Brand-Name Antidepressants Outperform Their Generic Counterparts in Preventing Hospitalization for Depression: The Real-World Evidence from Taiwan

BackgroundGeneric antidepressants are approved on the market based on evidence of bioequivalence to their brand-name versions. We aimed to assess whether generic antidepressants exert equal effectiveness as their brand-name counterparts for treating patients with depressive disorders.MethodsIn a nationwide, population-based cohort in Taiwan from 1997 through 2013, patients with a diagnosis of a depressive disorder aged between 18 and 65 years who were new users of antidepressant drugs were classified into either the brand-name group or the generic group. All patients were followed up until medication discontinuation or the end of the study period. We assessed the risk for hospitalization as a primary outcome and augmentation therapy, daily dose, medication discontinuation, or switching to another antidepressant as secondary outcomes.ResultsA total of 277 651 brand-name users (35.8% male; mean age: 41.2 years) and 270 583 generic users (35.8% male; mean age: 41.0 years) were divided into 10 different antidepressant groups (fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, citalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, moclobemide, imipramine, and bupropion). We found that patients treated with the generic form of sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, and bupropion demonstrated significantly higher risks of psychiatric hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratios ranged from 1.20–2.34), compared to their brand-name counterparts. The differences between brand-name antidepressants and their generic counterparts in secondary outcomes varied across different drugs.ConclusionsCompared to most generic antidepressants, brand-name drugs exhibited more protective effects on psychiatric hospitalization for depressive patients. These findings could serve as an important reference for clinicians when encountering patients with depressive disorder.     

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for thoracic empyema in patients on maintenance hemodialysis

Thoracic empyema in uremic patients on maintenance hemodialysis is a challenging situation. The clinical characteristics are rarely reported, and the surgical outcomes remain unclear. We report our experience with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in these patients during 10-year period of time. Between 2005 and 2015, we retrospectively reviewed the clinical characteristics, bacteriological studies, and thoracoscopic surgical results of 23 empyema patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. The mean patient age was 67.1 ± 12.9 years. All patients had additional preexisting systemic diseases. The mean duration of hemodialysis was 34.7 ± 25.8 months. The infections causing empyema were pneumonia in 11 (47.8%), blood stream infection in 8 (34.8%), and uremic pleuritis in 4 (17.4%). Among the 22 identified microorganisms, the most common pathogen was methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (31.8%). After thoracoscopic surgery, 8 patients (34.8%) required additional procedures for complications, including 2 patients who required repeated thoracoscopy for hemothorax and 6 (26.1%) patients who required open drainage for residual empyema. The mean hospital stay was 62.4 days, and 6 patients (26.1%) died in the hospital. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that maintenance hemodialysis longer than 5 years was a significant factor associated with in-hospital mortality (odds ratio: 14.8, 95% confidence interval 1.5–151.6; p < 0.0001). While surgical management of thoracic empyema in uremic patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis is associated with high rates of complication and mortality, thoracoscopic surgery is feasible, especially for patients undergoing hemodialysis for less than 5 years.