Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32865564›Full record

ArticleJAMA internal medicine2021

Assessment of Variation in State Regulation of Generic Drug and Interchangeable Biologic Substitutions.

Chana A Sacks, Victor L Van de Wiele, Lisa A Fulchino, Lajja Patel, Aaron S Kesselheim, Ameet Sarpatwari

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Utilization of Generic Cardiovascular Drugs in Medicare's Part D Program.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2021
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chana A SacksProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Victor L Van de WieleProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Lisa A FulchinoProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Lajja PatelProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Aaron S KesselheimProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ameet SarpatwariProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Harvard University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Brand-name drugs, including biologics, have been the primary source of increasing prescription drug spending in the US. Each state has drug product selection laws that regulate whether and how pharmacists can substitute prescriptions for brand-name drugs with more affordable equivalents, either small-molecule generic drugs or interchangeable biologics, but the details of these laws can vary. Objective: To examine the variation in state drug product selection laws with regard to factors that may affect which version of a drug is dispensed. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional analysis was performed, using a legal database, to obtain information on state laws of all states plus Washington, DC, as they existed on September 1, 2019. Exposures: Whether substitution was mandatory or permissive, patient consent was needed prior to substitution, patient notification of substitution was required independent of the drug's packaging, and/or pharmacists were protected from special risk of liability for substitution. Main Outcomes and Measures: For small-molecule and biologic drugs, descriptive statistics were generated for the 4 exposure variables. In addition, for small-molecule drugs, a generic substitution score with a maximum of 1 point was assigned for each exposure variable (range, 0-4 points), with higher scores indicating regulatory requirements limiting substitution. Results: This cross-sectional analysis of the generic drug substitution regulations in the 50 US states and Washington, DC, found that for small-molecule drugs, 19 states required pharmacists to perform generic substitution; 7 states and Washington, DC, required patient consent; 31 states and Washington, DC, mandated patient notification independent of the drug's packaging, and 24 states did not explicitly protect pharmacists from greater liability. Nine states and Washington, DC, had a generic substitution score for small-molecule drugs of 3 or higher, and 45 states had more stringent requirements for interchangeable biologic substitution, most commonly mandatory physician notification. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that there is a need for optimizing state drug product selection laws to promote generic and interchangeable biologic substitution, which may help improve medication adherence and reduce drug spending.

Indexed as

Drugs, GenericDrug SubstitutionGovernment RegulationState GovernmentUnited StatesDrugs, Generic

Identifiers

PMID32865564
PMCPMC7489381
OpenAlexW3082058325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.