Patented drug extension strategies on healthcare spending: a cost-evaluation analysis

Details

Ressource 1Download: 23750120_BIB_7429984AA1A4.pdf (488.97 [Ko])
State: Public
Version: Final published version
License: CC BY 4.0
Serval ID
serval:BIB_7429984AA1A4
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Title
Patented drug extension strategies on healthcare spending: a cost-evaluation analysis
Journal
PLoS Med
Author(s)
Vernaz N., Haller G., Girardin F., Huttner B., Combescure C., Dayer P., Muscionico D., Salomon J. L., Bonnabry P.
ISSN
1549-1676 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1549-1277
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2013
Volume
10
Number
6
Pages
e1001460
Language
english
Notes
Vernaz, Nathalie
Haller, Guy
Girardin, Francois
Huttner, Benedikt
Combescure, Christophe
Dayer, Pierre
Muscionico, Daniel
Salomon, Jean-Luc
Bonnabry, Pascal
eng
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PLoS Med. 2013;10(6):e1001460. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001460. Epub 2013 Jun 4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Drug manufacturers have developed "evergreening" strategies to compete with generic medication after patent termination. These include marketing of slightly modified follow-on drugs. We aimed to estimate the financial impact of these drugs on overall healthcare costs and also to examine the impact of listing these drugs in hospital restrictive drug formularies (RDFs) on the healthcare system as a whole ("spillover effect"). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used hospital and community pharmacy invoice office data in the Swiss canton of Geneva to calculate utilisation of eight follow-on drugs in defined daily doses between 2000 and 2008. "Extra costs" were calculated for three different scenarios assuming replacement with the corresponding generic equivalent for prescriptions of (1) all brand (i.e., initially patented) drugs, (2) all follow-on drugs, or (3) brand and follow-on drugs. To examine the financial spillover effect we calculated a monthly follow-on drug market share in defined daily doses for medications prescribed by hospital physicians but dispensed in community pharmacies, in comparison to drugs prescribed by non-hospital physicians in the community. Estimated "extra costs" over the study period were euro15.9 (95% CI 15.5; 16.2) million for scenario 1, euro14.4 (95% CI 14.1; 14.7) million for scenario 2, and euro30.3 (95% CI 29.8; 30.8) million for scenario 3. The impact of strictly switching all patients using proton-pump inhibitors to esomeprazole at admission resulted in a spillover "extra cost" of euro330,300 (95% CI 276,100; 383,800), whereas strictly switching to generic cetirizine resulted in savings of euro7,700 (95% CI 4,100; 11,100). Overall we estimated that the RDF resulted in "extra costs" of euro503,600 (95% CI 444,500; 563,100). CONCLUSIONS: Evergreening strategies have been successful in maintaining market share in Geneva, offsetting competition by generics and cost containment policies. Hospitals may be contributing to increased overall healthcare costs by listing follow-on drugs in their RDF. Therefore, healthcare providers and policy makers should be aware of the impact of evergreening strategies.
Keywords
Cetirizine/economics, Costs and Cost Analysis, Esomeprazole/economics, Female, Formularies, Hospital as Topic, *Health Care Costs, Humans, Male, Marketing/economics, Middle Aged, Nonprescription Drugs/*economics, *Patents as Topic, Prescription Drugs/economics, Residence Characteristics, Time Factors
Pubmed
Create date
10/02/2021 11:32
Last modification date
29/04/2021 12:11
Usage data