L, Miller FG. The nocebo effect and its relevance for clinical practice.  Psychosom Med. 2011;73(7):598-60321862825PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Fitzgerald CL, Jacobson MP. Generic substitution of levetiracetam resulting in increased incidence of breakthrough seizures.  Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45(5):e2721521860PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Duh MS, Paradis PE, Latrémouille-Viau D,  et al.  The risks and costs of multiple-generic substitution of topiramate.  Neurology. 2009;72(24):2122-212919528520PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Liow K, Barkley GL, Pollard JR, Harden CL, Bazil CW.American Academy of Neurology.  Position statement on the coverage of anticonvulsant drugs for the treatment of epilepsy.  Neurology. 2007;68(16):1249-125017438213PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Kesselheim AS, Stedman MR, Bubrick EJ,  et al.  Seizure outcomes following the use of generic versus brand-name antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Drugs. 2010;70(5):605-62120329806PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
 Hawaii Revised Statutes. §328-92(3)(c). 2008 
37.
 Tennessee Code Annotated. §53-10-210. 2009 
38.
 Utah Code Annotated. §58-17b-605. 2008 
39.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. An Act to protect patients from breakthrough seizures (H.585). January 19, 2011
40.
Gagne JJ, Avorn J, Shrank WH, Schneeweiss S. Refilling and switching of antiepileptic drugs and seizure-related events.  Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;88(3):347-35320631693PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Devine ST, Weisbart E, Barron J, Behm A. Acute epilepsy exacerbations in patients switched between A-rated anti-epileptic drugs.  Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(2):455-46320014974PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Sandburg B. FDA rejects generic tablets larger than brand citing safety and efficacy concerns.  Pink Sheet. 2012;27(2):29-30Google Scholar
43.
Horn CR, Cochrane GM. Colour coding for bronchodilator inhalers.  Lancet. 1986;1(8473):1652867387PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Fischer MA, Choudhry NK, Brill G,  et al.  Trouble getting started: predictors of primary medication nonadherence.  Am J Med. 2011;124(11):1081, e9-e2222017787PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Shrank WH, Gleason PP, Canning C,  et al.  Can improved prescription medication labeling influence adherence to chronic medications? an evaluation of the Target pharmacy label.  J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(5):570-57819247719PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Faught E, Duh MS, Weiner JR, Guérin A, Cunnington MC. Nonadherence to antiepileptic drugs and increased mortality: findings from the RANSOM Study.  Neurology. 2008;71(20):1572-157818565827PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
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):180-18220216221PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Davit BM, Nwakama PE, Buehler GJ,  et al.  Comparing generic and innovator drugs: a review of 12 years of bioequivalence data from the United States Food and Drug Administration.  Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43(10):1583-159719776300PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Shrank WH, Hoang T, Ettner SL,  et al.  The implications of choice: prescribing generic or preferred pharmaceuticals improves medication adherence for chronic conditions.  Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(3):332-33716476874PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Choudhry NK, Avorn J, Glynn RJ,  et al; Post-Myocardial Infarction Free Rx Event and Economic Evaluation (MI FREEE) Trial.  Full coverage for preventive medications after myocardial infarction.  N Engl J Med. 2011;365(22):2088-209722080794PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    What's your (pill) bottle?
    Jack J. Chen, PharmD, FCCP, BCPS, CGP | School of Pharmacy, Loma Linda University


    Pharmacists are aware of medication adherence as well as pharmaceutical and clinical outcome issues surrounding generic drugs. Some pharmacists do exercise professional discretion and judgment when refilling medications with a different NDC. Anecdotally, some pharmacists will make every effort to maintain NDC consistency among refills for antiepileptic drugs and other drug classes.

    It is known that patients on daily medications for chronic illnesses are aware of changes in pill appearance [1] and Kesselheim et al. have demonstrated a posteriori that such changes are associated with risk of medication impersistence (i.e, interrupted adherence to maintenance therapy) among patients taking antiepileptic drugs [2]. The authors emphasize differences in appearance between brand-name drugs and generic counterparts. However, it is unclear what percentage of discordant cases were due to substitution of 1) brand drug with a generic drug or 2) generic drug to another generic version. If a drug is available as a generic, patients will often be initiated on the generic drug and may never receive the brand drug.

    Based on the study methods (e.g., dates of data collection, antiepileptic drugs), I surmise that changes in pill appearance due to the latter scenario was likely dominant but would like to the authors to clarify. This is important from a pharmaceutical industry and regulatory perspective since “trade dress” jurisprudence, a form of exclusivity, is not likely to be claimed by generic drug manufacturers. 

    One step towards reducing variation in generic drug appearance and the potential number of color and shape arrays would involve policy changes that standardize the pill appearance among all marketed generic versions. Therefore, for each dose of a brand drug, there could, in theory, be only one color and shape for the corresponding generic drug and dose, regardless of the generic drug manufacturer. It is also important to note the trend towards use of mail order refill services [3] and that such services appear to be associated with better medication adherence.[4] It is unclear whether Kesselheim et al. controlled for this variable among concordant and discordant cases. For the patients who pick-up their refills in a pharmacy, Kesselheim et al. suggest that “At pharmacies, the ability to alert consumers when pill features have changed may require adaptations to information technology systems.”[2] In fact, such systems are already in place. Pharmacies have software that provide an on-screen alert when there is an NDC change upon medication refill. Depending on the software, the alert will generate either an auxiliary label indicating the potential change in pill appearance and/or similar text on the medication guide. If not, pharmacists may attach an auxiliary label (often referred to as the “green sticker) indicating a potential change in pill appearance. Even in the absence of such systems, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians may use a “show and tell” approach when dispensing refills. This allows the patient an opportunity to visually detect if pill appearance has changed and to seek clarification. However, caregivers may pick-up the refilled medication; anecdotally, in such situations, the new information may not reach the patient. 

    I also believe there is variability in consistency of new information being communicated to patients and agree with Kesselheim et al. that “pharmacists might take greater care to alert patients when changes in suppliers lead to new pill characteristics.”[2]

    Communication of new information is a team effort and since the act of alerting patients of changes in pill appearance is non-discretionary, pharmacists should remind pharmacy technicians, clerks and pharmacy cashiers to also verbally inform patients of potential changes in pill appearance. 



    References

    1. Toverud EL, Røise AK, Hogstad G, Wabø I. Norwegian patients on generic antihypertensive drugs: a qualitative study of their own experiences. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67(1):33-38.

    2. Kesselheim AS, Misono AS, Shrank WH, et al. Variations in pill appearance of antiepileptic drugs and risk of non-adherence. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(3):202-208.

    3. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/business/04drug.html?_r=04. Sharma KP, Taylor TN. Pharmacy effect on adherence to antidiabetic medications. Med Care. 2012;50(8):685-691.







    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Original Investigation
    Feb 11, 2013

    Variations in Pill Appearance of Antiepileptic Drugs and the Risk of Nonadherence

    Author Affiliations

    Author Affiliations: Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (Drs Kesselheim, Misono, Shrank, Greene, Avorn, and Choudhry and Mr Doherty); Department of History and Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (Dr Greene); and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Baltimore, Maryland (Dr Shrank).

    JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(3):202-208. doi:10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.997
    Abstract

    Background Generic prescription drugs are bioequivalent to brand-name versions but may not have consistent color or shape, which can cause confusion and lead to interruptions in medication use. We sought to determine whether switching among different-appearing antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is associated with increased rates of medication nonpersistence, which can have serious medical, financial, and social consequences.

    Methods We designed a nested case-control study of commercially insured patients in the United States who initiated an AED. Cases were patients who became nonpersistent, defined as failure to fill a prescription within 5 days of the elapsed days supplied. Controls had no delay in refilling and were matched by sex, age, number of refills, and the presence of a seizure disorder diagnosis. We evaluated the 2 refills preceding nonpersistence and determined whether pill color and/or shape matched (“concordant”) or did not match (“discordant”). We compared the odds of discordance among cases and controls using multivariate conditional logistic regression, adjusting for baseline characteristics, and drug type. We repeated our analysis among patients with a seizure diagnosis.

    Results The AEDs dispensed had 37 colors and 4 shapes. A total of 11 472 patients with nonpersistence were linked to 50 050 controls. Color discordance preceded 136 cases (1.20%) but only 480 controls (0.97%) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.27 [95% CI, 1.04-1.55]). Shape discordance preceded 18 cases (0.16%) and 54 controls (0.11%) (OR, 1.47 [95% CI, 0.85-2.54]). Within the seizure disorder diagnosis subgroup, the risk of nonpersistence after changes in pill color was also significantly elevated (OR, 1.53 [95%, CI 1.07-2.18]).

    Conclusions Changes in pill color significantly increase the odds of nonpersistence; this may have important clinical implications. Our study supports a reconsideration of current regulatory policy that permits wide variation in the appearance of bioequivalent drugs.

    ×