Home / Generics / Research

Research

Transparency in the Australian pharmaceutical industry

In Australia, the promotion of medicines to healthcare professionals is controlled by self-regulatory schemes operated by the pharmaceutical industry.

Factors affecting generics entry

Edward Kong, Research Assistant at the Yale University, Department of Economics, carried out a study into the factors that influence a generics maker’s decision to enter a specific market [1].

Cost-effectiveness analysis and incentivizing innovation

In the paper by Santiago Moreno and Joshua Ray, the controversial role that conventional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) plays in incentivizing innovation is revealed [1]. Detractors criticize its use for pricing purposes because it disregards the value of innovation brought by new drugs, while supporters argue that it is already accounted for. The objective of the paper is to identify the limitations of the conventional CEA approach and to propose an alternative that offers a more realistic estimate of the true value of innovation.

Perceptions of the value of generics in Brazil

Generics were first approved in Brazil in 1999. Substitution of generics and reference drugs can occur at the time of purchase and upon patients’ request, and, in the public healthcare system, physicians must prescribe drugs by their Brazilian Common Denomination (Denominação Comum Brasileira – DCB). However, despite legislation that supports their prescription, generics still have a small market share, representing only 27.3% of all drug units sold in Brazil in January 2014. A potential reason for the low penetration of generics into the Brazilian market is a negative perception of the value of generics.

Substitution of generic antiepileptic drugs

Despite the availability of generic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), patients and neurologists still hesitate to make a switch due to several reasons.

Impact of South Korea’s new drug–pricing policy on market competition

In April 2012, the Korean Government implemented a new policy to try and make its multiple sourced (off-patent) market more competitive. Their objective was to lower the price of generics through increased competition. The government in this way also aimed to reduce the costs for both patients [who have typically a 30% co-payment in ambulatory care (20% in hospitals)] and the National Health Insurance. The core of the policy was to establish the same maximum reimbursement price, i.e. the same ceiling price, for both the originator (brand-name) and the generic drug. This was expected to make the market more competitive, with generics manufacturers competing with each other to gain market share by lowering their prices. However, other professionals argued that this policy would still favour originators, given the general belief that an originator medicine, which is often from an international pharmaceutical company, would be better quality.

Costs and prices of entecavir to treat Hepatitis B

In an analysis of the costs and target prices of Hepatitis B treatment entecavir, author Andrew Hill from Liverpool University, UK and colleagues from Imperial College London, UK and Howard University, Washington DC, USA investigated how use of generics is affecting the cost of Hepatitis B treatment around the world [1].

Is India ready to use only generics?

This editorial provides a balanced and neutral perspective of the debate regarding use of brand-name versus generic medicines, from an Indian endocrine point of view. It helps stakeholders arrive at appropriate decisions, using a process of informed and shared decision-making [1].

The satisfaction of healthcare payers, patients and physicians with generic imatinib

With the begining of the era of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) became a chronic disease, in which good responding patients usually have a life expectancy similar to the age- and sex-matched normal population [1]. In many countries, the first-line treatment of chronic phase CML is imatinib mesylate (IM). Whereas, especially in some developed countries, second generation TKIs (dasatinib, nilotinib) which have deeper and faster responses, but are also more expensive than IM, are utilized in the upfront setting. The introduction of TKIs increased the prevalence of CML, and optimal responders to IM should continue therapy indefinitely, so the originator TKI treatment (Gleevec) surely put a strain on healthcare providers even in developed countries.

Competition in the generics industry

In theory, an increase in the use of generics should help to reduce overall drug expenditures. However, growth in spending on medicines in the US increased by US$46.2 billion, or 12.2%, over 2014 levels, reaching US$425 billion in 2015 [1]. This increase comes despite a simultaneous growth in spending on generics, which increased by US$7.9 billion (7.4%) to US$114.1 billion in 2015.