A study published this week in PLoS Medicine suggests that brand-to-brand competition is not likely to reduce drugs’ list prices.
While one key driver of growth in prescription drug spending is the introduction of novel therapies, the growth in spending on existing products is also on the rise. Brand-to-brand competition, in which multiple brand-name therapies in the same class compete with one another, has been proposed as one possible solution for rising spending, based on the assumption that these products will compete on price. A study published this week in PLoS Medicine, however, suggests that brand-to-brand competition is not likely to reduce drugs’ list prices.
The systematic review of studies on how drug market entry impacts price relied on publications in the PubMed and EconLit databases. Ten studies, with publication dates ranging from 1994 to 2019, were included.
The studies reviewed, write the authors, did not show that new drug entry lowered prices for brand-name products. With respect to anti—tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies in particular, data showed that the mean annual cost of the 3 anti-TNF agents approved before 2009—adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab—increased by 144% between 2009 and 2016, even after 3 new anti-TNF agents—golimumab, certolizumab pegol, and intravenous golimumab—entered the marketplace. Furthermore, this increase was “over 4-fold greater than what would have been expected if the new products were not introduced and secular trends had continued,” write the authors.
An assessment of 24 injectable cancer therapies approved between 1996 and 2012 showed that the annual monthly cost of these products grew by 3.7%, more than double the annual health-inflation rate of 1.2%. Only 1 product, ziv-aflibercept, declined in price.
While new drugs did not put downward pressure on prices of other drugs in their classes, some evidence pointed to restraint in launch price as a result of brand-to-brand competition. A consideration of pricing trends for new drugs launched between 1978 and 1987 showed a 38% decrease in the ratio of a new drug’s launch price to the average class price when the number of drugs in a class increased from 1 to 2.
Relative effectiveness and safety appeared to have a role in pricing, with innovative products launching at higher prices that reduced over time and with noninnovative products launching at lower prices and increasing those prices over time. Heavy marketing was also associated with higher prices.
No studies reviewed, conclude the authors, show that brand-to-brand competition lowers list prices of existing drugs, although it may rein in launch prices for new drugs. “These findings underscore some distinctive features of the US pharmaceutical market,” write the authors. “In a truly competitive market, introduction of similar products should lower prices of previously available products.” They add that, for biosimilars, which cannot be substituted at the pharmacy level without an interchangeable designation, “biosimilar competition may more closely resemble brand—brand competition than brand–generic competition.”
Reference
Sarpatwari A, DiBello J, Zakarian M, Najafzadeh M, Kesselheim AS. Competition and price among brand-name drugs in the same class: a systematic review of the evidence [published online July 30, 2019]. PLoS Med. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002872.
Boosting Health Care Sustainability: The Role of Biosimilars in Latin America
November 21st 2024Biosimilars could improve access to biologic treatments and health care sustainability in Latin America, but their adoption is hindered by misconceptions, regulatory gaps, and weak pharmacovigilance, requiring targeted education and stronger regulations.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
Breaking Down Biosimilar Barriers: Interchangeability
November 14th 2024Part 3 of this series for Global Biosimilars Week, penned by Dracey Poore, director of biosimilars at Cardinal Health, explores the critical topic of interchangeability, examining its role in shaping biosimilar adoption and the broader implications for accessibility.
Breaking Down Biosimilar Barriers: Payer and PBM Policies
November 13th 2024Part 2 of this series for Global Biosimilars Week dives into the complexities of payer and pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) policies, how they impact biosimilar accessibility, and how addressing these issues may look under a second Trump term.