Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 7.534
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 19(7): e0305383, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38954737

ABSTRACT

Drug shortage is a global problem, and the development of government-enterprise cooperative stockpiles of drugs in shortage, combining physical and production capacity, has become one of the most important means of coping with drug shortages. However, existing studies have tended to overlook the fact that shortages of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) have become an important constraint on production capacity stockpiling and that the lack of incentives and provisions for coordination of benefits have led to a double marginal effect of joint stockpiling by government and enterprises of drugs in shortage. Accordingly, this study introduced the option contract to the drug supply system composed of government and pharmaceutical enterprises and used the subsidy of API storage in lieu as an important initiative to incentivize the reserve of APIs, to construct a model of shortage drug reserve under the government's leadership. This study aims to improve the effect of government-enterprise joint stockpiling of drugs in shortage, which is of great theoretical and practical significance. According to the classification of production license types of pharmaceutical enterprises, this study established a three-level supply chain decentralized decision-making model consisting of the government, formulation enterprises, and API enterprises, and a two-level supply chain centralized decision-making model consisting of the government and API Formulation (API-F) integrated enterprises, respectively. By solving the inverse order derivation, the government-enterprise option cooperation conditions and optimal decision-making strategy were derived. The study results showed that: (i) The addition of enterprise API stockpiling mode can help the government conventional reserves, and enterprise production capacity reserves, broaden the way of drug reserves, and improve the effect of government-enterprise option cooperation; (ii) when the probability of drug shortages is high, the government should prefer the cooperation of API-F integrated enterprises, which is conducive to reducing intermediate links and government costs and improving the supply responsiveness to shortages of medicines; (iii) Setting appropriate government subsidies for API storage can incentivize enterprises to stockpile APIs and improve drug production capacity and physical supply response capability. This study took the problem of socialized stockpiling of drugs in shortage as an entry point and explored the problems and solution strategies in the government-enterprise cooperative stockpiling of drugs in shortage, which not only made some theoretical contributions to the application of options contract in the government-enterprise cooperative stockpiling of drugs in shortage but also provided new ideas and theoretical basis for the improvement of the stockpiling work of drugs in shortage.


Subject(s)
Drug Industry , Pharmaceutical Preparations/supply & distribution , Pharmaceutical Preparations/economics , Drug Industry/economics , Humans , Government , Strategic Stockpile
2.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm ; 30(7): 719-727, 2024 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38950157

ABSTRACT

Drug shortages threaten patients' access to medications and are associated with adverse health outcomes and increased costs. Drug shortages disproportionately occur among generic drugs of limited profitability, most notably drugs administered by injection. In this perspective, we discuss how reimbursement and purchasing practices that were meant to create an efficient marketplace for generics have generated strong price pressure that threatens profitability in certain markets. We further explain how, faced with limited profitability, manufacturers lack incentives to invest in resilient supply chains, and in some cases, engage in cost-containment strategies or decide to exit the market, ultimately contributing to shortages. We propose the development and implementation of value-based reimbursement to provide needed incentives for drug purchasers and manufacturers to establish a more reliable supply chain as part of the policy solution to reduce the number and extent of drug shortages. This reimbursement model would necessitate the development of a rating system that measures supply chain resilience and maturity for each generic product. This rating would then be applied as a value-based modifier to reimbursement rates for generic products. The proposed model would result in higher reimbursement rates for generic products from more dependable supply chains, generating incentives for manufacturers to invest in supply chain resiliency. We propose the application of this reimbursement system originally in Medicare given Congressional interest on reforming Medicare payment to prevent drug shortages.


Subject(s)
Drug Industry , Drugs, Generic , United States , Drugs, Generic/economics , Drugs, Generic/supply & distribution , Humans , Drug Industry/economics , Drug Costs , Cost Control , Pharmaceutical Preparations/supply & distribution , Pharmaceutical Preparations/economics , Value-Based Purchasing , Reimbursement Mechanisms
6.
JAMA Health Forum ; 5(6): e241468, 2024 Jun 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38874962

ABSTRACT

This economic evaluation estimates the out-of-pocket cost savings patients could achieve if generic drugs were purchased directly from the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company rather than using their health insurance.


Subject(s)
Drug Industry , Drugs, Generic , Drugs, Generic/economics , Drugs, Generic/therapeutic use , Humans , Cuba , Drug Industry/economics , Cost Savings , Drug Costs , Female , Male
8.
BMJ Open ; 14(6): e086396, 2024 Jun 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38908845

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential for standardising patient care based on evidence-based medicine. However, the presence of financial conflicts of interest (COIs) among CPG authors can undermine their credibility. This study aimed to examine the extent and size of COIs among authors of psychiatry CPGs in Japan. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis of disclosed payments from pharmaceutical companies assesses the prevalence and magnitude of personal payments for lecturing, consulting and writing to CPGs for bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder in Japan between 2016 and 2020. RESULTS: This study found that 93.3% of authors received payments over a 5-year period, with total payments exceeding US$4 million. The median payment per author was US$51 403 (IQR: US$9982-US$111 567), with a notable concentration of payments among a small number of authors, including the CPG chairperson. Despite these extensive financial relationships, only a fraction of authors disclosed their COIs in the CPGs. These large amounts of personal payments were made by pharmaceutical companies manufacturing new antidepressants and sleeping aids listed in the CPGs. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that more than 93% of authors of CPGs for major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder in Japan received considerable amounts of personal payments from the pharmaceutical industry. The findings highlight deviations from international COI management standards and suggest a need for more stringent COI policies for psychiatry CPGs in Japan.


Subject(s)
Bipolar Disorder , Conflict of Interest , Depressive Disorder, Major , Drug Industry , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Japan , Depressive Disorder, Major/drug therapy , Depressive Disorder, Major/economics , Depressive Disorder, Major/therapy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Drug Industry/economics , Conflict of Interest/economics , Bipolar Disorder/drug therapy , Bipolar Disorder/economics , Bipolar Disorder/therapy , Disclosure , Authorship
9.
PLoS One ; 19(6): e0304400, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38848422

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Affordability of medicines is key for effective healthcare. Thus, we compared medicine prices using International Dollar (I$), which allows confronting the values of different currencies. Besides, we intended to verify if pharmaceutical market deregulation leads to lower medicines prices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted the study between December 2019 and September 2022 collecting data from 21 countries. From the preliminary sampling of 30 medicines, we selected 10 brand names (5 Rx and 5 OTC brands) for the analysis. In each country, we collected price information from 3 pharmacies and then converted them to the I$ using the rates published by the International Monetary Fund. RESULTS: There were differences between regulated and deregulated markets in prices presented in I$. For instance, Aspirin C® (10 soluble pills) was on average I$ 5.41 in Finland (regulated market) and I$ 13.25 in Brazil. The most expensive Xarelto® 20 x 28 pills (I$ 538.40) was in Romania, which in the case of other medicines, was in the group of cheaper countries. There was no statistical significance in price comparison between regulated and deregulated markets. In some cases, however, regulated markets offered lower prices of the same medicine than deregulated markets. CONCLUSION: The analysis revealed differences in I$ prices between countries. Pharmaceutical market regulation does not mean higher prices of medicines. There is a need for affordable medicines. Hence, decision-makers should work on the medicines prices and adjust them to the local economies. I$ could be important in creating pharmaceuticals prices, and the conducted study should encourage other researchers to present their results using this currency.


Subject(s)
Commerce , Drug Costs , Humans , Commerce/economics , Internationality , Drug Industry/economics , Pharmacies/economics
10.
JNCI Cancer Spectr ; 8(3)2024 Apr 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38825338

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to US cancer centers are poorly understood. METHODS: US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers were identified (n = 51). Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from 2014 to 2021 were obtained from Open Payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Given our focus on cancer centers, we measured the subset of industry payments related to cancer drugs specifically and the subset of NIH funding from the NCI. RESULTS: Despite a pandemic-related decline in 2020-2021, cancer-related industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased from $482 million in 2014 to $972 million in 2021. Over the same period, NCI research grant funding increased from $2 481  million to $2 724  million. The large majority of nonresearch payments were royalties and licensing payments. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years but were also more variable. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence and instability of industry payments.


Subject(s)
Cancer Care Facilities , Drug Industry , National Cancer Institute (U.S.) , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Research Support as Topic , United States , Humans , National Cancer Institute (U.S.)/economics , Drug Industry/economics , Drug Industry/trends , Research Support as Topic/trends , Research Support as Topic/economics , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , Cancer Care Facilities/economics , Conflict of Interest/economics , Antineoplastic Agents/economics , Neoplasms/economics
11.
JAMA Health Forum ; 5(6): e241581, 2024 Jun 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38941087

ABSTRACT

Importance: Sponsorship of promotional events for health professionals is a key facet of marketing campaigns for pharmaceuticals and medical devices; however, there appears to be limited transparency regarding the scope and scale of this spending. Objective: To develop a novel method for describing the scope and quantifying the spending by US pharmaceutical and medical companies on industry-sponsored promotional events for particular products. Design and Setting: This was a cross-sectional study using records from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid's Open Payments database on payments made to prescribing clinicians from January 1 to December 21, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: An event-centric approach was used to define sponsored events as groupings of payment records with matching variables. Events were characterized by value (coffee, lunch, dinner, or banquet) and number of attendees (small vs large). To test the method, the number of and total spending for each type of event across professional groups were calculated and used to identify the top 10 products related to dinner events. To validate the method, we extracted all event details advertised on the websites of 4 state-level nurse practitioner associations that regularly hosted industry-sponsored dinner events during 2022 and compared these with events identified in the Open Payments database. Results: A total of 1 154 806 events sponsored by pharmaceutical and medical device companies were identified for 2022. Of these, 1 151 351 (99.7%) had fewer than 20 attendees, and 922 214 (80.0%) were considered to be a lunch ($10-$30 per person). Seven companies sponsored 16 031 dinners for the top 10 products. Of the 227 sponsored in-person dinner events hosted by the 4 state-level nurse practitioner associations, 168 (74.0%) matched events constructed from the Open Payments dataset. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings indicate that an event-centric analysis of Open Payments data is a valid method to understand the scope and quantify spending by pharmaceutical and medical device companies on industry-sponsored promotional events attended by prescribers. Expanding and enforcing the reporting requirements to cover all payments to all registered health professionals would improve the accuracy of estimates of the true extent of all sponsored events and their impact on clinical practice.


Subject(s)
Drug Industry , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , United States , Drug Industry/economics , Marketing/economics , Conflict of Interest/economics , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.
12.
JAMA Netw Open ; 7(6): e2415445, 2024 Jun 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38941099

ABSTRACT

Importance: Understanding the cost of drug development can help inform the development of policies to reduce costs, encourage innovation, and improve patient access to drugs. Objective: To estimate the cost of drug development by therapeutic class and trends in pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) intensity over time. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation study, an analytical model of drug development constructed using public and proprietary sources that collectively cover data from 2000 to 2018 was used to estimate the cost of bringing a drug to market, overall and for specific therapeutic classes. The analysis for the study was completed in October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three measures of development cost from nonclinical through postmarketing stages were estimated: mean out-of-pocket cost or cash outlay, mean expected cost, and mean expected capitalized cost. Pharmaceutical R&D intensity, defined as the ratio of R&D spending to total sales, from 2008 to 2019, based on the time frame for available data, was also analyzed. Results: The estimated mean cost of developing a new drug was approximately $172.7 million (2018 dollars) (range, $72.5 million for genitourinary to $297.2 million for pain and anesthesia), inclusive of postmarketing studies. The cost increased to $515.8 million when cost of failures was included. When the costs of failures and capital were included, the mean expected capitalized cost of drug development increased to $879.3 million (range, $378.7 million for anti-infectives to $1756.2 million for pain and anesthesia); results varied widely by therapeutic class. The pharmaceutical industry as a whole experienced a decline of 15.6% in sales but increased R&D intensity from 11.9% to 17.7% from 2008 to 2019. By contrast, R&D intensity of large pharmaceutical companies increased from 16.6% to 19.3%, whereas sales increased by 10.0% (from $380.0 to $418.0 billion) over the same 2008 to 2019 period, even though the cost of drug development remained relatively stable or may have even decreased. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation of new drug development costs, even though the cost of drug development appears to have remained stable, R&D intensity of large pharmaceutical companies remained relatively unchanged, despite substantial growth in revenues during this period. These findings can inform the design of drug-related policies and their potential impacts on innovation and competition.


Subject(s)
Drug Development , Drug Development/economics , United States , Humans , Drug Costs/statistics & numerical data , Drug Costs/trends , Drug Industry/economics , Pharmaceutical Research/economics
13.
AAPS J ; 26(4): 72, 2024 Jun 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38890152

ABSTRACT

We aim to characterize industry-funded trials that have posted the informed consent forms (ICFs), and to assess whether the role played by industry as 'sponsor' or 'collaborator' could impact several relevant variables. A cross-sectional study was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov on all industry-funded trials registered on or before 25 February 2023. We registered types of intervention, current recruitment status, design, enrollment, and countries involved. For trials with special interest to potential participants and investigators and/or clinicians an analysis of the role played by industry as 'sponsor' or 'collaborator' was performed. Of 116,281 industry-funded trials registered, 741 (0.6%) had posted ICFs. Most of these trials were categorized as 'completed' (n = 408) or 'terminated' (n = 107). The review of a sample of 359 trials showed that most were on drugs and/or biologics (59%), were randomized (51%), conducted exclusively in the USA (72%), and had posted results (79%), protocols (92%), and statistical analysis plans (SAPs) (89%). Trials in which industry participated as 'collaborator' were significantly more likely to post ICFs when trials were in the 'active, not recruiting' phase (OR 4.70, 99.71% CI 1.59-13.9, p < 0.001) than industry-sponsored trials. This was also the case when assessing drugs/biologics (OR 2.64, 99.71% CI 1.25-5.58, p < 0.001). Conversely, companies acting as 'sponsors' were significantly more likely to post ICFs with trials assessing devices, radiation interventions and/or diagnostic tests (OR 0.37, 99.71% CI 0.17-0.79, p < 0.001) than when participating as 'collaborators'. While industry-funded trials rarely post ICFs, when they do, they are highly compliant with transparency requirements. Regulations and ethics codes should consider requiring posting of protocols, SAPs, and ICFs for all clinical trials, regardless the type of sponsor.


Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic , Consent Forms , Drug Industry , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Clinical Trials as Topic/ethics , Drug Industry/economics , Informed Consent , Registries
14.
JAMA ; 331(24): 2131-2134, 2024 06 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38814636

ABSTRACT

This study evaluates adherence to industry and professional standards among physicians endorsing drugs and devices on a social media platform.


Subject(s)
Drug Industry , Physicians , Social Media , Drug Industry/economics , Physicians/economics , Humans , Equipment and Supplies/economics , Conflict of Interest , United States , Disclosure
15.
Drug Ther Bull ; 62(6): 86, 2024 May 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38719337

ABSTRACT

Overview of: Ozieranski P, Saghy E, Mulinari S. Pharmaceutical industry payments to NHS trusts in England: a four-year analysis of the Disclosure UK database. PLoS One 2023;18:e0290022.


Subject(s)
Drug Industry , State Medicine , Drug Industry/economics , State Medicine/economics , Humans , United Kingdom , Disclosure , England
16.
Am J Ther ; 31(3): e268-e279, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38691666

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The promotion of the latest medicines produced by the pharmaceutical industry is an important issue both from an ethical point of view (the level of accessibility, the way research is carried out) and from the point of view of marketing and especially from the lobbying issues raised. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: The ethical dilemmas raised by the promotion of new drugs revolve between the need to discover new molecules important for treating a wide range of diseases and the need to establish a battery of ethical rules, absolutely necessary for regulations in the field to be compliant with all ethical principles. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted through PubMed, MEDLINE, Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science (2015-2023) using combinations of keywords, including drugs, medical publicity, and pharma marketing plus ethical dilemma. ETHICS AND THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: The promotion of medicines is governed by advertising laws and regulations in many countries, including at EU level, based on the need for countries to ensure that the promotion and advertising of medicines is truthful, based on information understood by consumers. The ethical analysis of the issues raised is more necessary and complex as the channels used for promotion are more accessible to the population, and the information, easier to obtain, can be the cause of increased self-medication and overeating. Large amounts of money invested in the development of new molecules, but also the risk of scientific fraud through manipulation of data during clinical trials, selective or biased publication of information can have repercussions on the health of the population. CONCLUSIONS: The development of new pharmaceutical molecules is necessary to intervene and treat as many conditions as possible, but marketing must not neglect the observance of ethical principles. The promotion of medicines should be the attribute especially of the medical staff, which should also be a mandatory part of the mechanism for approving the marketing methods and means used by the pharmaceutical companies.


Subject(s)
Drug Industry , Humans , Drug Industry/legislation & jurisprudence , Drug Industry/economics , Drug Industry/ethics , Advertising/ethics , Advertising/legislation & jurisprudence , Advertising/economics , Marketing/legislation & jurisprudence , Marketing/ethics , Marketing/economics , Conflict of Interest/economics
18.
JAMA Intern Med ; 184(7): 810-817, 2024 Jul 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38739386

ABSTRACT

Importance: Brand-name drugs are sold at high prices in the US during market exclusivity periods protected by patents. Multiple overlapping patents protecting a drug are known as patent thickets and can effectively delay the emergence of price-lowering generic competition for many years. Objective: To evaluate the composition of patent thickets of 10 top-selling prescription drugs in the US and compare the characteristics of drug patents filed during development with those filed on these products after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Design and Setting: This cross-sectional study examined US patent thickets of the 10 prescription drugs with the highest US net sales revenue in 2021 using information on issued patents and patent applications as of June 30, 2022, obtained from a public database by the Initiative for Medicines, Access, and Knowledge. Data were analyzed from September 2022 to June 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of patents filed before and after FDA approval; types of claims present in issued patents (ie, chemical composition, method of use, process or synthesis, formulation, and delivery device); and patent thicket density (number of active patents at a given time). Results: The 10 top-selling prescription drugs in the US for 2021 included 4 small-molecule drugs and 6 biologics. These 10 drugs were linked to 1429 patents and patent applications: 742 (52%) issued patents, 218 (15%) pending applications, and 469 (33%) abandoned applications. Almost three-quarters of patent applications (1028 [72%]) were filed after FDA approval. The postapproval proportion was higher for biologics (80%) than for small-molecule drugs (58%). Postapproval filing of patent applications peaked in the first 5 years after FDA approval for small-molecule drugs and 12 years after FDA approval for biologics. Of 465 patents issued for applications filed after FDA approval, 189 (41%) had method of use claims, 127 (27%) had formulation claims, and 103 (22%) had process or synthesis claims, while 86 (19%) had chemical composition claims and 46 (10%) had device claims. Patent thicket density peaked 13 years after FDA approval, at which time these 10 drugs were protected by a median (IQR) of 42 (18-83) active patents, 66% of which were filed after FDA approval. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that among the 10 top-selling prescription drugs in the US in 2021, patents filed after FDA approval and containing claims covering aspects other than the active ingredient of the drug contributed to patent thickets. Scrutiny of patent applications and of patents filed after FDA approval is needed to facilitate timely generic or biosimilar competition.


Subject(s)
Drugs, Generic , Patents as Topic , Prescription Drugs , Prescription Drugs/economics , Cross-Sectional Studies , United States , Humans , Drugs, Generic/economics , United States Food and Drug Administration , Drug Industry/legislation & jurisprudence , Drug Industry/economics , Drug Approval
20.
Inquiry ; 61: 469580241246965, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38726640

ABSTRACT

Existing literature generally suggests that rising labor costs lead to the substitution of capital for labor, prompting firms to save on labor costs through technological upgrades. However, as a typical human capital-intensive industry, the pharmaceutical sector finds it challenging to replace labor with capital through the introduction of advanced equipment. Therefore, compared to other industries, the pharmaceutical sector faces greater adverse impacts. Research on how pharmaceutical R&D behavior is influenced by labor costs is scarce. This paper analyzes the triple effects of rising labor costs on corporate innovation from the perspectives of human capital, physical capital, and financial capital. Based on empirical research using data from Chinese listed companies, we found that an increase in labor costs promotes innovation output in the pharmaceutical sector, but this effect is more pronounced in other sectors. Financing constraints play a negative role on corporate innovation in the pharmaceutical sector, while it is not significant in the other sectors. Factor substitution play a positive effect on corporate innovation in the other sectors, which is invalid in the pharmaceutical sector. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the unique mechanisms by which labor costs impact innovation activities in the pharmaceutical industry.


Subject(s)
Drug Industry , Drug Industry/economics , China , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...