Why is there no generic insulin? Historical origins of a modern problem

Patents and regulatory exclusivities on FDA-approved insulin products: A longitudinal database study, 1986-2019

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.

An Empirical Review of Key Glucose Monitoring Devices: Product Iterations and Patent Protection

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.

Estimated minimum prices and lowest available national prices for antiobesity medications: Improving affordability and access to treatment

OBJECTIVE

Novel antiobesity treatments are highly effective in recent clinical trials. Access to these medications is needed to supplement lifestyle and surgical interventions for millions living with obesity worldwide, but high prices are limiting. This study aimed to review current treatment costs and calculate potential estimated minimum prices (EMPs).

METHODS

The authors searched national drug price databases across various countries for orlistat, naltrexone-bupropion, topiramate-phentermine, liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide. EMPs for antiobesity medications were calculated using established methodology, using active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) from the Panjiva database. EMPs were calculated per 30-day course and include costs of active pharmaceutical ingredients, excipients, formulation, taxation, and 10% profit margin.

RESULTS

National prices of antiobesity medications were significantly higher than calculated EMPs. Semaglutide 30-day course prices ranged from $804 (United States) to $95 (Turkey) while the EMP was $40. Liraglutide prices ranged from $1418 (United States) to $252 (Norway) while the EMP was $50. Some oral treatments could be generically manufactured at very low costs per course ($7 for orlistat; $5 for phentermine/topiramate combination tablets), while naltrexone/bupropion was more expensive ($54).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that certain weight loss treatments can be manufactured and sold profitably at low costs, but prices currently range widely between countries, limiting access for those in need.

Real-World Impact of Switching From Insulin Glargine (Lantus®) to Basaglar® and Potential Cost Saving in a Large Public Healthcare System in Saudi Arabia

Background

The advent of Basaglar^®, which is a biosimilar insulin glargine formulation for Lantus^® has brought hope that it will result in similar outcomes and lower costs. However, some health practitioners raised some concerns about the therapeutic equivalence of this new biosimilar. Therefore, we aimed to examine the clinical and financial impact of switching from Lantus^® to Basaglar^®.

Methods

This was a single–center retrospective chart review study of adult patients (e.g., ≥18 years) with diabetes mellitus (DM) who were treated with insulin glargine (Lantus^®) for at least 12 months and then switched to Basaglar^® for another 12 months. The potential cost savings for the years 2018 to 2021 and the cost avoidance for 2022 were estimated using different conversion ratios between the two insulin glargine products (Basaglar^® and Lantus^®) and acquisition prices.

Results

One–hundred patients with DM who were previously treated with Lantus^® and switched to Basaglar^® were retrospectively recruited. About two–thirds of the patients (68%) had type 2 DM, and the male and female patients were equally represented. The mean glycated hemoglobin (A1C) at baseline was 9, and the mean difference in the A1C levels before and after switching to Basaglar^® was not significant (0.18, p-value = 0.503, 95% CI [−0.36–0.72]). Although the difference in the total daily insulin units between Lantus^® and Basaglar^® was not significant, the difference was leaning toward statistical significance despite the small sample size (−1.88, P-value = 0.25, 95% CI [−5.15–1.38]). Switching from Lantus^® to Basaglar^® could have led to significant cost savings that would range from approximately 1.77 to 23.7 million United States Dollars (USD) for the years 2018 to 2021 assuming an equal conversion ratio. However, those cost savings might not be realized if the switching to Basaglar^® required higher daily insulin units, and the difference in the public tender acquisition price between Lantus^® and Basaglar^® is less than 15%.

Conclusion

Basaglar^® and potentially other biosimilar insulin glargine products can lead to significant cost savings without compromising the quality of care. However, their acquisition prices should be discounted.

Can nutrition interventions tackle the global insulin affordability via improving diabetes management and reducing insulin demand?

Diabetes, a global health concern, requires insulin therapy. As insulin demand and prices rise dramatically, insulin affordability has increasingly become an issue facing patients with diabetes worldwide. To cut insulin costs, many patients ration their supply, which may have dire health consequences. This particularly affects lower-income populations, who are often forced to choose between purchasing their medications or paying for other necessities. Nutrition might be one solution for this. This commentary aims to provide comprehensive insight with historical context into intersectional components of diabetes in the global arena through analyses of insulin affordability, coupled with the critical role of nutrition intervention after searching the PubMed for relevant articles. More studies in personalized nutrition, supplementations, and dietary behaviors may develop evidence-based nutrition interventions to control diabetes. We argue that alongside price regulation, a greater focus to nutrition to address issues of food insecurity and food assistance programs may help to improve insulin affordability.

A global perspective on the issue of access to insulin

The discovery of insulin in 1921 changed the prognosis for people with type 1 diabetes. A century later, availability and affordability of insulin remain a challenge in many parts of the globe. Using the WHO's framework on understanding the life cycle of medicines, this review details the global and national challenges that affect patients' abilities to access and afford insulin. Current research and development in diabetes has seen some innovations, but none of these have truly been game-changing. Currently, three multinational companies control over 95% of global insulin supply. The inclusion of insulin on the WHO's Prequalification Programme is an opportunity to facilitate entry of new companies into the market. Many governments lack policies on the selection, procurement, supply, pricing and reimbursement of insulin. Moreover, mark-ups in the supply chain also affect the final price to the consumer. Whilst expenses related to diabetes are mostly covered by insurance in high-income countries, many patients from low- and middle-income countries have to pay out of their own pockets. The organisation of diabetes management within the healthcare system also affects patient access to insulin. The challenges affecting access to insulin are complex and require a wide range of solutions. Given that 2021 marks the centenary of the discovery of insulin, there is need for global advocacy to ensure that the benefits of insulin and innovations in diabetes care reach all individuals living with diabetes.

Acute Metabolic Emergencies in Diabetes: DKA, HHS and EDKA

Emergency admissions due to acute metabolic crisis in patients with diabetes remain some of the most common and challenging conditions. DKA (Diabetic Ketoacidosis), HHS (Hyperglycaemic Hyperosmolar State) and recently focused EDKA (Euglycaemic Diabetic Ketoacidosis) are life-threatening different entities. DKA and HHS have distinctly different pathophysiology but basic management protocols are the same. EDKA is just like DKA but without hyperglycaemia. T1D, particularly children are vulnerable to DKA and T2D, particularly elderly with comorbidities are vulnerable to HHS. But these are not always the rule, these acute conditions are often occur in different age groups with diabetes. It is essential to have a coordinated care from the multidisciplinary team to ensure the timely delivery of right treatment. DKA and HHS, in many instances can present as a mixed entity as well. Mortality rate is higher for HHS than DKA but incidences of DKA are much higher than HHS. The prevalence of HHS in children and young adults are increasing due to exponential growth of obesity and increasing T2D cases in this age group. Following introduction of SGLT2i (Sodium-GLucose co-Transporter-2 inhibitor) for T2D and off-label use in T1D, some incidences of EDKA has been reported. Healthcare professionals should be more vigilant during acute illness in diabetes patients on SGLT2i without hyperglycaemia to rule out EDKA. Middle aged, mildly obese and antibody negative patients who apparently resemble as T2D without any precipitating causes sometime end up with DKA which is classified as KPD (Ketosis-prone diabetes). Many cases can be prevented by following 'Sick day rules'. Better access to medical care, structured diabetes education to patients and caregivers are key measures to prevent acute metabolic crisis.

A Decade of Disparities in Diabetes Technology Use and HbA1c in Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes: A Transatlantic Comparison

OBJECTIVE

As diabetes technology use in youth increases worldwide, inequalities in access may exacerbate disparities in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We hypothesized that an increasing gap in diabetes technology use by socioeconomic status (SES) would be associated with increased HbA1c disparities.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Participants aged <18 years with diabetes duration ≥1 year in the Type 1 Diabetes Exchange (T1DX, U.S., n = 16,457) and Diabetes Prospective Follow-up (DPV, Germany, n = 39,836) registries were categorized into lowest (Q1) to highest (Q5) SES quintiles. Multiple regression analyses compared the relationship of SES quintiles with diabetes technology use and HbA1c from 2010-2012 to 2016-2018.

RESULTS

HbA1c was higher in participants with lower SES (in 2010-2012 and 2016-2018, respectively: 8.0% and 7.8% in Q1 and 7.6% and 7.5% in Q5 for DPV; 9.0% and 9.3% in Q1 and 7.8% and 8.0% in Q5 for T1DX). For DPV, the association between SES and HbA1c did not change between the two time periods, whereas for T1DX, disparities in HbA1c by SES increased significantly (P < 0.001). After adjusting for technology use, results for DPV did not change, whereas the increase in T1DX was no longer significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Although causal conclusions cannot be drawn, diabetes technology use is lowest and HbA1c is highest in those of the lowest SES quintile in the T1DX, and this difference for HbA1c broadened in the past decade. Associations of SES with technology use and HbA1c were weaker in the DPV registry.

"Life or death": Experiences of insulin insecurity among adults with type 1 diabetes in the United States

Objective

Insulin access for people with diabetes is a growing public health concern and particularly important for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who depend on insulin for survival. However, few studies have examined the psychosocial contexts in which people with T1D confront, navigate, and attempt to resolve insulin access barriers (IABs). We conducted a qualitative study to: 1) describe factors affecting insulin access among adults with T1D, 2) characterize behavioral and emotional responses to IABs, and 3) understand the overall impact of IABs on the lives of adults with T1D.

Methods

We recruited a geographically and age diverse sample of U.S. adults with T1D (n = 21) from online diabetes support groups who self-identified as facing IABs. We conducted semi-structured phone interviews lasting 45–60 min between April and October 2017. We followed an inductive coding approach to identify concepts and themes related to participants' experiences with IABs.

Findings

Participants conceptualized the experience of being without insulin as a “life or death” emergency, which significantly influenced their subsequent behavioral and emotional responses to compromised insulin access. Participants also described multiple IABs including unaffordable health care, institutional unresponsiveness, and major life transitions. Unable to consistently depend on the U.S. healthcare system to address their insulin needs, participants described taking strategic actions to maximize their existing insulin supplies, obtain more insulin, and create long-term security against future IABs. These strategies were not always successful and often negatively impacted participants’ health, finances, careers, relationships, and future opportunities.

Conclusions

Disruptions in insulin access or the threat of future disruption, a concept we term “insulin insecurity,” is a barrier to health and well-being among people with T1D. Our findings suggest the U.S. healthcare system is ill-equipped to address insulin needs among adults with T1D.

•

“Insulin insecurity” is a significant barrier to well-being among U.S. adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

•

High costs of insulin and healthcare in the U.S. are major barriers to insulin access.

•

Insulin insecure people with T1D may resort to extreme, risky measures to access insulin.

•

Existing policies, resources, and programs are inadequate for addressing insulin insecurity.

•

Immediate measures should be taken to create a safety net for insulin insecure Americans with T1D.

The rising cost of commonly used emergency department medications (2006-15)

OBJECTIVE

We determine how aggregate costs have changed for commonly used emergency department (ED) medications, and assess drivers of cost increases.

METHODS

Using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), we identified the top 150 ED medications administered and prescribed at discharge in 2015. We used average wholesale prices (AWP) for each year from 2006 to 15 from the Red Book (Truven Health Analytics Inc.). Average wholesale price per patient (AWPP) was calculated by dividing AWP by drug uses. This was then multiplied by the total drug administrations or prescriptions to estimate the total cost in a given the year. All prices were converted to 2015 dollars.

RESULTS

Aggregate costs of drugs administered in the ED increased from $688.7 million in 2006 to $882.4 million in 2015. For discharge prescriptions, aggregate costs increased from $2.031 billion in 2006 to $4.572 billion in 2015. AWPP for drugs administered in the ED in 2015 was 14.5% higher than in 2006 and 24.3% higher at discharge. The largest absolute increase in AWPP for drugs administered was for glucagon, which increased from $111 in 2006 to $235 in 2015. The largest AWPP increase at discharge was for epinephrine auto-injector, which increased from $124 in 2006 and to $481 in 2015.

CONCLUSION

Over the course of the study period, the aggregate costs of the most common medications administered in the ED increased by 28% while the costs of medications prescribed at discharge increased 125%.

Origins of the Crisis in Insulin Affordability and Practical Advice for Clinicians on Using Human Insulin

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

High insulin prices and cost-related insulin underuse are increasingly common and vexing problems for healthcare providers. This review highlights several factors that contribute to high prices and limited generic competition in the US insulin market.

RECENT FINDINGS

An opaque and complex pricing and reimbursement system for insulin, allegations of collusive practices by insulin manufacturers, and a lack of generic competition drive and sustain high insulin prices. When combined with increasing insurance deductibles and cost sharing, these factors contribute to cost-related insulin underuse and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Healthcare providers facing patients with type 2 diabetes who struggle to afford insulin should consider initiating or switching from analogue to human insulin as one way to help address the challenges of access and affordability. However, it is also important to support initiatives to advocate for affordable pricing for insulin for patients who can benefit from the flexibility offered by many of the newer insulin preparations.

Diabetes: From Research to Clinical Practice

The number of people living with diabetes, the number of deaths attributable to it, and the cost of treating the disease and its complications are increasing exponentially. Centuries of research led to the discovery of insulin and other drugs based on pathophysiology from "the triumvirate to ominous octet". The agonists of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, and the inhibitors of the sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) are the new drugs that improve cardiovascular outcomes and provide renal protection, and they are being used increasingly for evidence-based treatment of type 2 diabetes. Bariatric surgery, when indicated, results in excellent weight- and metabolic-control, and in many instances even remission of diabetes. Technological advances like Flash glucose monitoring, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have improved glycemic control, reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia, and improved quality of life. For the treatment of diabetic macular edema intravitreal injection of several anti-VEGF agents are being used. Numerous people living in the middle- and low-income countries cannot afford the costs of care of diabetes. Institutions like the World Health Organization, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund should roll out plans to convince the politicians to invest more in improving the diabetes care facilities.

Challenges associated with providing diabetes care in humanitarian settings

The humanitarian health landscape is gradually changing, partly as a result of the shift in global epidemiological trends and the rise of non-communicable diseases, including diabetes. Humanitarian actors are progressively incorporating care for diabetes into emergency medical response, but challenges abound. This Series paper discusses contemporary practical challenges associated with diabetes care in humanitarian contexts in low-income and middle-income countries, using the six building blocks of health systems described by WHO (information and research, service delivery, health workforce, medical products and technologies, governance, and financing) as a framework. Challenges include the scarcity of evidence on the management of diabetes and clinical guidelines adapted to humanitarian contexts; unavailability of core indicators for surveillance and monitoring systems; and restricted access to the medicines and diagnostics necessary for adequate clinical care. Policy and system frameworks do not routinely include diabetes and little funding is allocated for diabetes care in humanitarian crises. Humanitarian organisations are increasingly gaining experience delivering diabetes care, and interagency collaboration to coordinate, improve data collection, and analyse available programmes is in progress. However, the needs around all six WHO health system building blocks are immense, and much work needs to be done to improve diabetes care for crisis-affected populations.

Medicaid Eligibility Expansions May Address Gaps In Access To Diabetes Medications

Diabetes is a top contributor to the avoidable burden of disease. Costly diabetes medications, including insulin and drugs from newer medication classes, can be inaccessible to people who lack insurance coverage. In 2014 and 2015 twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia expanded eligibility for Medicaid among low-income adults. To examine the impacts of Medicaid expansion on access to diabetes medications, we analyzed data on over ninety-six million prescription fills using Medicaid insurance in the period January 2008-December 2015. Medicaid eligibility expansions were associated with thirty additional Medicaid diabetes prescriptions filled per 1,000 population in 2014-15, relative to states that did not expand Medicaid eligibility. Age groups with higher prevalence of diabetes exhibited larger increases. The increase in prescription fills grew significantly over time. Overall, fills for insulin and for newer medications increased by 40 percent and 39 percent, respectively. Our findings suggest that Medicaid eligibility expansions may address gaps in access to diabetes medications, with increasing effects over time.

Trends in Medicaid Prices, Market Share, and Spending on Long-Acting Insulins, 2006-2018

This study uses Medicaid drug utilization data to describe reimbursement and market share of long-acting insulins before and after approval of new insulin products and to estimate savings associated with a “biosimilar” for insulin glargine approved in 2015.

Access to insulin: applying the concept of security of supply to medicines

Security of supply of medicines is fundamental to ensure health for all. Furthermore, improving access to medicines is included in sustainable development goal 3. However, the concept of security of supply has mostly been applied to food, water and energy. Diversity of supply, vulnerability to disruption, expenditure, infrastructure, stability of exporting countries, ownership of production, price stability, access and equity, affordability, intellectual property, safety and reliability of supply, and countries' capacity to adapt to market changes are all elements of security of supply. Based on these elements, we assessed security of supply for insulin, since access to insulin is a global problem. We found that three multinational companies, in Denmark, France and Germany, control 99% of the value of the global insulin market. Prices and affordability of insulin and access to it vary considerably between countries. Some countries are vulnerable to insulin shortage because they import insulin from only one source. Many countries spend large amounts of money on insulin and costs are increasing. Some countries lack an adequate infrastructure for procurement, supply chain management and distribution of insulin. Applying the security of supply concept to insulin showed that diversification of suppliers needs to be fostered. Global health actors should adopt a security of supply approach to identify medicines that are susceptible to supply issues and address this concern by strategic promotion of local production, strengthening regulatory harmonization, and adding local products to the World Health Organization's programme on prequalification of medicines.

Estimation of global insulin use for type 2 diabetes, 2018-30: a microsimulation analysis

BACKGROUND

The amount of insulin needed to effectively treat type 2 diabetes worldwide is unknown. It also remains unclear how alternative treatment algorithms would affect insulin use and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted by insulin use, given that current access to insulin (availability and affordability) in many areas is low. The aim of this study was to compare alternative projections for and consequences of insulin use worldwide under varying treatment algorithms and degrees of insulin access.

METHODS

We developed a microsimulation of type 2 diabetes burden from 2018 to 2030 across 221 countries using data from the International Diabetes Federation for prevalence projections and from 14 cohort studies representing more than 60% of the global type 2 diabetes population for HbA_1c, treatment, and bodyweight data. We estimated the number of people with type 2 diabetes expected to use insulin, international units (IU) required, and DALYs averted per year under alternative treatment algorithms targeting HbA_1c from 6·5% to 8%, lower microvascular risk, or higher HbA_1c for those aged 75 years and older.

FINDINGS

The number of people with type 2 diabetes worldwide was estimated to increase from 405·6 million (95% CI 315·3 million-533·7 million) in 2018 to 510·8 million (395·9 million-674·3 million) in 2030. On this basis, insulin use is estimated to increase from 516·1 million 1000 IU vials (95% CI 409·0 million-658·6 million) per year in 2018 to 633·7 million (500·5 million-806·7 million) per year in 2030. Without improved insulin access, 7·4% (95% CI 5·8-9·4) of people with type 2 diabetes in 2030 would use insulin, increasing to 15·5% (12·0-20·3) if insulin were widely accessible and prescribed to achieve an HbA_1c of 7% (53 mmol/mol) or lower. If HbA_1c of 7% or lower was universally achieved, insulin would avert 331 101 DALYs per year by 2030 (95% CI 256 601-437 053). DALYs averted would increase by 14·9% with access to newer oral antihyperglycaemic drugs. DALYs averted would increase by 44·2% if an HbA_1c of 8% (64 mmol/mol) were used as a target among people aged 75 years and older because of reduced hypoglycaemia.

INTERPRETATION

The insulin required to treat type 2 diabetes is expected to increase by more than 20% from 2018 to 2030. More DALYs might be averted if HbA_1c targets are higher for older adults.

FUNDING

The Leona M and Harry B Helmsley Charitable Trust.

Production costs and potential prices for biosimilars of human insulin and insulin analogues

Introduction

High prices for insulin pose a barrier to treatment for people living with diabetes, with an estimated 50% of 100 million patients needing insulin lacking reliable access. As insulin analogues replace regular human insulin (RHI) globally, their relative prices will become increasingly important. Three originator companies control 96% of the global insulin market, and few biosimilar insulins are available. We estimated the price reductions that could be achieved if numerous biosimilar manufacturers entered the insulin market.

Methods

Data on the price of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) exported from India were retrieved from an online customs database. Manufacturers of insulins were contacted for price quotes. Where market API prices could not be identified, prices were estimated based on comparison of similarity, in terms of manufacturing process, with APIs for which prices were available. Potential biosimilar prices were estimated by adding costs of excipients, formulation, transport, development and regulatory costs, and a profit margin.

Results

The manufacturing processes for RHI and insulin analogues are similar. API prices were US$24 750/kg for RHI, US$68 757/kg for insulin glargine and an estimated US$100 000/kg for other analogues. Estimated biosimilar prices were US$48-71 per patient per year for RHI, US$49-72 for neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin and US$78-133 for analogues (except detemir: US$283-365).

Conclusion

Treatment with biosimilar RHI and insulin NPH could cost ≤US$72 per year and with insulin analogues ≤US$133 per year. Estimated biosimilar prices were markedly lower than the current prices for insulin analogues. Widespread availability at estimated prices may allow substantial savings globally.

The Open Insulin Project: A Case Study for 'Biohacked' Medicines

New innovation ecosystems are emerging that challenge the complex intellectual property and regulatory landscape surrounding drug development in the United States (US). A prime example is an initiative known as the Open Insulin Project. The goal of the project is to sidestep patents and enable generic manufacturers to produce cheaper insulin. However, the US regulatory environment, not patent exclusivity, is the main barrier to insulin affordability. If the Open Insulin Project succeeds in releasing an open protocol for insulin manufacturing, follow-on work could enable a number of new insulin production ecosystems, including 'home-brewed' insulin. Regulators will need to consider how to proceed in a future where commercial pharmaceuticals remain unaffordable, but patients are empowered to produce drugs for their personal use.

Formulary Considerations for Insulins Approved Through the 505(b)(2) "Follow-on" Pathway

OBJECTIVE

To summarize formulary-relevant issues for follow-on insulins approved through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 505(b)(2) approval pathway (Basaglar and Admelog).

DATA SOURCES

A search of the MEDLINE database was performed for articles pertaining to clinical and formulary considerations for follow-on insulin products through July 2018.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All clinical trials used in the 505(b)(2) approval process for follow-on insulin glargine and insulin lispro products were included and summarized.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Follow-on insulin glargine and insulin lispro products have been recently approved as the first lower-cost alternatives to innovator insulin products. The follow-on insulins were approved via the 505(b)(2) pathway, making them neither generics nor biosimilars. Current data do not suggest any clinically relevant differences between the follow-on insulins and their respective innovator products. Clinicians should be aware that follow-on insulins will be reclassified as biologic products in the year 2020. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This article provides information about currently available follow-on insulin products that were approved through the 505(b)(2) pathway, including product characteristics and efficacy and safety data. These products will likely be considered for both clinical use and formulary placement because of their potentially lower cost compared with innovator products.

CONCLUSIONS

Follow-on insulin products approved through the 505(b)(2) pathway are supported by robust efficacy and safety data. As new follow-on insulins are approved and the regulatory change that will occur with these products in 2020 approaches, formulary decisions and clinical policies (eg, substitution) will continue to be revisited.

[Chapter 3. The moral economy of the availability of therapeutic innovations for neglected diseases]

The main problems of the system governing the development and dissemination of innovative medicines are known. Despite relatively low manufacturing costs, patented drugs are unduly expensive, and neglected diseases attract little pharmaceutical research. Both problems are compounded by patients who, discouraged by high prices, lack of access to competent medical services and low quality medicines, do not complete their treatment.

Type 1 diabetes

Type 1 diabetes is a chronic autoimmune disease characterised by insulin deficiency and resultant hyperglycaemia. Knowledge of type 1 diabetes has rapidly increased over the past 25 years, resulting in a broad understanding about many aspects of the disease, including its genetics, epidemiology, immune and β-cell phenotypes, and disease burden. Interventions to preserve β cells have been tested, and several methods to improve clinical disease management have been assessed. However, wide gaps still exist in our understanding of type 1 diabetes and our ability to standardise clinical care and decrease disease-associated complications and burden. This Seminar gives an overview of the current understanding of the disease and potential future directions for research and care.

Why Are We Failing to Address the Issue of Access to Insulin? A National and Global Perspective

Insulin was discovered in 1921 and soon became widely available in high-income countries. However, many people currently in need of this life-saving medicine are unable to access it. This is a global phenomenon, impacting not only populations of low- and middle-income countries but low-income populations in the U.S. In the U.S., the rate of diabetic ketoacidosis remains high in certain subpopulations, the cost of insulin being the main precipitating factor. On a global level the main cause of mortality for a child with type 1 diabetes is a lack of access to insulin, and in sub-Saharan Africa the life expectancy of a child with type 1 diabetes can be as low as 1 year. One lens for considering the issue of access to health and medicines is to consider society as a three-legged stool. In this paradigm, the role of the public sector is to provide "protections" to the population it serves; the private sector is made up of "responsible businesses" that supply many of the goods and services people need; and the plural sector comprises communities and not-for-profits providing the "social affiliations" that are needed. For HIV/AIDS, each of these "legs" played a role in improving access. Civil society raised awareness of the issue and advocated for access to treatment. Governments provided funding and responses both nationally and globally. Finally, the private sector played its role, under pressure from civil society and governments, in lowering the price of medicines and developing programs to expand access. Here, we use this framework to describe the shortcomings in access to insulin from a U.S. and global perspective.

Comparing Generic Drug Markets in Europe and the United States: Prices, Volumes, and Spending

Policy Points: Our study indicates that there are opportunities for cost savings in generic drug markets in Europe and the United States. Regulators should make it easier for generic drugs to reach the market. Regulators and payers should apply measures to stimulate price competition among generic drugmakers and to increase generic drug use. To meaningfully evaluate policy options, it is important to analyze historical context and understand why similar initiatives failed previously.

CONTEXT

Rising drug prices are putting pressure on health care budgets. Policymakers are assessing how they can save money through generic drugs.

METHODS

We compared generic drug prices and market shares in 13 European countries, using data from 2013, to assess the amount of variation that exists between countries. To place these results in context, we reviewed evidence from recent studies on the prices and use of generics in Europe and the United States. We also surveyed peer-reviewed studies, gray literature, and books published since 2000 to (1) outline existing generic drug policies in European countries and the United States; (2) identify ways to increase generic drug use and to promote price competition among generic drug companies; and (3) explore barriers to implementing reform of generic drug policies, using a historical example from the United States as a case study.

FINDINGS

The prices and market shares of generics vary widely across Europe. For example, prices charged by manufacturers in Switzerland are, on average, more than 2.5 times those in Germany and more than 6 times those in the United Kingdom, based on the results of a commonly used price index. The proportion of prescriptions filled with generics ranges from 17% in Switzerland to 83% in the United Kingdom. By comparison, the United States has historically had low generic drug prices and high rates of generic drug use (84% in 2013), but has in recent years experienced sharp price increases for some off-patent products. There are policy solutions to address issues in Europe and the United States, such as streamlining the generic drug approval process and requiring generic prescribing and substitution where such policies are not yet in place. The history of substitution laws in the United States provides insights into the economic, political, and cultural issues influencing the adoption of generic drug policies.

CONCLUSIONS

Governments should apply coherent supply- and demand-side policies in generic drug markets. An immediate priority is to convince more physicians, pharmacists, and patients that generic drugs are bioequivalent to branded products. Special-interest groups continue to obstruct reform in Europe and the United States.

Why Are Diabetes Medications So Expensive and What Can Be Done to Control Their Cost?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purposes of this study were to describe how medication prices are established, to explain why antihyperglycemic medications have become so expensive, to show trends in expenditures for antihyperglycemic medications, and to highlight strategies to control expenditures in the USA.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the U.S., pharmaceutical manufacturers set the prices for new products. Between 2002 and 2012, expenditures for antihyperglycemic medications increased from $10 billion to $22 billion. This increase was primarily driven by expenditures for insulin which increased sixfold. The increase in insulin expenditures may be attributed to several factors: the shift from inexpensive beef and pork insulins to more expensive genetically engineered human insulins and insulin analogs, dramatic price increases for the available insulins, physician prescribing practices, policies that limit payers' abilities to negotiate prices, and nontransparent negotiation of rebates and discounts. The costs of antihyperglycemic medications, especially insulin, have become a barrier to diabetes treatment. While clinical interventions to shift physician prescribing practices towards lower cost drugs may provide some relief, we will ultimately need policy interventions such as more stringent requirements for patent exclusivity, greater transparency in medication pricing, greater opportunities for price negotiation, and outcomes-based pricing models to control the costs of antihyperglycemic medications.

Diabetes in sub-Saharan Africa - from policy to practice to progress: targeting the existing gaps for future care for diabetes

The global prevalence and impact of diabetes has increased dramatically, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. This region faces unique challenges in combating the disease including lack of funding for noncommunicable diseases, lack of availability of studies and guidelines specific to the population, lack of availability of medications, differences in urban and rural patients, and inequity between public and private sector health care. Because of these challenges, diabetes has a greater impact on morbidity and mortality related to the disease in sub-Saharan Africa than any other region in the world. In order to address these unacceptably poor trends, contextualized strategies for the prevention, identification, management, and financing of diabetes care within this population must be developed. This narrative review provides insights into the policy landscape, epidemiology, pathophysiology, care protocols, medication availability, and health care systems to give readers a comprehensive summary of many factors in these domains as they pertain to diabetes in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition to providing a review of the current evidence available in these domains, potential solutions to address the major gaps in care will be proposed to reverse the negative trends seen with diabetes in sub-Saharan Africa.

Premixed insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes: pros

Because of the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes, the need to intensify treatment to manage hyperglycemia is expanding. Premixed insulin regimens were designed to maximize patient convenience and reduce the number of daily injections required by providing both rapid-acting and intermediate-acting components in one formulation. Although the basal bolus insulin regimen is considered by many as "the golden standard" in reaching goals of glycemic control, proper use of intensified insulin regimens, such as basal bolus or premixed, will result in similar HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemic events, and weight gain. At the same number of daily insulin injections (2 shots/day), the premixed regimen is associated with a significant 0.2 % HbA1c decrease, as compared with the basal plus regimen (one shot of long-acting plus one shot of short-acting insulin). The choice of insulin regimen should consider the preferences, and resources of the individual and the family for adapting treatment to the patient needs. At last, the process of insulin initiation and intensification in type 2 diabetes must be carried out in the context of patient safety, minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, and injection burden.

The global intellectual property ecosystem for insulin and its public health implications: an observational study

Background

Lack of access to insulin and poor health outcomes are issues for both low and high income countries. This has been accompanied by a shift from relatively inexpensive human insulin to its more expensive analogs, marketed by three to four main global players. Nonetheless, patent-based market exclusivities are beginning to expire there for the first generation insulin analogs. This paper adds a global dimension to information on the U.S. patent landscape for insulin by reviewing the patent status of insulins with emphasis on the situation outside the US and Europe.

Methods

Using the term “insulin”, we searched for patents listed on the United States Food and Drug Administration’s (USFDA) Orange Book and the Canadian Online Drug Product Database Online Query and its Patent Register. With this information, we expanded the search globally using the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) PatentScope database, the European Patent Office’s INPADOC database and various country-specific Patent Offices.

Results

Patent protected insulins marketed in the U.S. and other countries are facing an imminent patent-expiration “cliff’ yet the three companies that dominate the global insulin market are continuing to file for patents in and outside the U.S, but very rarely in Africa. Only a few local producers in the so-called "pharmerging" markets (e.g., Brazil, India, China) are filing for global patent protection on their own insulins. There is moderate, but statistically significant association between patent filings and diabetes disease burden.

Conclusions

The global market dominance by a few companies of analog over human insulin will likely continue even though patents on the current portfolio of insulin analogs will expire very soon. Multinationals are continuing to file for more insulin patents in the bigger markets with large disease burdens and a rapidly emerging middle class. Off-patent human insulins can effectively manage diabetes. A practical way forward would be find (potential) generic manufacturers globally and nudge them towards opportunities to diversify their national insulin markets with acceptable off-patent products for export.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40545-016-0072-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Constraints and challenges in access to insulin: a global perspective

Substantial attention has been given to the issue of access to medicines for communicable diseases; however, access to essential medicines for diabetes, especially insulin, has had insufficient focus. Although insulin was discovered in 1921, the drug is unattainable to many globally, and this Review aims to highlight the range and complexity of factors that contribute to this unattainability. Manufacturers' selling prices of various insulin formulations and presentations, duties, taxes, mark-ups, and other supply chain costs affect the price of insulin and hence the drug's affordability to health systems and individuals. Unlike drugs for HIV and AIDS, the production of generic or biosimilar insulin has not had an effect on the overall market. Other factors contributing to poor availability of insulin include its quantification at the national level, in-country distribution, and determination of needs at lower levels of the health system. Although insulin is essential for the survival of people with type 1 diabetes and is needed for improved management of diabetes for some people with type 2 diabetes, very little has been done globally to address the issue of access, despite the UN's political commitment to address non-communicable diseases and ensure universal access to drugs for these disorders.

Controlled release of biologics for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a rapidly growing disease that poses a significant burden to the United States healthcare system. Despite the many available treatments for the disease, close to half of diagnosed type 2 diabetes cases are not properly managed, largely due to inadequate patient adherence to prescribed treatment regimens. Methods for improving delivery - and thereby easing administration - of type 2 drugs have the potential to greatly improve patient health. This review focuses on two peptide drugs - insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) - for treatment of type 2 diabetes. Peptide drugs offer the benefits of high potency and specificity but pose a significant delivery challenge due to their inherent instability and short half-life. The development of insulin and GLP-1 analogs highlights the broad spectrum of drug delivery strategies that have been used to solve these problems. Numerous structural modifications and formulations have been introduced to optimize absorption, residence time, stability, route of delivery and frequency of administration. Continual improvements in delivery methods for insulin and GLP-1 receptor agonists are paving the way towards better patient compliance and improved disease management, and thereby enhanced patient quality of life.

Biosimilar Insulin and Costs: What Can We Expect?

The costs for insulin treatment are high, and the steady increase in the number of patients with diabetes on insulin presents a true challenge to health care systems. Therefore, all measures to lower these costs are welcomed by patients, physicians, and health care providers. The market introduction of biosimilar insulins presents an option to lower treatment costs as biosimilars are usually offered at a lower price than the originator product. However, the assumption that a drastic reduction in insulin prices will take place, as was observed with many generic drugs, is most probably not realistic. As the first biosimilar insulin has now been approved in the EU, this commentary discusses a number of aspects that are relevant when it comes to the potential cost reduction we will see with the use of biosimilar insulins.

The advent of biosimilars for the treatment of diabetes: current status and future directions

Biosimilar insulins are likely to enter the market of diabetes therapies as patents for major branded insulin products start to expire in the next few years (on June 2014, the European Medicines Agency authorized the first biosimilar of insulin glargine, Abasria, 100 Units/ml, for the treatment of diabetes mellitus). This would allow providing comparable clinical benefits of the current available insulins at a significantly lower cost, thus increasing the affordability and access of insulin treatment for patients with diabetes. Biosimilars are approved via a stringent regulatory pathway demonstrating quality, safety, and efficacy comparable to the reference product. However, the production complexities of such products raise important considerations for treatment efficacy and patient safety, including naming and product tracking, substitution practices, and pharmacovigilance. Additionally, as practitioners' knowledge regarding the differences about pharmacological, clinical, and regulatory aspects between biosimilars and generic small molecules is often suboptimal, specific education on biosimilar prescribing, dispensing, and administering is critical for ensuring patients' benefit and safety. This article discusses all the issues concerning biosimilar, especially biosimilar insulins.