1
|
Barber MJ, Gotham D, Bygrave H, Cepuch C. Estimated Sustainable Cost-Based Prices for Diabetes Medicines. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e243474. [PMID: 38536176 PMCID: PMC10973901 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.3474] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2023] [Accepted: 01/29/2024] [Indexed: 04/23/2024] Open
Abstract
Importance The burden of diabetes is growing worldwide. The costs associated with diabetes put substantial pressure on patients and health budgets, especially in low- and middle-income countries. The prices of diabetes medicines are a key determinant for access, yet little is known about the association between manufacturing costs and current market prices. Objectives To estimate the cost of manufacturing insulins, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2Is), and glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists (GLP1As), derive sustainable cost-based prices (CBPs), and compare these with current market prices. Design, Setting, and Participants In this economic evaluation, the cost of manufacturing insulins, SGLT2Is, and GLP1As was modeled. Active pharmaceutical ingredient cost per unit (weighted least-squares regression model using data from a commercial database of trade shipments, data from January 1, 2016, to March 31, 2023) was combined with costs of formulation and other operating expenses, plus a profit margin with an allowance for tax, to estimate CBPs. Cost-based prices were compared with current prices in 13 countries, collected in January 2023 from public databases. Countries were selected to provide representation of different income levels and geographic regions based on the availability of public databases. Main Outcomes and Measures Estimated CBPs; lowest current market prices (2023 US dollars). Results In this economic evaluation of manufacturing costs, estimated CBPs for treatment with insulin in a reusable pen device could be as low as $96 (human insulin) or $111 (insulin analogues) per year for a basal-bolus regimen, $61 per year using twice-daily injections of mixed human insulin, and $50 (human insulin) or $72 (insulin analogues) per year for a once-daily basal insulin injection (for type 2 diabetes), including the cost of injection devices and needles. Cost-based prices ranged from $1.30 to $3.45 per month for SGLT2Is (except canagliflozin: $25.00-$46.79) and from $0.75 to $72.49 per month for GLP1As. These CBPs were substantially lower than current prices in the 13 countries surveyed. Conclusions and Relevance High prices limit access to newer diabetes medicines in many countries. The findings of this study suggest that robust generic and biosimilar competition could reduce prices to more affordable levels and enable expansion of diabetes treatment globally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa J. Barber
- Yale Collaboration for Regulatory Rigor, Integrity, and Transparency (CRRIT), New Haven, Connecticut
- Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Dzintars Gotham
- King’s College Hospital, London, United Kingdom
- Médecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Helen Bygrave
- Médecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Christa Cepuch
- Médecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign, Geneva, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Olsen A, Beall RF, Knox RP, Tu SS, Kesselheim AS, Feldman WB. Patents and regulatory exclusivities on FDA-approved insulin products: A longitudinal database study, 1986-2019. PLoS Med 2023; 20:e1004309. [PMID: 37971985 PMCID: PMC10653475 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004309] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2022] [Accepted: 10/05/2023] [Indexed: 11/19/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Insulin is the primary treatment for type 1 and some type 2 diabetes but remains costly in the United States, even though it was discovered more than a century ago. High prices can lead to nonadherence and are often sustained by patents and regulatory exclusivities that limit competition on brand-name products. We sought to examine how manufacturers have used patents and regulatory exclusivities on insulin products approved from 1986 to 2019 to extend periods of market exclusivity. METHODS AND FINDINGS We used the publicly available Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) to identify all approved biosynthetic insulin products. Individual products approved under the same New Drug Application (NDA)-e.g., a vial and pen-were considered as separate products for the purposes of analysis. We recorded all patents and regulatory exclusivities listed in the Orange Book on each product and used Google Patents to extract the timing of patent application and whether patents were obtained on delivery devices or others aspects of the product. The primary outcome was the duration of expected protection, which was determined by subtracting the FDA approval date for each product from its last-to-expire patent or regulatory exclusivity (whichever occurred later). We performed a secondary analysis that considered overall protection on insulin lines-defined as groups of products approved under the same NDA with the same active ingredients manufactured by the same company. We also examined competition from follow-on insulin products-defined as products approved with the same active ingredients as originators but manufactured by different companies (approved via a specific drug approval pathway under section 505(b)(2) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). During the study period, the FDA approved 56 individual products across 25 different insulin lines and 5 follow-ons across 3 different insulin lines. Thirty-three (59%) of the 56 products were drug-device combinations. Manufacturers of 9 products approved during the study period obtained patents filed after FDA approval that extended their duration of expected protection (by a median of 6 years). Approximately 63% of all patents on drug-device combinations approved during the study period were related to delivery devices. The median duration of expected protection on insulin products was 16.0 years, and the median protection on insulin lines was 17.6 years. An important limitation of our analysis is that manufacturers may continue to add patents on existing insulin products while competitors may challenge patents; therefore, periods of protection may change over time. CONCLUSIONS Among several strategies that insulin manufacturers have employed to extend periods of market exclusivity on brand-name insulin products are filing patents after FDA approval and obtaining a large number of patents on delivery devices. Policy reforms are needed to promote timely competition in the pharmaceutical market and ensure that patients have access to low-cost drugs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anders Olsen
- Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Reed F. Beall
- Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
| | - Ryan P. Knox
- Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Sean S. Tu
- West Virginia University College of Law, Morgantown, West Virginia, United States of America
| | - Aaron S. Kesselheim
- Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - William B. Feldman
- Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Alhiary R, Kesselheim AS, Gabriele S, Beall RF, Tu SS, Feldman WB. Patents and Regulatory Exclusivities on GLP-1 Receptor Agonists. JAMA 2023; 330:650-657. [PMID: 37505513 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.13872] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/29/2023]
Abstract
Importance Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists were first approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in 2005. Demand for these drugs has increased rapidly in recent years, as indications have expanded, but they remain expensive. Objective To analyze how manufacturers of brand-name GLP-1 receptor agonists have used the patent and regulatory systems to extend periods of market exclusivity. Evidence Review The annual US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations was used to identify GLP-1 receptor agonists approved from 2005 to 2021 and to record patents and nonpatent statutory exclusivities listed for each product. Google Patents was used to extract additional data on patents, including whether each was obtained on the delivery device or another aspect of the product. The primary outcome was the duration of expected protection from generic competition, defined as the time elapsed from FDA approval until expiration of the last-to-expire patent or regulatory exclusivity. Findings On the 10 GLP-1 receptor agonists included in the cohort, drug manufacturers listed with the FDA a median of 19.5 patents (IQR, 9.0-25.8) per product, including a median of 17 patents (IQR, 8.3-22.8) filed before FDA approval and 1.5 (IQR, 0-2.8) filed after FDA approval. Fifty-four percent of all patents listed on GLP-1 receptor agonists were on the delivery devices rather than active ingredients. Manufacturers augmented patent protection with a median of 2 regulatory exclusivities (IQR, 0-3) obtained at approval and 1 (IQR, 0.3-4.3) added after approval. The median total duration of expected protection after FDA approval, when accounting for both preapproval and postapproval patents and regulatory exclusivities, was 18.3 years (IQR, 16.0-19.4). No generic firm has successfully challenged patents on GLP-1 receptor agonists to gain FDA approval. Conclusions and Relevance Patent and regulatory reform is needed to ensure timely generic entry of GLP-1 receptor agonists to the market.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rasha Alhiary
- School of Pharmacy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
- Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Aaron S Kesselheim
- Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Sarah Gabriele
- Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Reed F Beall
- Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - S Sean Tu
- West Virginia University College of Law, Morgantown
| | - William B Feldman
- Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Darrow JJ, Van de Wiele V, Beran D, Kesselheim AS. An Empirical Review of Key Glucose Monitoring Devices: Product Iterations and Patent Protection. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2023:19322968231178016. [PMID: 37272495 DOI: 10.1177/19322968231178016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Each year, people with diabetes and their insurers or governments spend billions of dollars on blood glucose monitors and their associated components. These monitors have evolved substantially since their introduction in the 1970s, and manufacturers frequently protect original medical devices and their modifications by applying for and obtaining patent protection. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We tracked the product iterations of five widely used blood glucose monitors-manufactured by LifeScan, Dexcom, Abbott, Roche, and Trividia-from information published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and extracted relevant U.S. patents. RESULTS We found 384 products made by the five manufacturers of interest, including 130 devices cleared through the 510(k) pathway, 251 approved via the premarket approval (PMA) pathway or via PMA supplements, and three for which de novo requests were granted. We identified 8095 patents potentially relevant to these devices, 2469 (31%) of which were likely to have expired by July 2021. CONCLUSIONS Manufacturers of blood glucose monitoring systems frequently modified their devices and obtained patent protection related to these device modifications. The therapeutic value of these new modifications should be critically evaluated and balanced against their additional cost. Older glucose monitoring devices that were marketed in decades past are now in the public domain and no longer protected by patents. Newer devices will join them as their patents expire. Increased demand from people with diabetes and the health care system for older, off-patent devices would provide an incentive for the medical device industry to make these devices more widely available, enabling good care at lower cost when such devices are substantially equivalent in effectiveness and safety. In turn, availability and awareness of older, off-patent devices could help stimulate such demand.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan J Darrow
- Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Victor Van de Wiele
- Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - David Beran
- Division of Tropical and Humanitarian Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Aaron S Kesselheim
- Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|