Patents and the Global Diffusion of New Drugs.

Analysis of the timing of launches of 642 new drugs in 76 countries during 1983­2002 shows that patent and price regulation regimes strongly affect how quickly new drugs become commercially available in different countries. Price regulation delays launch, while longer and more extensive patent rights accelerate it. Health policy institutions and economic and demographic factors that make markets more profitable also speed up diffusion. The estimated effects are generally robust to controlling for endogeneity of policy regimes with country fixed effects and instrumental variables. The results highlight the important role of policy choices in driving the diffusion of new innovations.

The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research.

Low reproducibility rates within life science research undermine cumulative knowledge production and contribute to both delays and costs of therapeutic drug development. An analysis of past studies indicates that the cumulative (total) prevalence of irreproducible preclinical research exceeds 50%, resulting in approximately US$28,000,000,000 (US$28B)/year spent on preclinical research that is not reproducible-in the United States alone. We outline a framework for solutions and a plan for long-term improvements in reproducibility rates that will help to accelerate the discovery of life-saving therapies and cures.

The hidden cost of low prices: limited access to new drugs in India.

The pricing and accessibility of patent-protected drugs in low- and middle-income countries is a contentious issue in the global context. But questions about price have little meaning if a drug is not available for purchase, and the extent to which patent policy affects when (and if) new drugs become available in these countries has largely been overlooked. We examined data on the sales of 184 drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between 2000 and 2009. We found that 50 percent of those 184 drugs went on sale in India only after lags of more than five years from their first worldwide introduction. More than half of the drugs that became newly available in India during the study period were produced and sold by multiple manufacturers in the country within one year of their introduction. The presence of multiple manufacturers indicates sharp competition and weak patent protection--factors that are disincentives to manufacturers to incur the costs of gaining access to the market. We conclude that modest patent and regulatory reform could bring the faster availability of a wider range of new drugs in India with limited impact on prices--a trade-off that merits greater policy attention.

Bridging the gap: improving clinical development and the regulatory pathways for health products for neglected diseases.

BACKGROUND: There has been tremendous progress over the last decade in the development of health products--drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics--for neglected diseases. There are now dozens of candidate products in the pipeline. PURPOSE: Our purpose is to assess challenges that will arise in later-stage clinical development of these candidate health products and propose a strategy that would help bring the costs, risks, and finances for their clinical trials into a better, more sustainable balance. METHODS: We conducted a literature review of clinical trial-related publications, interviewed individuals sponsoring and conducting interventional clinical trials for neglected diseases, and analyzed data from Clinicaltrials.gov, a clinical trials registry, on neglected disease clinical trials initiating subject recruitment between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2009. We quantified Clinicaltrials.gov data into country-specific participation in clinical trials and aggregated them into geographic regions. We employed bioinformatics and keyword methods to classify trials by type of intervention, sponsor, study phase, and therapeutic area. RESULTS: Two substantial bottlenecks threaten our capacity to bring these candidate neglected disease therapies to those in need. First, the research and regulatory capacity in many neglected disease-endemic settings is not adequate to support the clinical trials that need to occur there in order to complete the development of these products. Second, even with expected attrition in the pipeline, current levels of financing are insufficient to support the clinical development of these products under current cost assumptions. LIMITATIONS: The proportion of trials of relevant studies not registered on Clinicaltrials.gov is not known, but is thought to be smaller post-2005, after the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors initiated a policy requiring investigators to deposit information about trial design into an accepted clinical trials registry before beginning patient enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: Realizing the promise of the neglected disease product pipeline will require not only increased funding for large-scale clinical trials and capacity building, but also greater attention to how these trials and their regulatory pathways can be improved to reduce unnecessary costs, delays, and risks to trial subjects. We propose a two-prong strategy: (1) adaptation and adoption of emerging research on 'sensible guidelines' for reducing large-scale, randomized clinical trial costs to the demands of the neglected disease product pipeline and (2) regional approaches to regulation and ethical review of clinical trials for health products for neglected diseases.

The impact of incremental innovation in biopharmaceuticals: drug utilisation in original and supplemental indications.

BACKGROUND: The apparent decrease in the rate of approval of new molecular entities has provoked extensive discussion and fears that the productivity of biopharmaceutical research and development has severely declined in recent years. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the extent to which traditional measures of innovative output neglect important innovations that occur after a drug receives initial market approval. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data on drug utilisation by diagnosis for the period 1999-2004 were combined with data on the approval histories of three important classes of drugs: ACE inhibitors, histamine H(2)-antagonists/proton-pump inhibitors, and selective serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. Counts of new drug approvals by the FDA were classified as new indications, new dosages, new combinations, new formulations, and labeling for expanded populations. Large numbers of such "supplemental" approvals were obtained. The share of drug utilisation in indications other than that specified in the initially approved labeling was computed, and found to be very substantial in two out of the three drug classes considered. CONCLUSIONS: Significant incremental innovation to existing pharmaceutical products has been occurring in the form of supplementary approvals for new dosages, formulations, and indications. These innovations account for a substantial share of drug utilisation and associated economic and medical benefits. Productivity trends for research and development based on counts of new molecular entities alone have therefore overlooked an important source of innovation in biopharmaceuticals.

The changing structure of the pharmaceutical industry.

Rising research and development (R&D) expenditures by pharmaceutical companies are, in part, a consequence of changing industry structure, particularly the rise of the biotechnology sector. The creation of a market for biomedical science and increased vertical competition within the industry are likely to spur innovation and raise productivity, but they also could induce socially wasteful spending and weaken academic science. With innovation increasingly dependent on financially vulnerable firms and complex contractual arrangements, R&D investment might be becoming more sensitive to price controls or other cost containment measures.

Impact of clinical trial results on national trends in alpha-blocker prescribing, 1996-2002.

CONTEXT: Research on factors that influence prescribing patterns and the extent of change produced by clinical trial findings is limited. OBJECTIVE: To examine the changes in prescribing of alpha-blockers for hypertension treatment before and after the April 2000 publication of the unfavorable Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) early termination involving the study's doxazosin mesylate arm. Changes in prescribing were considered in the context of other potential concurrent influences on medication use between 1996 and 2002, including changes in alpha-blocker drug prices, generic conversion, drug promotion, and competition. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Using 2 national pharmaceutical market research reports published by IMS HEALTH, alpha-blocker prescription orders reported in the National Prescription Audit-a random computerized sample of about 20 000 of 29 000 retail, independent, and mail order pharmacies and mass merchandise and discount houses--and office-based physician alpha-blocker prescribing patterns reported in the National Disease and Therapeutic Index--a random stratified sample of about 3500 physician offices--were tracked. OUTCOME MEASURES: Trends in physician-reported use of alpha-blockers and alpha-blocker prescribing and dispensing by US pharmacies. RESULTS: There were steady increases in alpha-blocker new prescriptions, dispensed prescriptions, and physician drug use from 1996 through 1999. There was a moderate reversal in these trends following ALLHAT early termination and subsequent publications in early 2000. Between 1999 and 2002, new annual alpha-blocker prescription orders declined by 26% (from 5.15 million to 3.79 million), dispensed prescriptions by 22% (from 17.2 million to 13.4 million), and physician-reported drug use by 54% (from 2.26 million to 1.03 million). Other potential influences did not appear to have contributed significantly to this decline although cessation of alpha-blocker marketing may have hastened the decline. CONCLUSIONS: Modest yet statistically significant declines in the use of doxazosin and other alpha-blockers coincided with the early termination of the ALLHAT doxazosin arm. Although physicians responded to this new evidence, strategies to augment the impact of clinical trials on clinical practice are warranted.

A statistical analysis of the magnitude and composition of drug promotion in the United States in 1998.

BACKGROUND: Although pharmaceutical industry marketing and other factors may influence physician decisions regarding medication prescribing in the United States, little information is available about the composition of promotional efforts by promotional mode and medication class. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine the magnitude of expenditures for common modes of promotion and to delineate patterns of promotional strategies for particular classes of medications. METHODS: Nationally representative data on expenditures (in US $) for the 250 most promoted medications in the United States in 1998 were available from an independent pharmaceutical market research company for the 5 most commonly used modes of promotion. Key patterns of drug promotion were identified by descriptive statistics, a cluster analysis of expenditures by class, and an analysis of expenditure concentration. RESULTS: In 1998, the pharmaceutical industry spent $12,724 million promoting its products in the United States, of which 85.9% was accounted for by the top 250 drugs and 51.6% by the top 50 drugs. Direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising was more concentrated on a small subset of medications than was promotion to professionals. Overall, 1998 expenditures were dominated by free drug samples provided to physicians (equivalent retail cost of $6602 million) and office promotion ($3537 million), followed by DTC advertising ($1337 million), hospital promotion ($705 million), and advertising in medical journals ($540 million). Four distinct patterns of expenditures were observed: promotion to office physicians with little consumer promotion (14 drug classes); dual focus on office physicians and consumer advertising (4 drug classes); predominant DTC advertising (1 class: smoking-cessation products); and promotion to office- and hospital-based professionals without consumer advertising (1 class: narcotic analgesics). CONCLUSIONS: The present findings reinforce the perception that the pharmaceutical industry invests heavily in promoting its products and demonstrates that promotional expenditures are concentrated on a small number of medications. Although promotion to professionals remains dominant, DTC advertising has become key for a subset of common medications