antibiotics
Article
Impact of Generic Entry on Hospital Antimicrobial Use:
A Retrospective Quasi-Experimental Interrupted Time
Series Analysis
Mercè Espona 1,2 , Daniel Echeverria-Esnal 1,2 , Sergi Hernandez 3 , Alexander Almendral 3 ,
Silvia Gómez-Zorrilla 2,4 , Enric Limon 3 , Olivia Ferrandez 1 and Santiago Grau 1,2,5, *
1
2
3
4
5
*
Citation: Espona, M.;
Echeverria-Esnal, D.; Hernandez, S.;
Almendral, A.; Gómez-Zorrilla, S.;
Limon, E.; Ferrandez, O.; Grau, S.
Impact of Generic Entry on Hospital
Antimicrobial Use: A Retrospective
Quasi-Experimental Interrupted Time
Series Analysis. Antibiotics 2021, 10,
1149. https://doi.org/10.3390/
antibiotics10101149
Academic Editor: Maria Bagattini
Received: 9 August 2021
Accepted: 22 September 2021
Published: 24 September 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
Department of Pharmacy, Hospital del Mar, Passeig Maritim 25-29, 08003 Barcelona, Spain;
mespona@psmar.cat (M.E.); dechevarria@psmar.cat (D.E.-E.); oferrandez@psmar.cat (O.F.)
Infectious Pathology and Antimicrobials Research Group (IPAR), Institut Hospital del Mar d’Investigacions
Mèdiques (IMIM), Dr. Aiguader 88, 08003 Barcelona, Spain; sgomezzorrilla@psmar.cat
VINCat Program Surveillance of Healthcare Related Infections in Catalonia, 08097 Barcelona, Spain;
shernandezbaeza@iconcologia.net (S.H.); alexanderalmendral@iconcologia.net (A.A.);
elimon@iconcologia.net (E.L.)
Department of Infectious Diseases, Hospital del Mar, Passeig Maritim 25-29, 08003 Barcelona, Spain
Department of Pharmacology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain
Correspondence: sgrau@psmar.cat; Tel.: +34-932-483-151
Abstract: Background: The impact of antimicrobials generic entry (GE) is controversial. Their
introduction could provide an economic benefit yet may also increase their consumption, leading
to a higher risk of resistance. Our aim was to analyze the impact of GE on trends of antimicrobial
consumption in an acute-care hospital. Methods: A retrospective quasi-experimental interrupted time
series analysis was conducted at a 400-bed tertiary hospital in Barcelona, Spain. All antimicrobials for
systemic use for which a generic product entered the hospital from January 2000 to December 2019
were included. Antimicrobial consumption was expressed as DDD/100 bed days. Results: After
GE, the consumption of cefotaxime (0.09, p < 0.001), meropenem (0.54, p < 0.001), and piperacillintazobactam (0.13, p < 0.001) increased, whereas the use of clindamycin (−0.03, p < 0.001) and
itraconazole (−0.02, p = 0.01) was reduced. An alarming rise in cefepime (0.004), daptomycin (1.02),
and cloxacillin (0.05) prescriptions was observed, despite not achieving statistical significance. On
the contrary, the use of amoxicillin (−0.07), ampicillin (−0.02), cefixime (−0.06), fluconazole (−0.13),
imipenem–cilastatin (−0.50) and levofloxacin (−0.35) decreased. These effects were noticed beyond
the first year post GE. Conclusions: GE led to an increase in the consumption of broad-spectrum
molecules. The potential economic benefit of generic antibiotics could be diluted by an increase in
resistance. Antimicrobial stewardship should continue to monitor these molecules despite GE.
Keywords: antibiotic policy; generic antibiotics; branded antibiotics; antibiotics; defined daily doses;
antimicrobial consumption
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1. Introduction
The introduction of generic drugs in the pharmaceutical industry necessitates addressing the essential issue of efficiency [1]. In recent years, due to the limitation of economic
resources allocated to the acquisition of drugs in the different health systems, the use of
generic drugs has increased. In an evolving world where drug-associated costs increase
every year, the use of generics is, therefore, essential to maintain budget balance. The
development of generic drugs also exhibits other advantages. For example, reducing their
price allows them to be available in areas of the world where they would not otherwise be
found, saving a considerable number of lives [2].
Economic costs are among the items that antimicrobial stewardship teams need to
evaluate and optimize. Unfortunately, the development of the antimicrobial resistance
Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1149. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10101149
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/antibiotics
Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1149
2 of 11
pandemic supposes an important economic investment [3]. The use of novel molecules is
normally associated with high prices. Antimicrobial stewardship teams, due to their limited
resources, usually focus their attention on these molecules. On the contrary, the expansion
of generic drugs represents a significant decrease in resources allocated to antimicrobials,
which alleviates their economic pressure.
For generic drugs to enter the market, generic medicines must perform the same
level of treatment in the body as brand-name medicines. In the case of antimicrobials,
the introduction of generic products is a matter of debate. Although from a theoretical
point of view, both drugs should perform similarly, some experiences have questioned the
efficacy of generics, compared to original antibiotics [4,5]. One study showed that the use
of generic meropenem was associated with higher mortality in critically ill patients [6]. The
reasons for these findings are not fully elucidated. Information on generic antimicrobials
sometimes remains limited and heterogeneous, which has even caused the questioning of
the production processes of these drugs [7]. This is derived from the impact related to the
lack of interest of the pharmaceutical industry in the development of new antimicrobials [8,
9]. However, the evidence supporting these findings remains weak due to the low quality
of the available works. From a safety perspective, no studies have compared the outcomes
among brand-name and generic antibiotics.
The potential impact that the introduction of a generic product has on the consumption
of the rest of antibiotics is an important issue that should be highlighted. The generic entry
could decrease the “control” of antimicrobial stewardship teams over its prescriptions, as
these teams may be focused on more expensive drugs. As a consequence, an increase in
their consumption may follow, with the risk of an augment in antimicrobial resistance [8].
Other works have assessed the impact caused by the introduction of generic antimicrobials [10–12]. In the last study, showing the impact of generic entry in the United States
of America (USA), the number of prescriptions increased for aztreonam, cefpodoxime,
ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and ofloxacin, while it decreased for cefdinir [10]. In Germany,
the reduction in the price of fluoroquinolone was related to a 36% decline in its acquisition
cost but, on the other hand, to a rise in its use of 46% [11]. Another work demonstrated
that the introduction of a generic fluoroquinolone led to a rise in its consumption, which
caused an increase in the Escherichia coli resistance rates [12]. However, these works present
several limitations: they have mainly focused on the primary care setting and have not
assessed the impact of a new generic antimicrobial on other members of the family or its
impact on antimicrobial resistance.
The potential impact of the entry of a generic antibiotic in the market on antimicrobial
consumption remains, therefore, poorly studied. The objective of this study was to analyze
the modifications in the trends of antimicrobial use in an acute care hospital derived from
the availability of generic formulations.
2. Results
During the study period, 18 drugs were included as generic antimicrobials in the
hospital and were therefore analyzed (Table 1). It is important to bear in mind that the
antimicrobial stewardship team was not introduced until 2011, so the present data may
reflect the consumption before or after its introduction.
Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1149
3 of 11
Table 1. Antimicrobial consumption trends before and after generic entry.
Pre-Generic Trend
Est. Coefficient
95% CI
Post-Generic Trend
p-Value
Est.
Coefficient
95% CI
p-Value
Tukey’s Test
p-Value
J01 Antibacterials for systemic use
J01C Penicillins
0.049
0.05
[−0.043, 0.14]
0.277
0.92
0.24
0.12
[−0.28,
−0.002]
[0.033, 0.438]
[−0.121, 0.365]
0.027
0.235
−0.07
−0.02
[−0.205, 0.074]
[−0.075, 0.027]
0.302
0.333
0.15
0.24
0.07
[−0.04, 0.186]
0.17
0.13
[0.068, 0.186]
<0.001
<0.001
Cefixime
0.02
[0.006, 0.025]
0.003
−0.06
Cefotaxime
−0.01
[−0.121, 0.104]
0.865
0.09
[−0.109,
−0.015]
[−0.282, 0.466]
−0.48
[−0.632,
−0.337]
<0.001
0.004
[−0.106, 0.186]
Imipenem–cilastatina
0.23
[0.138, 0.319]
<0.001
−0.50
Meropenem
0.18
[0.133, 0.236]
<0.001
0.54
[−0.621,
−0.374]
[0.308, 0.782]
J01F Lincosamides
Clindamycin
−0.05
[−0.288, 0.189]
0.594
−0.03
0.41
[0.285, 0.533]
<0.001
0.06
[−0.087, 0.207]
[−0.042,
−0.013]
Cloxacillin
−0.14
Amoxicillin
Ampicillin
J01CR Combinations of
penicillins. incl. beta-lactamase
inhibitors
Piperacillin–tazobactam
J01DBCDE Cephalosporins
J01DD Third-generation
cephalosporins
J01DE Fourth-generation
cephalosporins
Cefepime
0.024
0.22
0.58
<0.001
0.447
0.17
<0.001
0.62
0.002
<0.001
[−0.06, −0.01]
0.011
<0.001
−0.35
[−0.433,
−0.263]
<0.001
0.66
0.121
0.08
[0.045–0.115]
<0.001
0.13
<0.001
−0.06
[−0.247, 0.133]
0.325
0.58
J01DH Carbapenems
J01M Quinolone antibacterials
Levofloxacine
J01X Other antibacterials
J01XA Glycopeptide antibacterials
Vancomycin
Teicoplanin
J01XB Polymyxins
Colistin
J01XX Other antibacterials
Daptomycin
Intravenous fosfomycin
−0.03
0.14
[0.051, 0.23]
0.01
0.01
[−0.027, 0.044]
0.609
0.12
0.11
0.02
[−0.137, 0.365]
[−0.01, 0.04]
0.309
0.218
1.02
0.03
[−3.277, 5.307]
[0.017, 0.047]
0.205
0.003
0.64
0.94
0.12
−0.02
[−0.055, 0.303]
[−0.094, 0.052]
0.152
0.537
−0.13
−0.02
[−0.287, 0.02]
[−0.345, 0.315]
0.079
0.667
0.09
0.01
J02A Antimycotics for systemic
use
J02AC Triazole derivatives
Fluconazole
Itraconazole
Before introducing the generic compound, the use of many antibiotics already showed
a troubling upward trend over the years. This was notable for amoxicillin, cefixime,
imipenem–cilastatin, levofloxacin, and meropenem. On the contrary, the consumption of
cloxacillin and teicoplanin significantly reduced over this period.
After generic entry, the prescriptions of parenteral fosfomycin, meropenem,
piperacillin/tazobactam, and vancomycin increased significantly, whereas a diminution in
the use of clindamycin, imipenem–cilastatin, and levofloxacin was observed.
When consumption trends before and after generic entry were compared (Table 1 and
Figure 1), only cefotaxime, meropenem, and piperacillin–tazobactam showed a statistically
significant upward trend. Otherwise, clindamycin and itraconazole presented a statistically
significant reduction in their use.
Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1149
4 of 11
J01-Penicillins
J01CR Combinations of penicillins.
incl. beta-lactamase inhibitors.
J01DD Third-generation cephalosporins
J01DE Fourth-generation cephalosporins
J01DH Carbapenems
J01F Lincosamides
J01M Quinolone antibacterial
Figure 1. Cont.
Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1149
Antibiotics 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
5 of 11
5 of 12
J01XA Glycopeptide antibacterials
J01XB Polymyxins
J01XX Other antibacterials
J02AC Triazole derivatives
Figure 1. Antimicrobial consumption evolution after generic market entry: DDD—defined daily doses, GME—generic
Figure 1. Antimicrobial consumption evolution after generic market entry: DDD—defined daily doses, GME—generic
market entry.
market entry.
Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1149
6 of 11
Despite not achieving statistical significance, seven drugs (amoxicillin, ampicillin, cefixime, colistin, fluconazole, imipenem–cilastatin, and levofloxacin) presented an important
reduction in antibiotic use after generic entry. On the other hand, cefepime, daptomycin,
and cloxacillin showed a rise in the number of prescriptions after a downward trend before
the introduction of the generic.
The findings of daptomycin, levofloxacin, and imipenem–cilastatin, although not
significant, should be underlined. In the case of lipoglycopeptide, a rise in its consumption
was observed after generic entry. It may be possible that statistical significance was not
achieved due to the low number of years after the introduction of the generic product. The
consumption of levofloxacin decreased sharply. Unfortunately, data on the consumption
of ciprofloxacin were not available. Finally, as far as imipenem–cilastatin is concerned,
an important downward trend was observed, even though meropenem use increased
significantly.
After the introduction of the generic product, its impact on prescribers’ habits was
not immediate. Overall, the effect of generic entry was observed beyond the first year post
antibiotic generic entry, indicating that changes in prescription patterns take time to be
observed.
3. Discussion
In this study, we assessed the impact of generic drug entry in the market on the prescription of antimicrobials in the hospital. When pre- and post-generic entry periods were
compared, a striking and significant upward trend was found for cefotaxime, meropenem,
and piperacillin–tazobactam. Itraconazole and clindamycin consumption, on the contrary, significantly decreased, compared to the previous period. The case of daptomycin,
imipenem–cilastatin, and levofloxacin should also be highlighted due to their potential
ecological impact, although this did not achieve statistical significance.
Although generic products represented up to two-thirds of the worldwide consumption of antimicrobial agents in 2010, the effect of generic products’ entry on antimicrobial
consumption has been overall poorly described. This is concerning since generic entry
may increase the number of prescriptions of these antimicrobials, which may subsequently
increase bacterial resistance rates. Therefore, the knowledge of prescribing patterns after
generic products’ entry is essential to establish policies that optimize antimicrobial use.
On the one hand, an alarming increase in the consumption of broad-spectrum antimicrobials of meropenem and piperacillin–tazobactam was observed. The increase in
carbapenem consumption was already described in Catalonia and France [13,14]. Carbapenems were mainly used as empiric therapy for intraabdominal and urinary tract
infections, the main reason for which was the suspicion of polymicrobial infection and
severity [13]. In our study, two reasons may explain the increase in the use of meropenem:
an increment in the incidence of multidrug-resistant organisms (data not shown) and
a looser antibiotic policy at the hospital, specifically regarding empirical therapy. This
last reason may be related to a reduced control by antimicrobial stewardship teams, who
were unfortunately required to focus on more expensive molecules [10]. Antimicrobial
stewardship teams need to face limited resources, which necessitates prioritizing those
interventions that might have a greater impact [15]. Consequently, when generic products enter the market (carbapenems and others), a looser prescription policy may arise,
increasing their consumption.
As regards piperacillin–tazobactam, several reasons may explain these findings. Although the consumption of carbapenems increased, a widely known strategy to reduce
carbapenem consumption is the use of carbapenem-sparing agents such as piperacillin–
tazobactam or amoxicillin–clavulanate [16]. Therefore, this augment may be due to a
higher prescription of a carbapenem-sparing empiric agent and to an augment in its use
after therapy de-escalation from carbapenems [15,17]. This fact was observed despite
piperacillin–tazobactam shortage in 2016–2017. Finally, cefotaxime’s use mainly surged
because of its introduction in the protocol of intraabdominal infections.
Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1149
7 of 11
On the other hand, the use of imipenem–cilastatin, levofloxacin, and fluconazole
decreased. In the case of fluoroquinolones, the reduction in their consumption may be
related to the recommendations already made in old and new studies [18,19], as well as to
the recommendations performed by regulatory agencies as European Medicine Agency [20].
In these documents, a restricted fluoroquinolone prescribing policy was recommended
due to the potential associated adverse events. In the case of imipenem–cilastatin, the
reduction in its consumption may reflect the incentive from the pharmaceutical industry in
prescribing these drugs that, after patent expiration, are removed. Similar observations
were also made in Germany, where a physician’s decision to prescribe an antibiotic was
guided by financial incentives [21]. Another potential explanation may include a switch in
prescribing patterns to meropenem, which is possibly related to the growing prevalence of
nosocomial infections produced by multidrug- and extremely drug-resistant Pseudomonas
aeruginosa infections [22]. As far as fluconazole is concerned, the decrease in its use may
be due to a higher incidence of fluconazole-resistant strains such as Candida glabrata and a
higher prescription of echinocandins [23].
The increase in the consumption of daptomycin after generic entry should be mentioned. Similar to meropenem, a looser antibiotic policy may explain these findings. A
decrease in the cost of acquiring this drug would justify a decrease in the control of its
prescription and, therefore, an increase in its consumption. The prevalence of infections
caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-positive microorganisms such as methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) remained stable during the study period [24]; therefore, it
does not seem to justify this rise. The increase in the use of antibiotics against multidrugresistant Gram-positive microorganisms has already been described in a previous work
conducted in Catalonia, which found similar results [24]. A widespread and steady increase
in the consumption of drugs targeting MRSA and other Gram-positive microorganisms
such as daptomycin was observed among acute care hospitals, even though the incidence
of MRSA remained stable.
Interestingly, the use of vancomycin did not decrease; therefore, the rise in daptomycin
consumption could not be fully explained by a switch in prescribing patterns. Another
potential reason for the maintenance of vancomycin consumption is the questionable
behavior of daptomycin against Enterococcus faecium [25]. This fact has limited its use in
infections caused by this microorganism, which, on the other hand, is increasingly present
in hospital infections [25].
Our results are in line with those found in other works. Jensen et al. found that a
significant increase in the total consumption of ciprofloxacin in ambulatory care followed
the generic product’s entry in Denmark [12]. Interestingly, this finding was correlated
with a higher E. coli resistance from urine isolates [12]. Kaier et al. also described an
increasing trend of fluoroquinolone and second-generation cephalosporins use in German
ambulatory care after generic entry [21]. Another study evaluated the generic launch
impact in six high-income countries in the world [26]. The result of generic entry varied
across countries: levofloxacin consumption significantly increased in the USA (8.6%) and
the United Kingdom (UK) (4.3%), whereas declined in Germany (−9.1%). Regarding
meropenem, its use declined in most of the countries except Spain, where a significant positive change in slope was found. Kallberg et al. recently assessed the effect of generic market
entry on antibiotic consumption in the USA [10]. The use of aztreonam, cefpodoxime,
ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and ofloxacin increased, whereas that of cefdinir decreased.
Unfortunately, these studies presented several limitations: most of the experiences were
focused on an ambulatory setting, consumption data were based on sales data, a small
number of molecules were studied, and some were conducted in other countries with
different healthcare systems, which hinders the potential comparisons.
It is evident that several factors play a role in the impact of generic market entry on
antimicrobial consumption. The “genericization” of the antibiotics has undermined their
value, as many agents that are still very effective, are very cheap, compared to their societal
role [8]. When the price comes down, the product is more affordable for a larger proportion
Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1149
8 of 11
of the population, although it depends on the healthcare system [12]. On the contrary, a
10 % increase in the price would decrease consumption by 4–9%, which is mainly seen in
the community rather than in the hospital [2]. The impact of antibiotic prices on patients’
adherence in the community is controversial. For some, the more the cost of a product
is, the more the perceived value becomes, which may account for a higher adherence or
improvement in the use. On the contrary, for others, an increase in the cost may decrease
adherence, especially in settings with low economic resources [2].
Kallberg et al. described the influence of co-interventions [10]. The introduction of
other (i.e., inhaled) formulations, the presence of outbreaks (i.e., anthrax), or safety reports
may alter antimicrobial use [10]. The importance of vaccines introduction should also be
underlined. For example, in the USA, the introduction of pneumococcal vaccines may
mask a significant increase in the use of cefuroxime or even a reduction in cefdinir use after
generic entry [10]. Pricing policy is also an interesting yet debatable topic that has already
been discussed [2]. In our study, there were neither significant outbreaks nor vaccine policy
modifications, and therefore, their influence should be limited. As previously mentioned,
the safety alerts of fluoroquinolones may have reduced their consumption.
One interesting point is the impact of generic entry on the rest of the molecules of the
same family. However, it is difficult to ascertain the differences between antibiotic uses
for the same indications. As there are many indications for each antibiotic, it is difficult to
know exactly which antibiotic would substitute another in practice. Even when the new
agent has a broader spectrum of activity, its use will not entirely replace that of other agents
of the same class [27]. For example, the introduction of levofloxacin in Belgium led to an
overall increase in fluoroquinolone consumption [27].
The number of trade names may also play a role in the increase in antibiotic consumption after generic entry. In a European study, the number of trade names of oral
antibacterial agents and community antibiotic consumption were related—more consumption was observed when more trade names were present [27].
The impact on antimicrobial consumption after generic entry was not immediate.
In our study, approximately one year was needed to detect a change in antibiotic trend
consumption. This is similar to other experiences and reflects that time is needed to modify
prescribing patterns among providers [10,12].
One of the most important consequences of generic market entry was the troubling
increase in the consumption of some antimicrobials. The driving force for the antimicrobial
resistance rise is the extent of drug use [12]. This is an important issue that should be
considered by antimicrobial stewardship members. Although it is true that especially new
antibiotics have a great impact on the economic budget, the increase in the consumption
of other cheaper drugs may also have important health and therefore economic consequences [8]. The generic entry could be considered a double-edge sword: the incorporation
of generic antibiotic formulations constitutes an “oxygen balloon” in economic terms. However, antimicrobial stewardship teams should not exclude strict control of all antimicrobials
from their objectives since the potential economic benefit of generic antibiotics could be
diluted by an increase in bacterial resistance.
This study is not without limitations. Firstly, we were not able to include all drugs
and families. Secondly, we, unfortunately, lacked microbiological data, which could have
given a potential explanation for the increase in the use of some drugs.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Study Setting and Design
This study was conducted at the Hospital del Mar, a 400-bed tertiary hospital located
in Barcelona, Spain, with an influence area of 300,000 inhabitants. The center includes two
intensive care units (medical and surgical), an active program for renal transplantation,
and oncology and hematology wards.
The present work was a retrospective quasi-experimental interrupted time series
analysis conducted to evaluate the impact of generic market entry on antimicrobial con-
Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1149
9 of 11
sumption in the hospital. The evaluated outcome included antimicrobial consumption,
expressed as defined daily doses (DDD)/100 bed days.
We included all the antimicrobials for systemic use for which a generic product entered the market from January 2000 to December 2019. Oral and parenteral formulations
of each drug were recorded unless stated otherwise. The decision of generic entry was
taken by the Pharmacy Department after reviewing the available evidence of the generic
product and the fact sheet. All generic products had been approved by the Spanish Agency
of Drugs. Every time a generic product was marketed, the Pharmacy Department modified
purchases of the product. There was no other specific policy in relation to generic entry
in the hospital. The generic entry period was defined as the first month when prescriptions of a generic product were first recorded [10]. Afterward, we selected all the drugs
in which there were enough data to perform statistical analysis. These drugs included
oral amoxicillin, parenteral ampicillin, parenteral cefepime, oral cefixime, parenteral cefotaxime, oral and parenteral clindamycin, parenteral cloxacillin, parenteral and nebulized
colistin, parenteral daptomycin, oral and parenteral fluconazole, parenteral fosfomycin, parenteral imipenem-cilastatin, oral itraconazole, oral and parenteral levofloxacin, parenteral
meropenem, parenteral piperacillin–tazobactam, parenteral teicoplanin, and parenteral
vancomycin.
Our hospital implemented the antimicrobial stewardship program from 1 January 2011
to 31 March 2011. This team includes specialists in infectious diseases, pharmacy, microbiology, and intensive care medicine [28]. Among the different interventions, a computer
application for the prescription of antimicrobials was developed within patients’ electronic
medical records. When one of the selected antimicrobials was prescribed, providers needed
to justify the indication and include the duration of the treatment (with automatic discontinuation on the day set). Thereafter, information on the cost of the treatment was displayed
on the screen. The antimicrobials included were linezolid, aztreonam, echinocandins
(anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin), carbapenems (ertapenem, imipenem, and
meropenem), daptomycin, tigecycline, voriconazole, and liposomal amphotericin B [29].
These antimicrobials were monitored even after generic entry. A member of the working
group reviewed and reassessed these indications during the first 24 to 72 h and thereafter
daily.
4.2. Data Collection
The consumption data were obtained by the Pharmacy Department through a computer tool on a monthly basis from January 2000 to December 2020. However, to avoid
the inferences of the COVID-19 pandemic, information until December 2019 was only
included. Consumption data were based on dispensation, rather than administration, data.
We acknowledge the potential limitations of this methodology since the consumption may
be overestimated and may not reflect which drug the patient has finally received.
All antibiotic consumption data were obtained from the Anatomical Therapeutic
Chemical/Defined Daily Dose (ATC/DDD) classification system. This methodology was
developed by the WHO Collaborating Center for Drug Statistics Methodology [30]. The
ATC/DDD system was used to monitor adult hospital anti-infectives for systemic consumption. The admission and discharge days were considered as a single day [31]. Adult
antibacterial and antimycotic consumption was calculated on a yearly basis and expressed
as DDD/100 bed days.
4.3. Statistical Analysis
Differences in specific antibacterial consumption before and after generic market entry
were visually analyzed using a simple linear model to detect possible significant trend
changes. Corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values for each antibacterial
trend were computed for pre-generic and post-generic entries separately.
To find significant variation between pre-GME and post-GME, an interrupted time
series analysis (ITSA) was implemented, and Tukey’s p-value was obtained.
Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1149
10 of 11
For all statistical analyses, 95% CIs were calculated. p-values of <0.05 were considered
statistically significant. A bilateral distribution was assumed for all p-values. The analyses
were performed using R v4.0.4 statistical software (R foundation for Statistical Computing,
Vienna, Austria).
5. Conclusions
Generic entry of drugs such as meropenem or piperacillin–tazobactam led to an
increase in the consumption of these broad-spectrum agents, whereas in the case of clindamycin, consumption was reduced. Antimicrobial stewardship should maintain, despite
the lower associated costs of generic products, the monitoring of the prescriptions of these
agents to try to reduce their potential ecological consequences.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.E., D.E.-E., S.H., O.F. and S.G.; data curation, M.E.,
D.E.-E., S.H., A.A., E.L., O.F. and S.G.; formal analysis, M.E., D.E.-E., S.H., A.A., E.L., O.F. and S.G.;
funding acquisition, S.G.; investigation, M.E., D.E.-E., S.H., A.A., E.L., O.F. and S.G.; methodology,
M.E., D.E.-E., S.H., E.L., O.F. and S.G.; project administration, E.L., O.F. and S.G.; Resources, S.H.,
E.L., O.F. and S.G.; software, S.H., A.A., E.L., O.F. and S.G.; supervision, D.E.-E., E.L., O.F. and S.G.;
validation, D.E.-E., E.L., O.F. and S.G.; visualization, M.E., D.E.-E., S.H., S.G.-Z., E.L., O.F. and S.G.;
writing—original draft preparation, M.E., D.E.-E., S.G.-Z., O.F. and S.G.; writing—review and editing,
M.E., D.E.-E., S.H., A.A., S.G.-Z., E.L., O.F. and S.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: This study is a part of a PhD program in Medicine of the Universitat Autònoma
de Barcelona.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Cuesta, M. Medicamentos genéricos: Una visión global. Inf. Ter. Sist. Nac. Salud 2010, 34, 35–40.
Cecchini, M.; Langer, J.; Slawomirski, L. Antimicrobial Resistance in G7 Countries and Beyond; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Paris, France, 2015.
Dadgostar, P. Antimicrobial resistance: Implications and costs. Infect. Drug Resist. 2019, 12, 3903–3910. [CrossRef]
Gauzit, R.; Lakdhari, M. Generic antibiotic drugs: Is effectiveness guaranteed? Med. Mal. Infect. 2012, 42, 141–148. [CrossRef]
Gauzit, R.; Lakdhari, M.; Ordóñez, K.; Feinstein, M.M.; Reyes, S.; Hernández-Gómez, C.; Pallares, C.; Villegas, M.V.; Cecchini, M.;
Langer, J.; et al. Generic and therapeutic substitutions in the UK: Are they a good thing? Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2011, 8, 335–341.
[CrossRef]
Ordóñez, K.; Feinstein, M.M.; Reyes, S.; Hernández-Gómez, C.; Pallares, C.; Villegas, M.V. Clinical and economic impact of
generic versus brand name meropenem use in an intensive care unit in Colombia. Braz. J. Infect. Dis. 2019, 23, 237–245. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Tattevin, P.; Crémieux, A.C.; Rabaud, C.; Gauzit, R. Efficacy and quality of antibacterial generic products approved for human
use: A systematic review. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2014, 58, 458–469. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
White, A.R.; Blaser, M.; Carrs, O.; Cassell, G.; Fishman, N.; Guidos, R.; Levy, S.; Powers, J.; Norrby, R.; Tillotson, G.; et al.
Effective antibacterials: At what cost? The economics of antibacterial resistance and its control. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2011, 66,
1948–1953. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gajdács, M. The concept of an ideal antibiotic: Implications for drug design. Molecules 2019, 24, 892. [CrossRef]
Kållberg, C.; Hudson, J.; Salvesen Blix, H.; Årdal, C.; Klein, E.; Lindbæk, M.; Outterson, K.; Røttingen, J.A.; Laxminarayan, R. The
effect of generic market entry on antibiotic prescriptions in the United States. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2937. [CrossRef]
Kaier, K. The impact of pricing and patent expiration on demand for pharmaceuticals: An examination of the use of broadspectrum antimicrobials. Health Econ. Policy Law 2013, 8, 7–20. [CrossRef]
Jensen, U.S.; Muller, A.; Brandt, C.T.; Frimodt-Møller, N.; Hammerum, A.M.; Monnet, D.L. Effect of generics on price and
consumption of ciprofloxacin in primary healthcare: The relationship to increasing resistance. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2010, 65,
1286–1291. [CrossRef]
Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1149
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
11 of 11
Grau, S.; Fondevilla, E.; Echeverría-Esnal, D.; Alcorta, A.; Limon, E.; Gudiol, F. Widespread increase of empirical carbapenem use
in acute care hospitals in Catalonia, Spain. Enferm. Infecc. Microbiol. Clin. 2019, 37, 36–40. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gauzit, R.; Pean, Y.; Alfandari, S.; Bru, J.P.; Bedos, J.P.; Rabaud, C.; Robert, J. Carbapenem use in French hospitals: A nationwide
survey at the patient level. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2015, 46, 707–712. [CrossRef]
García-Rodríguez, J.F.; Bardán-García, B.; Juiz-González, P.M.; Vilariño-Maneiro, L.; Álvarez-Díaz, H.; Mariño-Callejo, A.
Long-term carbapenems antimicrobial stewardship program. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rodríguez-Baño, J.; Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, B.; Pascual, A. CON: Carbapenems are NOT necessary for all infections caused by
ceftriaxone-resistant Enterobacterales. JAC-Antimicrob. Resist. 2021, 3, dlaa112. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rodriguez-Baño, J.; Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, B.; Machuca, I.; Pascual, A. Treatment of Infections Caused by Extended-Spectrum-BetaLactamase-, AmpC-, and Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2018, 31, e00079-17. [CrossRef]
Gottesman, B.S.; Carmeli, Y.; Shitrit, P.; Chowers, M. Impact of quinolone restriction on resistance patterns of Escherichia coli
isolated from urine by culture in a community setting. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2009, 49, 869–875. [CrossRef]
Vollmer, N.J.; Rivera, C.G.; Stevens, R.W.; Oravec, C.P.; Mara, K.C.; Suh, G.A.; Osmon, D.R.; Beam, E.N.; Abdel, M.P.; Virk, A.
Safety and Tolerability of Fluoroquinolones in Patients with Staphylococcal Periprosthetic Joint Infections. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2021,
73, 850–856. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Quinolone-and Fluoroquinolone-Containing Medicinal Products European Medicines Agency. Available online: https://www.
ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/referrals/quinolone-fluoroquinolone-containing-medicinal-products (accessed on 9
August 2021).
Kaier, K.; Frank, U.; Meyer, E. Economic incentives for the (over-)prescription of broad-spectrum antimicrobials in German
ambulatory care. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2011, 66, 1656–1658. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Del Barrio-Tofinõ, E.; Zamorano, L.; Cortes-Lara, S.; López-Causape, C.; Sánchez-Diener, I.; Cabot, G.; Bou, G.; Martínez-Martínez,
L.; Oliver, A. Spanish nationwide survey on Pseudomonas aeruginosa antimicrobial resistance mechanisms and epidemiology. J.
Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 1825–1835. [CrossRef]
Moreno-García, E.; Puerta-Alcalde, P.; Gariup, G.; Fernández-Ruiz, M.; López Cortés, L.E.; Cuervo, G.; Salavert, M.; Merino,
P.; Machado, M.; Guinea, J.; et al. Early Stepdown from Echinocandin to Fluconazole Treatment in Candidemia: A Post Hoc
Analysis of Three Cohort Studies. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2021, 8, ofab250. [CrossRef]
Grau, S.; Fondevilla, E.; Freixas, N.; Mojal, S.; Sopena, N.; Bella, F.; Gudiol, F.; Balet, A.; Perez, R.; Pons, M.; et al. Relationship
between consumption of MRSA-active antibiotics and burden of MRSA in acute care hospitals in Catalonia, Spain. J. Antimicrob.
Chemother. 2014, 70, 1193–1197. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Echeverría-Esnal, D.; Sorli, L.; Prim, N.; Martin-ontiyuelo, C.; Horcajada, J.P.; Grau, S. Daptomycin versus glycopeptides for the
treatment of enterococcus faecium bacteraemia: A cohort study. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 716. [CrossRef]
Stephens, P. Stimulating Antibiotic R&D an Analysis of Key Factors–R&D Success, R&D Duration and the Impact of Generic Launch;
IMS Health: London, UK, 2015.
Monnet, D.L.; Ferech, M.; Frimodt-Møller, N.; Goossens, H. The more antibacterial trade names, the more consumption of
antibacterials: A European study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2005, 41, 114–117. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Álvarez-Lerma, F.; Grau, S.; Echeverría-Esnal, D.; Martínez-Alonso, M.; Pilar Gracia-Arnillas, M.; Pablo Horcajada, J.; Ramón
Masclansa, J. A before-and-after study of the effectiveness of an antimicrobial stewardship program in critical care. Antimicrob.
Agents Chemother. 2018, 62, e01825-17. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Grau, S.; Echeverria-Esnal, D.; Gómez-Zorrilla, S.; Navarrete-Rouco, M.E.; Masclans, J.R.; Espona, M.; Gracia-Arnillas, M.P.;
Duran, X.; Comas, M.; Horcajada, J.P.; et al. Evolution of antimicrobial consumption during the first wave of covid-19 pandemic.
Antibiotics 2021, 10, 132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, Guidelines for ATC Classification and DDD Assignment, 2017. 2016.
Available online: https://www.whocc.no/filearchive/publications/2017_guidelines_web.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2017).
Fondevilla, E.; Grau, S.; Echeverría-Esnal, D.; Gudiol, F. Antibiotic consumption trends among acute care hospitals in Catalonia
(2008–2016): Impact of different adjustments on the results. Expert Rev. Anti. Infect. Ther. 2021, 19, 245–251. [CrossRef]