Characteristics and Price Increases Among Sole-Source, Off-Patent Drugs in the United States, 2008 to 2018

Global Barriers to Accessing Off-Patent Endocrine Therapies: A Renaissance of the Orphan Disease?

CONTEXT

Clinical endocrinology encompasses many diseases requiring long-term drug therapy. Prohibitive pricing of some endocrine drugs classified as essential by the World Health Organization has created suboptimal care of patients with endocrine disorders.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This review is based on evidence obtained from several databases and search engines including PubMed, Google, and Google Scholar; reference searches; manual searching for web pages of international regulatory bodies; and the authors' experience from different healthcare settings.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

After the expiry of a patent, generic versions with the opportunity for increased availability and a price reduction are expected. There are access barriers worldwide for many off-patent endocrine drugs. The high price is the main issue for several medicines including insulin, hydrocortisone, testosterone, and gonadotropins. This is caused by several factors including the market monopoly due to the lack of registered generics or suppliers limiting the benefit of competition and a complex supply chain. Additionally, the lack of some medicines has been concerning due to market factors such as the relatively small number of patients, making it less attractive for the manufacturers. Commissioning of nonprofit manufacturers and state manufacturing as well as strict price control measures could alleviate this situation.

CONCLUSION

Lack of availability and disproportionate price inflation affecting essential off-patent endocrine therapies is common due to several interrelated factors. Global collaboration among healthcare organizations with the support of policymaking bodies might be needed to mitigate this.

Value-Based Pricing for Patent-Protected Medicines Over the Product Life Cycle: Pricing Anomalies in the "Age of Cures" and Their Implications for Dynamic Efficiency

OBJECTIVES

Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) for the value-based pricing of new medicines largely ignores the implications of limited market exclusivity (ie, patent-protection periods plus any exclusivity granted by regulators). This paper explores the implications of this methodological shortcoming, which produces several pricing anomalies with potentially unintended effects on research and development (R&D) incentives.

METHODS

We illustrate these implications by comparing 4 stylized examples of increasing complexity, from short-term cures for acute conditions to long-term cures for rare, health-catastrophic conditions.

RESULTS

(1) Conventional-CEA will project a different result than an adjusted CEA that considers generic or biosimilar entry; (2) free and flexible pricing of long-term treatments (eg, statins for hypercholesterolemia) or repeated-dose cures (eg, insulin for type 1 diabetes) for chronic conditions will likely result in predictable price increases at the end of the exclusivity period that may be perceived as unjustified or unsupported; and (3) one-time administration "cures" (eg, gene therapy for spinal muscular atrophy) have the potential to allocate a large share of the social surplus to the manufacturer over the product lifetime, which may or may not be dynamically efficient per se, but may also inadvertently disadvantage the development of valuable long-term treatments or repeated-dose cures for chronic conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

We highlight the need for additional research on long-term solutions to these issues that would aim to promote dynamically efficient global R&D. More work is needed on the following: (1) relationships between social surplus allocation and the amount and composition of global R&D, as we may be as likely to be encouraging excessive R&D in some areas as to be undersupplying it in others; and (2) relating the size of the surplus reward to R&D cost and, thus, the return on investment.

Antifungal drug price increases in the United States, 2000-2019

BACKGROUND

Antifungal drugs treat a variety of conditions, ranging from localised dermatologic disease to life-threatening systemic infections. Some common antifungal drugs experienced large price increases in recent years, however, factors contributing to these price increases are poorly understood. We sought to examine trends in antifungal drug prices and determine underlying drivers of price changes.

METHODS

Antifungal drug products in the United States were identified using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Label database. For each product, we determined the wholesale acquisition cost per unit over time between 2000 and 2019, adjusting for inflation, and examined variables that could impact price: route of administration, number of FDA indications, the quantity of professional guideline recommendations, use for prophylaxis, number of FDA-approved manufacturers, and whether it was compounded. Price trajectories were clustered into four groups: (1) stable, 2) moderate, (3) high, and (4) extreme price increases.

RESULTS

Of 139 identified drug products, one outlier was removed due to exorbitant price increases. Cluster 1 (n = 31) demonstrated the most stable prices with a 25% mean price increase. Clusters 2 (n = 97), 3 (n = 7), and 4 (n = 3) demonstrated moderate, high, and extreme price increases with 52%, 318%, and 900% mean price increases, respectively. Atypical routes of administration and compounding were over-represented in clusters 3 and 4. There was no correlation between the number of manufacturers and price changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Antifungal drugs exhibited large, inflation-adjusted price increases. Atypical routes of administration and compounding were over-represented within clusters exhibiting extraordinary price increases. Our data support policies aiming to curb large price increases for medically important drugs.

Costs and Prescribing Patterns of Anthelmintics in the United States Military: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent price increases in medications used to treat helminth infections have had demonstrated impacts on Medicaid and immigrant patient populations. Helminth infections are common within the US military; however, anthelmintic prescribing patterns and costs have not yet been investigated in this patient population.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of pharmaceutical data from the Military Health System Data Repository between fiscal years 2012 and 2019. Prescription information, including costs and demographics, were abstracted for all anthelmintic medications as well as associated helminth diagnostic codes within 30 days of the prescription dispensing date.

RESULTS

On average, there were 10 871 anthelmintic medications prescribed per year, for a total of 86 697 during the study period. Ivermectin and albendazole were each prescribed >34 000 times. There were 15 498 mebendazole prescriptions and 1327 praziquantel prescriptions. The total cost of all anthelmintic prescriptions was $16 018 381. Annual costs for anthelmintic medications increased 16-fold during the study period, up to nearly $5 000 000 in fiscal year 2019, primarily driven by price increases in albendazole and mebendazole. Albendazole prescriptions accounted for $12 282 891 of total costs (76.7%), though only 39.1% of total prescriptions. The most common diagnosis associated with albendazole and mebendazole prescriptions was enterobiasis.

CONCLUSIONS

Price increases in anthelmintic medications have significantly impacted the costs borne by the US government for treating parasitic infections. There are a substantial number of anthelmintic prescriptions in the US military health care system annually, suggesting a higher number of helminth infections than previously thought.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Products Seeking Competitive Generic Therapy Designation and Exclusivity

This study describes the process used by the US Food and Drug Administration to review potential generic drugs for Competitive Generic Therapy (CGT) designation and marketing exclusivity as well as the characteristics and outcomes of products that have sought CGT designation and exclusivity from 2017-2020.

Understanding long-listed pharmaceutical products without competition in South Korea: policy implications in managing generic entrants and pharmaceutical expenditures

Background: The nature of competition within the pharmaceutical sector has received a great deal of attention from policymakers and researchers. This is the first study to comprehensively analyze long listed single-source products within the South Korean market.Methods: Long listed single-source products are defined as pharmaceutical drugs that are available in the market for at least 8 years, without competition. We analyzed the determinants that lead to long listed single-source products in the market, and then evaluated their impact on health systems by examining the subsequent price responses of manufacturers.Results: Based on the number of drugs and their market values, pharmaceuticals categorized as long listed single-source products constitute a substantial portion of the market. Characteristics of the market are closely associated with generic entrants. In particular, the market size of a substance is associated with generic entrants, while the price of a brand-name drug is related to being long listed single-source products.Conclusions: Our analysis supports the creation of a regulatory and/or reimbursement system in order to support robust and effective competition within the marketplace. The first step toward rationalizing the system is to provide widespread information on drugs with limited competition or no competition.