| Abstrakt: |
Purpose: Generic levothyroxine, approved through Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), is available for generic substitution. But ANDA does not require nonclinical or clinical data to establish safety and efficacy. Post-marketing evidence in generic equivalence for marketed levothyroxine products is limited. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize evidence in effectiveness, safety, and cost savings between patients using generic and branded levothyroxine. Methods: We systematically searched published literature from Medline, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL from inception through 04/18/2021. Included studies were limited to post-marketing empirical studies including patients who used levothyroxine products, with direct comparison between generic and brand levothyroxine, and published in English. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Institute of Health Study Quality Assessment Tools. Two reviewers independently extracted data and conducted quality assessment for included studies. Given that the nine studies are so diverse, a meta-analysis was not possible. Therefore we provided a narrative review of the included studies. Results: Of 349 studies identified, nine met the inclusion criteria. Six studies compared thyrotropin levels and adverse events between generic and brand users and provided mixed findings. In addition, generic users may generate prescription cost savings for payers but had suboptimal medication adherence than brand users. Conclusion: Findings from this systematic review highlighted the limited and mixed evidence in real-world clinical and economic outcomes for generic levothyroxine. Continuous post-marketing monitoring and assessment of generic drugs are warranted to ensure treatment effectiveness, patient safety, and achieve financial savings in prescription costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
Full text from SpringerLink