The impact of proposed price regulations on new patented medicine launches in Canada: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), the agency that regulates the prices of patented medicines in Canada, published proposed amendments to the regulatory framework in December 2017. Because of a series of changes and delays, the revised policy has not yet been finalized. We sought to evaluate the potential early impact of the uncertainty about the PMPRB policy on patented-medicine launches. METHODS: We developed a retrospective cohort of patented medicines (molecules) sold in Canada and the 13 countries that the PMPRB currently uses or has proposed to use as price comparators, from sales data from the IQVIA MIDAS database for 2012-2021. The outcome was whether a molecule was launched (i.e., sold) in a specific country within 2 years of its global first launch (2-yr launch). We compared the change of 2-year launch before (2012-2017) and after the proposed amendments were published ("uncertain period," 2018-2021) in Canada with the change in the United States and the other 12 countries as a group ("other-countries group"), using interrupted time series and logistic regressions, respectively. We further conducted analyses for each individual country and subgroups by molecule characteristics, such as therapeutic benefit, separately. RESULTS: We included 242 and 107 new molecules launched before publication of the proposed amendments and during the uncertain period, respectively. The corresponding 2-year launch proportions were 45.0% and 30.8% in Canada, 81.4% and 82.2% in the US, and 83.9% and 70.1% in the other-countries group. All analyses showed changes in 2-year launch during the uncertain period in the US and in the other-countries group that were similar to the changes in Canada. Greater decreases were observed in Norway and Sweden than in Canada. The 2-year launch proportion for molecules with major therapeutic benefit decreased from 45.8% to 31.3% in Canada during the uncertain period and from 87.5% to 62.5% in the other-countries group, but increased from 91.7% to 100% in the US. INTERPRETATION: No negative impact of the PMPRB-policy uncertainty on molecule launches was observed when comparing Canada with price-comparator countries, except for molecules with major therapeutic benefit. The reduction in launches of medicines with major therapeutic benefit in Canada requires continuing investigation.

The impact of changing the reference countries on the list prices for patented medicines in Canada: A policy analysis.

BACKGROUND: Canada's Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) uses external and internal reference pricing (IRP) to regulate patented drug list prices. PMPRB has changed external reference countries from 7 to 11 to include countries with prices closer to the OECD median. We examined the impact on the list prices for patented medicines had the amendment been implemented from 2013. METHODS: Using IQVIA MIDAS® quarterly sales data, we selected branded products that were launched in Canada in 2013-2018. The list price for each product in each country was calculated as its average annual price during the 3rd year post Canadian launch. The median international price (MIP) was the median of the list prices of PMPRB7 (MIP7) and PMPRB11 (MIP11). We assumed the same IRP would be (scenario 1) or would not be used (scenario 2). RESULTS: Among the selected 400 products, 80.3 % (321) had MIP7 and MIP11 (launched in at least one reference country); 18.3 % did not have MIP11. The total current expenditures were $7,134.4 M. In scenario 1, MIP11 would not be binding for most products and expenditures would decline only by 0.7 %. If IRP were abolished, expenditures might decline by 14.1 % if the launching sequence would not change. CONCLUSIONS: MIP11 might not be binding for most medicines. The impact depends on whether to retain the IRP and approaches taken for medicines without MIP11.

Pull me - push you? The disparate financing mechanisms of drug research in global health.

BACKGROUND: There is an inconsistency in the way pharmaceutical research is financed. While pull mechanisms are predominantly used to incentivize later-stage pharmaceutical research for products with demand in the Global North, so-called neglected diseases are chiefly financed by push funding. This discrepancy has so far been ignored in the academic debate, and any compelling explanation for why we draw the line between push and pull at poor people is lacking. MAIN BODY: Clinical development of new pharmaceuticals is chiefly financed by free market pull mechanisms. Even in cases where markets fail to deliver adequate incentives, demand enhancement mechanisms are used to replicate pull funding artificially, for example, with subscription models for antibiotics. Push funding in clinical research is almost always used when the poverty of patients means that markets fail to create sufficient demand. The general question of whether push or pull generally is the more efficient way to conduct pharmaceutical research arises. CONCLUSIONS: If the state is efficient in directing limited budgets for pharmaceutical research, push funding should be expanded to global diseases. If private industry is the more efficient actor, there would be enormous value in experimenting more aggressively with different approaches to enhance market demand artificially for neglected diseases.

Social network risk factors and COVID-19 vaccination: A cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: Social networks have an important impact on our health behaviours, including vaccination. People's vaccination beliefs tend to mirror those of their social network. As social networks are homogenous in many ways, we sought to determine in the context of COVID-19 which factors were most predictive of belonging to a mostly vaccinated or unvaccinated social group. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among Canadian residents in November and December 2021. Participants were asked about the vaccination status of their social networks their beliefs relating to COVID-19, and various sociodemographic factors. Respondents were split into three groups based on social network vaccination: low-, medium-, and high-risk. Chi-squared tests tested associations between factors and risk groups, and an ordinal logistic model was created to determine their direction and strength. RESULTS: Most respondents (81.1 %) were classified as low risk (i.e., a mostly vaccinated social network) and few respondents (3.7 %) were classified as high-risk (i.e., an unvaccinated social group). Both the chi-square test (29.2 % difference between the low- and high- risk groups [1.8 % vs. 31.0 %], p < 0.001) and the ordinal logistic model (odds ratio between the low- and high-risk groups: 14.45, p < 0.01) found that respondents' perceptions of COVID-19 as a "not at all serious" risk to Canadians was the most powerful predictor of belonging to a predominantly unvaccinated social circle. The model also found that those in mostly unvaccinated social circles also more often reported severe COVID-19 symptoms (odds ratio between the low- and high-risk groups: 2.26, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Perception of COVID-19 as a threat to others may signal communities with lower vaccination coverage and higher risk of severe outcomes. This may have implications for strategies to improve public outreach, messaging, and planning for downstream consequences of low intervention uptake.

An Optional Delinked Reward System: Making Pharmaceutical Innovation Work for Everyone.

Conflicts over pharmaceutical pricing are driven by the patients' need for affordable medicines and the producer's reward for the investments in developing innovative medicines. A single price cannot achieve both goals, as it will either obstruct access by patients or provide too low a return to investors. This has led to calls to "delink" the payment for innovation from the price paid for drugs, so that both goals can be met efficiently and without conflict. However, the details of how best to do that are unclear. This paper proposes a specific implementation for delinking the Optional Delinked Reward System (ODRS), which integrates ideas from numerous pharmaceutical reimbursement systems. The ODRS would allow firms to choose either to negotiate a sales price for a drug (as is the current practice in most countries) or to sell their drug at a low "generic" price with a supplementary "delinked" reward based on assessed health benefit. This model builds on recent innovations in drug reimbursement including the UK's Antibiotic Subscription Pilot and the Pneumococcal Vaccine Advanced Market Commitment. The ODRS would ensure affordable and immediate access for patients and a fair reward for innovators.

COVID-19 Vaccine's Speed to Market and Vaccine Hesitancy: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Background: This paper aims to assess the extent to which the COVID-19 vaccine's speed to market affected Canadian residents' decision to remain unvaccinated. Method: A cross-sectional survey conducted in late 2021 asked participants whether they had received the vaccine and their reasons for abstaining. Results: Of the 2,712 participants who completed the survey, 8.9% remained unvaccinated. Unvaccinated respondents who selected "They made the vaccine too fast" (59.8%), were significantly more likely to identify as white, believe that the COVID-19 pandemic was not serious and have an unvaccinated social circle. Conclusion: Should the COVID-19 vaccine rapid regulatory process be expanded, more patients may refuse treatment than if traditional timelines are followed.

The effect of antibiotic usage on resistance in humans and food-producing animals: a longitudinal, One Health analysis using European data.

This paper estimates the effect of antibiotic usage in humans and food-producing animals on the prevalence of resistance in zoonotic bacteria in both humans and animals. Using comprehensive longitudinal data from annual surveillance reports on resistance and usage in Europe, we find that antibiotic usage in food-producing animals and antibiotic usage in humans are independently and causally related to the prevalence of resistance in both humans and animals. The study considers simultaneous and total usage of antibiotics in humans and food-producing animals to identify the marginal effects and joint effects of usage on resistance of both groups. By employing lagged-dependent variable and fixed-effects specifications, we provide a lower and an upper bound on the effects on resistance. The paper also contributes to the scant literature on how antibiotic use in humans is related to resistance in other animals.

Persistence of resistance: a panel data analysis of the effect of antibiotic usage on the prevalence of resistance.

The use of antibiotics promotes the emergence of resistant bacteria in the patient and the environment. The extent of this well-documented biological relationship is, however, not well characterized at an ecological level. To make good policy around antibiotic use, it is important to understand the empirical connection between usage and resistance. We provide a consistent approach to estimate this relationship using national-level surveillance data. This paper estimates the effect of antibiotic usage on antibiotic resistance using an 11-year panel of data on both usage and resistance for 26 antibiotic-bacteria combinations in 26 European countries. Using distributed-lag models and event-study specifications, we provide estimates of the rate at which increases in antibiotic usage at the national level affect antibiotic resistance nationally and internationally. We also calculate the persistence of resistance and analyze how resistance behaves asymmetrically with respect to increases and decreases in usage. Our analysis finds the prevalence of resistant bacteria increases immediately after usage and continues to increase for at least 4 years after usage. We show that a decrease in usage has little identifiable impact on resistance over the same period. Usage in neighboring countries increases resistance in a country, independent of usage in that country. Trends in usage-related resistance vary across European regions and across bacterial classifications.

High Prices for High Profits?

Canadian and foreign governments are struggling with determining whether to reimburse expensive drugs for rare diseases. The problem is that although insurers want to offer fair access to medicines for patients with rare diseases, the drugs are often priced far above normal cost-effectiveness thresholds. This leaves insurers with no tools to determine how much to pay. This article notes one reasonable standard: prices should not, in these circumstances, allow for profiteering by innovative companies.

Clostridioides difficile Near-Patient Testing Versus Centralized Testing: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Crossover Trial.

BACKGROUND: Management of suspected Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in the hospital setting typically results in patient isolation, laboratory testing, infection control, and presumptive treatment. We investigated whether implementation of rapid near-patient testing (NPT) reduced patient isolation time, hospital length of stay (LOS), antibiotic usage, and cost. METHODS: A 2-period pragmatic cluster randomized crossover trial was conducted. Thirty-nine wards were randomized into 2 study arms. The primary outcome measure was effect of NPT on patient isolation time using a mixed-effects generalized linear regression model. Secondary outcomes examined were hospital LOS and antibiotic therapy based on a negative binomial regression model. Natural experiment (NE), intention-to-treat (ITT), and per-protocol (PP) analyses were conducted. RESULTS: During the entire study period, a total of 656 patients received NPT for CDI and 1667 received standard-of-care testing. For the primary outcome, a significant decrease of patient isolation time with NPT was observed (NE, 9.4 hours [P < .01]; ITT, 2.3 hours [P < .05]; PP, 6.7 hours [P < .1]). A significant reduction in hospital LOS was observed with NPT for short stay (NE, 47.4% [P < .01]; ITT, 18.4% [P < .01]; PP, 34.2% [P < .01]). Each additional hour delay for a negative result increased metronidazole use (24 defined daily doses per 1000 patients; P < .05) and non-CDI-treating antibiotics by 70.13 mg (P < .01). NPT was found to save 25.48 US dollars per patient when including test cost to the laboratory and patient isolation in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: This pragmatic cluster randomized crossover trial demonstrated that implementation of CDI NPT can contribute to significant reductions in isolation time, hospital LOS, antibiotic usage, and healthcare cost. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03857464.

Modeling Tiered Pricing Frameworks: A Simulation Approach.

OBJECTIVE: Drug plans take different approaches to determining reimbursement prices for generic drugs. One common approach is to set the maximum reimbursement price as a percentage of the price of the interchangeable branded drug. In many countries this percentage depends on the number of generic entrants, a model we call "tiered pricing." This paper seeks to enhance understanding of how to set the tiers. METHODS: We construct a simple model of tiered pricing and set parameters to match evidence on generic drug costs and the distribution of revenues. Using simulation methods, we then assess different tier structures in terms of total surplus and average drug cost. RESULTS: We find when tiers are bunched tightly together welfare outcomes are poor. Moreover, there are large welfare gains from increasing the number of tiers from one to two, and only small welfare gains from increasing the number of tiers beyond four. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of tiers has substantial welfare and cost implications. While it is possible to refine the simulation analysis based on specific market characteristics, an optimal tier structure, such as the one we propose in the paper, should have at least two tiers.

The Impact of Tiered-Pricing Framework on Generic Entry in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Generic drug prices have been capped at specified percentages of the interchangeable branded drug's price by the Canadian provincial public drug plans since 1993. The Pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, formed as a coalition by the provinces/territories in Canada, implemented an alternative approach, a tiered-pricing framework (TPF) for new generic drugs on April 1, 2014, under which the percentage varies with the number of generic firms in each market. We evaluate the impact of the TPF on generic entry, ie, listing in public drug plans in Canada. METHODS: Our study compared the pre-TPF period (01/01/2012-03/31/2014) with the TPF period (04/01/2014- 06/30/2016). Prescription drugs from nine provincial public drug plans were grouped into a "market" if they had the same active ingredient and strength, route of administration, and dosage form. Each "market" was contestable by generics and met the eligibility criteria for TPF. At the "market" level, Cox proportional-hazards models with time-varying covariates were used to measure the impact of the TPF on the first generic listing in any provincial public drug plan in Canada relative to the first launch date worldwide. RESULTS: A total of 189 markets in Canada were selected for the analyses. Generic drugs in small markets were more likely to be listed in Canada during the TPF period compared to the pre-TPF period (hazard ratio [HR], 95% CI: 3.81, 1.51-9.62). There was no significant difference in generic drug listings in large markets between the two policy periods. CONCLUSION: TPF speeds up generic entry in small markets and generates the benefits of generic competition while avoiding the pitfalls of the previously employed price-cap regulations.

Premarket Development Times for Innovative Vaccines--To What Extent Are the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccines Outliers?

One reason expressed in surveys of people reporting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy is how rapidly these vaccines have reached the market. To estimate the length of time the COVID-19 vaccine spent in research and development as compared to other novel vaccines, we apply previously established methods for estimating medical product development times, using the key associated patent filings cited by the manufacturer as the marker of when commercial development activity began. Applying these methods to a cohort of recently approved innovative vaccines and comparing them to the first-approved COVID-19 vaccine (BioNTech/Pfizer), we found key patent filings for the technology in this COVID-19 vaccine occurred 10.0 years prior to regulatory authorization. By this metric, the development timelines for innovative vaccines have been shortening since the 1980s, and the COVID-19 vaccine comfortably fits within this pattern. Vaccine development timelines have now even drawn to parity with many of the most commonly used drugs.

Knowledge Gaps in the Understanding of Antimicrobial Resistance in Canada.

Current limitations in the understanding and control of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Canada are described through a comprehensive review focusing on: (1) treatment optimization; (2) surveillance of antimicrobial use and AMR; and (3) prevention of transmission of AMR. Without addressing gaps in identified areas, sustained progress in AMR mitigation is unlikely. Expert opinions and perspectives contributed to prioritizing identified gaps. Using Canada as an example, this review emphasizes the importance and necessity of a One Health approach for understanding and mitigating AMR. Specifically, antimicrobial use in human, animal, crop, and environmental sectors cannot be regarded as independent; therefore, a One Health approach is needed in AMR research and understanding, current surveillance efforts, and policy. Discussions regarding addressing described knowledge gaps are separated into four categories: (1) further research; (2) increased capacity/resources; (3) increased prescriber/end-user knowledge; and (4) policy development/enforcement. This review highlights the research and increased capacity and resources to generate new knowledge and implement recommendations needed to address all identified gaps, including economic, social, and environmental considerations. More prescriber/end-user knowledge and policy development/enforcement are needed, but must be informed by realistic recommendations, with input from all relevant stakeholders. For most knowledge gaps, important next steps are uncertain. In conclusion, identified knowledge gaps underlined the need for AMR policy decisions to be considered in a One Health framework, while highlighting critical needs to achieve realistic and meaningful progress.

The private versus public contribution to the biomedical literature during the COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1, and Zika public health emergencies.

BACKGROUND: The private versus public contribution to developing new health knowledge and interventions is deeply contentious. Proponents of commercial innovation highlight its role in late-stage clinical trials, regulatory approval, and widespread distribution. Proponents of public innovation point out the role of public institutions in forming the foundational knowledge undergirding downstream innovation. The rapidly evolving COVID-19 situation has brought with it uniquely proactive public involvement to characterize, treat, and prevent this novel health treat. How has this affected the share of research by industry and public institutions, particularly compared to the experience of previous pandemics, Ebola, H1N1 and Zika? METHODS: Using Embase, we categorized all publications for COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1 and Zika as having any author identified as affiliated with industry or not. We placed all disease areas on a common timeline of the number of days since the WHO had declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern with a six-month lookback window. We plotted the number and proportion of publications over time using a smoothing function and plotted a rolling 30-day cumulative sum to illustrate the variability in publication outputs over time. RESULTS: Industry-affiliated articles represented 2% (1,773 articles) of publications over the 14 months observed for COVID-19, 7% (278 articles) over 7.1 years observed for Ebola, 5% (350 articles) over 12.4 years observed for H1N1, and 3% (160 articles) over the 5.7 years observed for Zika. The proportion of industry-affiliated publications built steadily over the time observed, eventually plateauing around 7.5% for Ebola, 5.5% for H1H1, and 3.5% for Zika. In contrast, COVID-19's proportion oscillated from 1.4% to above 2.7% and then declined again to 1.7%. At this point in the pandemic (i.e., 14 months since the PHEIC), the proportion of industry-affiliated articles had been higher for the other three disease areas; for example, the proportion for H1N1 was twice as high. CONCLUSIONS: While the industry-affiliated contribution to the biomedical literature for COVID is extraordinary in its absolute number, its proportional share is unprecedentedly low currently. Nevertheless, the world has witnessed one of the most remarkable mobilizations of the biomedical innovation ecosystem in history.

Reimagining Pharmaceutical Market Exclusivities: Should the Duration of Guaranteed Monopoly Periods Be Value Based?

OBJECTIVES: To describe the main features of a pharmaceutical market in which the duration of guaranteed monopoly periods would correspond to a new pharmaceutical product's value. METHODS: After reviewing patent and regulatory exclusivity-based mechanisms for protecting prescription drug markets from competition to incentivize drug innovation in developed countries, we model market protection mechanisms within the current framework to give the longest-lasting market protections to drug developers that bring the most affordable products to market with highest public health and clinical value. RESULTS: An approach tying pharmaceutical market exclusivity to value would have 3 main features. First, it would be based on regulatory exclusivity (ie, the drug regulator refrains from authorizing generic entry for a certain amount of time), rather than patents. Second, the duration of exclusivity period would be pegged to the magnitude of a product's anticipated health impact and its proposed price by using modified methods from the field of health technology assessment. Third, the duration of the value-based exclusivity period would be reassessed routinely 3 years after the product's launch to account for its real-world effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Linking a drug's proposed price to the duration of its regulatory-based exclusivities would both incentivize the development of high impact, low-cost products and motivate drug developers to introduce these products at lower prices.

Attitudes, behaviours and barriers to public health measures for COVID-19: a survey to inform public health messaging.

BACKGROUND: Public support of public health measures including physical distancing, masking, staying home while sick, avoiding crowded indoor spaces and contact tracing/exposure notification applications remains critical for reducing spread of COVID-19. The aim of our work was to understand current behaviours and attitudes towards public health measures as well as barriers individuals face in following public health measures. We also sought to identify attitudes persons have regarding a COVID-19 vaccine and reasons why they may not accept a vaccine. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted in August 2020, in Alberta, Canada in persons 18 years and older. This survey evaluated current behaviours, barriers and attitudes towards public health measures and a COVID-19 vaccine. Cluster analysis was used to identify key patterns that summarize data variations among observations. RESULTS: Of the 60 total respondents, the majority of persons were always or often physically distancing (73%), masking (65%) and staying home while sick (67%). Bars/pubs/lounges or nightclubs were visited rarely or never by 63% of respondents. Persons identified staying home while sick to provide the highest benefit (83%) in reducing spread of COVID-19. There were a large proportion of persons who had not downloaded or used a contact tracing/exposure notification app (77%) and who would not receive a COVID-19 vaccine when available (20%) or were unsure (12%). Reporting health authorities as most trusted sources of health information was associated with greater percentage of potential uptake of vaccine but not related to contact tracing app download and use. Individuals with lower concern of getting and spreading COVID-19 showed the least uptake of public health measures except for avoiding public places such as bars. Lower concern regarding COVID-19 was also associated with more negative responses to taking a potential COVID-19 vaccine. CONCLUSION: These results suggest informational frames and themes focusing on individual risks, highlighting concern for COVID-19 and targeting improving trust for health authorities may be most effective in increasing public health measures. With the ultimate goal of preventing spread of COVID-19, understanding persons' attitudes towards both public health measures and a COVID-19 vaccine remains critical to addressing barriers and implementing targeted interventions and messaging to improve uptake.

Market concentration of new antibiotic sales.

We calculate the average sales of new antibiotics during their first 8 years on the market. The discounted net present value is only $240 m in total per antibiotic, well below costs of supplying these products. The reliance on the US for sales is striking: the US market accounts for 84% of sales during the first 8 years. These facts clarify the need for additional revenues, especially from other countries, to support incentives for the development of new antibiotics. Market entry rewards may be of particular value.

The economic theory of cost-effectiveness thresholds in health: Domestic and international implications.

Public health insurers often use an implicit or explicit cost-effectiveness threshold to determine which health products and services should be insured. We challenge the convention of a single threshold. For competitively provided products and services, prices are determined by cost; but for products with market power, patentees will increase the price according to the perceived threshold. As a result, a change in the threshold affects the prices of all patented products, including those which would have been developed even at a lower threshold. The insurer can increase efficiency by reducing the threshold for patented products, even accounting for the effect on innovation. We also model a multi-country setting, in which thresholds for patented products will fall below the globally cooperative solution because each country does not recognize the positive externality of its own spending on innovative medicines. We show that this tragedy of the commons problem can be partly corrected through referencing other countries' thresholds, but only when the countries have similar willingness to pay.

Repurposing existing drugs for new uses: a cohort study of the frequency of FDA-granted new indication exclusivities since 1997.

BACKGROUND: Drug repurposing (i.e., finding novel uses for existing drugs) is essential for maximizing medicines' therapeutic utility, but obtaining regulatory approval for new indications is costly. Policymakers have therefore created temporary indication-specific market exclusivities to incentivize drug innovators to run new clinical investigations. The effectiveness of these exclusivities is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether generic entry impacts the probability of new indication additions. METHODS: For a cohort of all new small-molecule drugs approved by the FDA between July 1997 and May 2020, we tracked new indications added for the subset of drugs that experienced generic entry during the observation period and then analyzed how the probability of a new indication changed with the number of years since/to generic entry. RESULTS: Of the 197 new drugs that subsequently experienced generic entry, only 64 (32%) had at least one new indication added. The probability of a new indication addition peaked above 4% between 7 and 8 years prior to generic entry and then to dropped to near zero 15 years after FDA approval. We show that the limited duration of exclusivity reduces the number of secondary indications significantly. CONCLUSION: Status quo for most drug innovators is creating novel one-indication products. Despite indication-specific exclusivities, the imminence of generic entry still has a detectable impact on reducing the chances of new indication additions. There is much room for improvement when it comes to incentivizing clinical investigations for new uses and unlocking existing medicines' full therapeutic potential.