Dataset Information

Not as bad as you think: a comparison of the nutrient content of best price and brand name food products in Switzerland.

ABSTRACT: Several studies have shown that low-cost foods have an equivalent nutrient composition compared to high-cost foods, but such information is lacking in Switzerland. Thus, we compared the caloric and nutrient content of "best price" (BPF) and brand name foods (BNF) in Switzerland using the version 5.0 (April 2015) of the Swiss Food and Nutrient composition database. Over 4000 processed food items were included and 26 food categories were compared regarding total energy, protein, fat and carbohydrates, saturated fatty acids, sugar, fiber and sodium. BPF, namely core food categories like Bread, Red meat, White meat and Fish products, were 42%, 39%, 42% and 46% less expensive than their BNF equivalents, respectively. No differences were found between BPF and BNF regarding total energy and protein, fat and carbohydrates for most food categories. In the Cheese category, BPF had a lower caloric content than BNF [Median (interquartile range, IQR): 307 (249-355) vs. 365 (308-395) kcal/100 g, respectively, p < 0.001]; BPF also had lower fat and saturated fatty acid content but higher carbohydrate content than BNF (both p < 0.01). In the Creams and puddings group, BPF had lower fat 1.3 (0.9-1.7) vs. 6.0 (3.5-11.0) g/100 g and saturated fatty acid 0.6 (0.6-0.8) vs. 2.9 (2.3-6.0) g/100 g content than BNF (both p < 0.005). In the Tinned fruits and vegetables group, BPF had lower sodium content than BNF: 175 (0-330) vs. 370 (150-600) mg/100 g, p = 0.006. BPF might be a reasonable and eventually healthier alternative of BNF for economically deprived people in Switzerland.

SUBMITTER: Khalatbari-Soltani S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4929183 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Not as bad as you think: a comparison of the nutrient content of best price and brand name food products in Switzerland.

Khalatbari-Soltani Saman S Marques-Vidal Pedro P

Preventive medicine reports 20160303

Several studies have shown that low-cost foods have an equivalent nutrient composition compared to high-cost foods, but such information is lacking in Switzerland. Thus, we compared the caloric and nutrient content of "best price" (BPF) and brand name foods (BNF) in Switzerland using the version 5.0 (April 2015) of the Swiss Food and Nutrient composition database. Over 4000 processed food items were included and 26 food categories were compared regarding total energy, protein, fat and carbohydra ...[more]

PMID: 27419018

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSome experts have proposed combating rising drug prices by promoting brand-brand competition, a situation that is supposed to arise when multiple US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved brand-name products in the same class are indicated for the same condition. However, numerous reports exist of price increases following the introduction of brand-name competition, suggesting that it may not be effective. We performed a systematic literature review of the peer-reviewed health policy and economics literature to better understand the interplay between new drug entry and intraclass drug prices.Methods and findingsWe searched PubMed and EconLit for original studies on brand-brand competition in the US market published in English between January 1990 and April 2019. We performed a qualitative synthesis of each study's data, recording its primary objective, methodology, and results. We found 10 empirical investigations, with 1 study each on antihypertensives, anti-infectives, central nervous system stimulants for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis, histamine-2 (H2) blockers, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors; 2 studies on cancer medications; and 2 studies on all marketed or new drugs. None of the studies reported that brand-brand competition lowers list prices of existing drugs within a class. The findings of 2 studies suggest that such competition may help restrain how new drug prices are set. Other studies found evidence that brand-brand competition was mediated by the relative quality of competing drugs and the extent to which they are marketed, with safer or more effective new drugs and greater marketing associated with higher intraclass list prices. Our investigation was limited by the studies' use of list rather than net prices and the age of some of the data.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that policies to promote brand-brand competition in the US pharmaceutical market, such as accelerating approval of non-first-in-class drugs, will likely not result in lower drug list prices absent additional structural reforms.

Project description:This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse events, either serious or mild/moderate, of all generic versus brand-name cardiovascular medicines. We searched randomized trials in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov (last update December 1, 2014). Attempts were made to contact the investigators of all potentially eligible trials. Two investigators independently extracted and analyzed soft (including systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and others) and hard efficacy outcomes (including major cardiovascular adverse events and death), minor/moderate and serious adverse events. We included 74 randomized trials; 53 reported ≥1 efficacy outcome (overall sample 3051), 32 measured mild/moderate adverse events (n = 2407), and 51 evaluated serious adverse events (n = 2892). We included trials assessing ACE inhibitors (n = 12), anticoagulants (n = 5), antiplatelet agents (n = 17), beta-blockers (n = 11), calcium channel blockers (n = 7); diuretics (n = 13); statins (n = 6); and others (n = 3). For both soft and hard efficacy outcomes, 100 % of the trials showed non-significant differences between generic and brand-name drugs. The aggregate effect size was 0.01 (95 % CI -0.05; 0.08) for soft outcomes; -0.06 (-0.71; 0.59) for hard outcomes. All but two trials showed non-significant differences in mild/moderate adverse events, and aggregate effect size was 0.07 (-0.06; 0.20). Comparable results were observed for each drug class and in each stratified meta-analysis. Overall, 8 serious possibly drug-related adverse events were reported: 5/2074 subjects on generics; 3/2076 subjects on brand-name drugs (OR 1.69; 95 % CI 0.40-7.20). This meta-analysis strengthens the evidence for clinical equivalence between brand-name and generic cardiovascular drugs. Physicians could be reassured about prescribing generic cardiovascular drugs, and health care organization about endorsing their wider use.

Project description:ImportanceThe Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 authorizes Medicare to negotiate prices of top-selling drugs based on several factors, including therapeutic benefit compared with existing treatment options.ObjectiveTo determine the added therapeutic benefit of the 50 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare in 2020, as assessed by health technology assessment (HTA) organizations in Canada, France, and Germany.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, publicly available therapeutic benefit ratings, US Food and Drug Administration documents, and the Medicare Part B and Part D prescription drug spending dashboards were used to determine the 50 top-selling single-source drugs used in Medicare in 2020 and to assess their added therapeutic benefit ratings through 2021.Main outcomes and measuresRatings from HTA bodies in Canada, France, and Germany were categorized as high (moderate or greater) or low (minor or no) added benefit. Each drug was rated based on its most favorable rating across countries, indications, subpopulations, and dosage forms. We compared the use and prerebate and postrebate (ie, net) Medicare spending between drugs with high vs low added benefit.ResultsForty-nine drugs (98%) received an HTA rating by at least 1 country; 22 of 36 drugs (61%) received a low added benefit rating in Canada, 34 of 47 in France (72%), and 17 of 29 in Germany (59%). Across countries, 27 drugs (55%) had a low added therapeutic rating, accounting for $19.3 billion in annual estimated net spending, or 35% of Medicare net spending on the 50 top-selling single-source drugs and 11% of total Medicare net prescription drug spending in 2020. Compared with those with high added benefit, drugs with a low added therapeutic rating were used by more Medicare beneficiaries (median 387 149 vs 44 869) and had lower net spending per beneficiary (median $992 vs $32 287).Conclusions and relevanceMany top-selling Medicare drugs received low added benefit ratings by the national HTA organizations of Canada, France, and Germany. When negotiating prices for these drugs, Medicare should ensure they are not priced higher than reasonable therapeutic alternatives.

Project description:ImportanceWhether the use of generic vs brand levothyroxine affects thyrotropin levels remains unclear.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of generic vs brand levothyroxine in achieving and maintaining normal thyrotropin levels among new users.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective, 1:1 propensity score-matched longitudinal cohort study used the OptumLabs Data Warehouse administrative claims database linked to laboratory results from commercially insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees throughout the United States. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with thyrotropin levels ranging from 4.5 to 19.9 mIU/L who initiated use of generic or brand-name levothyroxine from January 1, 2008, to October 1, 2017. Data were analyzed from August 13, 2018, to October 25, 2019.ExposurePatients received generic or brand-name levothyroxine.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of patients with normal vs markedly abnormal thyrotropin levels (<0.1 or >10 mIU/L) within 3 months and with stable thyrotropin levels within 3 months after the thyrotropin value fell into the normal range.ResultsA total of 17 598 patients were included (69.0% female; 74.0% White; mean [SD] age, 55.1 [16.0] years), of whom 15 299 filled generic and 2299 filled brand-name levothyroxine prescriptions during the study period. Among 4570 propensity score-matched patients (mean [SD] age, 50.3 [13.8] years; 3457 [75.6%] female; 3510 [76.8%] White), the proportion with normal thyrotropin levels within 3 months of filling levothyroxine prescriptions was similar for patients who received generic vs brand-name levothyroxine (1722 [75.4%; 95% CI, 71.9%-79.0%] vs 1757 [76.9%; 95% CI, 73.4%-80.6%]; P = .23), as was the proportion with markedly abnormal levels (94 [4.1%; 95% CI, 3.4%-5.0%] vs 88 [3.9%; 95% CI, 3.1%-4.7%]; P = .65). Among 1034 propensity score-matched patients who achieved a normal thyrotropin value within 3 months of initiation of levothyroxine, the proportion maintaining subsequent normal thyrotropin levels during the next 3 months was similar for patients receiving generic vs brand-name levothyroxine (427 [82.6%] vs 433 [83.8%]; P = .62).Conclusions and relevanceInitiation of generic vs brand-name levothyroxine formulations was associated with similar rates of normal and stable thyrotropin levels. These results suggest that generic levothyroxine as initial therapy for mild thyroid dysfunction is as effective as brand-name levothyroxine.

Project description:ImportanceHigh and continually increasing pharmaceutical drug spending is a major health and health policy concern in the United States.ObjectiveTo demonstrate trends in prices among popular brand-name prescription drugs.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation of drug prices focuses on 49 top-selling brand-name medications in the United States. Pharmacy claims data from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017, were obtained from Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis, a database that includes data from more than 35 million individuals with private pharmaceutical insurance. Drugs that exceeded $500 million in US sales or $1 billion in worldwide sales were examined.Main outcomes and measuresThe median sum of out-of-pocket and insurance costs paid by patients or insurers for common prescriptions, presented annually and monthly, was the primary outcome.ResultsIn total, 132 brand-name prescription drugs were identified in 2017 that met the inclusion criteria. Of this total, the study focused on 49 top-selling drugs that exceeded 100 000 pharmacy claims. Substantial cost increases among these drugs was near universal, with a 76% median cost increase from January 2012 through December 2017, and almost all drugs (48 [98%]) displaying regular annual or biannual price increases. Of the 36 drugs that have been available since 2012, 28 (78%) have seen an increase in insurer and out-of-pocket costs by more than 50%, and 16 (44%) have more than doubled in price. Insulins (ie, Novolog, Humalog, and Lantus) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (ie, Humira and Enbrel) demonstrated highly correlated price increases, coinciding with some of the largest growth in drug costs. Relative price changes did not differ between drugs that entered the market in the past 3 to 6 years and those that have been on the market longer (number of drugs, 13 vs 36; median, 29% increase from January 2015 through December 2017; P = .81) nor between drugs with or without a Food and Drug Administration-approved therapeutic equivalent (number of drugs, 17 vs 32; median, 79% vs 73%; P = .21). Changes in prices paid were highly correlated with third-party estimates of changes in drug net prices (ρ = 0.55; P = 3.8 × 10-5), suggesting that the current rebate system, which incentivizes high list prices and greater reliance on rebates, increases overall costs.Conclusions and relevanceThe growth of drug spending in the United States associated with government-protected market exclusivity is likely to continue; greater price transparency is warranted.

Project description:ImportanceList prices set by manufacturers for brand-name prescription drugs in the US have been increasing faster than inflation, although confidential manufacturer rebates offset some of these increases. Most commercially insured patients pay at least some out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, and higher patient spending is associated with lower adherence and worse health outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine whether price changes for brand-name drugs are correlated with changes in patient out-of-pocket spending and whether this association varies by insurance benefit design.Design, setting, and participantsA cohort study of 79 brand-name drugs with available pricing data from January 2015 to December 2017 was conducted, with data obtained from a national commercial insurance claims database.ExposuresChange in the list prices set by manufacturers and estimated net prices after rebates among non-Medicaid payers.Main outcomes and measuresChange in median out-of-pocket spending among all patients and stratified by insurance pharmacy benefit design, including high-deductible insurance plans and plans with any amount of deductibles or coinsurance.ResultsAmong 79 drugs, median increases were 16.7% (interquartile range [IQR], 13.6%-21.1%) for list prices, 5.4% (IQR, -3.9% to 11.7%) for net prices, and 3.5% (IQR, 1.4%-9.1%) for out-of-pocket spending from 2015 to 2017. Changes in list prices were correlated with changes in net prices (r = 0.34; P = .002). Overall, changes in out-of-pocket spending were not correlated with changes in list prices (r = 0.14; P = .22) or net prices (r = 0.04; P = .71). Among 53.7% of patients who paid any drug deductible or coinsurance, median out-of-pocket spending increased by 15.0%, and changes were moderately correlated with changes in list prices (r = 0.38; P = .001) but not net prices (r = 0.06; P = .62).Conclusions and relevanceSome commercially insured patients who pay only prescription drug copayments appear to be insulated from increases in drug prices. However, more than half of patients pay deductibles or coinsurance and may experience substantial increases in out-of-pocket spending when drug prices increase. Among these patients, there was no evidence that manufacturer rebates to insurers are associated with patients' out-of-pocket spending. Policies to rein in unregulated annual increases in list prices for brand-name drugs may have important consequences for patient out-of-pocket spending.

Dataset Information

Not as bad as you think: a comparison of the nutrient content of best price and brand name food products in Switzerland.

Publications

Not as bad as you think: a comparison of the nutrient content of best price and brand name food products in Switzerland.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets