|
|
hmmm...I suppose this could go to auto
manufacturing...furniture...clothes...etc
how many are ACTUALLY unique??
they are ALL "me too"
but then...THAT is a different issue..
yeah right
"fresh~horses" <fresh~horses@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1126208525.373980.83020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 'New' drugs too often offer little new
> Breakthrough drugs are rare. Most newcomers driving up costs are just
> me-too marketing darlings
>
> By ANDRE PICARD
> Thursday, September 8, 2005 Page A25
>
>
>
> In 2004, prescription-drug spending in Canada rose to a staggering
> $18-billion a year (not including the $1.3-billion in prescription
> drugs dispensed in hospitals). In 1985, prescription drug spending was
> only $2.6-billion annually.
>
> In the past decade alone, drug spending has doubled, to the point where
> Canadians now spend more money on prescription drugs than on physician
> services.
>
> While the vertiginous rise in costs is worrisome, we can at least take
> comfort that all this new spending is a sign of scientific progress, a
> reflection of dramatic breakthroughs that are providing innovative new
> lifesaving treatments. But is that true?
>
> New research, published in the most recent edition of the British
> Medical Journal, suggests otherwise
>
>
> Dr. Steven Morgan and his colleagues at the Centre for Health Services
> and Policy Research at the University of British Columbia decided to
> examine the data and figure out exactly what is driving expenditure
> growth.
>
> The Canadian Patented Medicines Prices Review Board, which regulates
> drug prices in the country (the principal reason our drugs costs are
> far lower than in the U.S.), reviews all drugs before they get to the
> market.
>
> Between 1990 and 2003, the board reviewed 1,147 newly patented drugs.
> As part of its procedure, the board distinguishes "breakthrough" drugs
> from other medicines. It found that 68 drugs (a mere 5.9 per cent) met
> the regulatory criterion of being a breakthrough drug -- defined as the
> "first drug to treat effectively a particular illness or which provides
> substantial improvement over existing drug products."
>
> These breakthrough drugs include: filgrastim (sold under the brand name
> Neupogen), used to treat a common side effect of chemotherapy;
> donepezil hydrochloride (Aricept), used in Alzheimer's; infliximab
> (Remicade), used in rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease.
>
> The board also classifies variants on the breakthroughs as innovative,
> bringing the total to 142. If only 142 of the 1,147 new drugs actually
> provide a substantial improvement, that means the other 1,005 don't --
> they are merely variations of drugs that already exist.
>
> "We called them 'me-too' drugs," Dr. Morgan said. The "me-too" drugs
> are knock-off drugs by brand-name manufacturers (as opposed to copycat
> drugs made by generic companies after patents expire) of their
> competitors' successful products, and sometimes variations on their own
> drugs.
>
> The "me-too" drugs usually feature a small molecular variation but do
> essentially the same thing. Still, they can be very profitable.
>
> Take the cholesterol drug Lipitor, the world's best-selling drug, with
> $10.8-billion (U.S.) in sales last year alone. It was actually the
> fourth drug in its class out of the gate -- after Mevacor, Pravachol
> and Zocor -- but slick and aggressive marketing made it the market
> ruler.
>
> Another classic example is the best-selling heartburn and ulcer
> medication Nexium, which is a derivative of the older drug Prilosec.
> While the two drugs do essentially the same thing, the reformulation
> and repackaging allowed the manufacturer, AstraZeneca PLC, to prolong
> its patent and hence its profits.
>
> In research published in the BMJ, Dr. Morgan and his team focused on
> prescription-drug spending in British Columbia -- which they were able
> to do because of B.C. PharmaNet, a database into which all filled
> prescriptions must, by law, be entered.
>
> The researchers found that breakthrough drugs accounted for only 2 per
> cent of use and 10 per cent of expenditures.
>
> By contrast, "me too" drugs accounted for 44 per cent of use and 63 per
> cent of expenditures in 2003. The balance, 54 per cent of use and 27
> per cent of expenditures, was on so-called "vintage" drugs -- brand
> name and generic drugs that entered the market before 1990, when the
> board started classifying drugs on an annual basis.
>
> The bottom line, according to Dr. Morgan, is that 80 per cent of the
> increase in drug expenditures in B.C. between 1996 and 2003 was
> "explained by the use of new, patented drug products that did not offer
> substantial improvements on less expensive alternatives available
> before 1990." There is no reason to believe the pattern is any
> different elsewhere in Canada, or in the developed world for that
> matter.
>
> That the prescription and cost of "me too" drugs is rising far faster
> than time-tested competitors should give us all pause. This tremendous
> waste of money should also lead policy-makers to consider whether the
> current method of regulating prescription drug prices and of
> determining which drugs are placed on provincial formularies is
> adequate.
>
> Canada provides generous patent protection to brand-name drug
> manufacturers, and some provinces (notably Quebec) provide generous tax
> breaks to these companies. They do so on the understanding that these
> companies not only create jobs, but that they innovate and ultimately
> produce drugs that will save the health system money.
>
> What we're getting now is a lot of the same-old, same-old, with
> ever-increasing sticker prices. We're not getting a lot of
> breakthroughs and innovation, let alone miracles and cures, for our
> drug dollars.
>
> http://www.globeandmail.ca
>
> fairuse
>
|
|