Dataset Information

US Spending Associated With Transition From Daily to 3-Times-Weekly Glatiramer Acetate.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Market exclusivity for daily injections of glatiramer acetate, a disease-modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis, expired in 2015. In 2014, the manufacturer launched an alternate 3-times-weekly version that was widely adopted, sustaining market dominance of brand-name glatiramer until late 2017.

Objective

To estimate excess US spending associated with the transition from daily to 3-times-weekly glatiramer.

Design, setting, and participants

This economic evaluation estimated total US glatiramer spending from January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2019, using a national cohort from 3 data sources that collectively represent approximately 40% of the US glatiramer market: Medicare Part D, Medicaid, and a claims database of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients.

Exposures

Calendar quarter.

Main outcomes and measures

Outcomes were quarterly US glatiramer spending, estimated as price × use. Manufacturer list prices for generic products and estimates of net (postrebate) prices for brand-name products were used. Linear regression and interrupted time series models were used to compare spending trends in 3 periods: before generic competition (2011-2015), during generic competition for daily glatiramer (2015-2017), and during generic competition for daily and 3-times-weekly glatiramer (2017-2019).

Results

From 2011 to 2015, US glatiramer spending increased to $962 million per quarter and did not decrease with generic competition of only daily glatiramer (2015-2017). After generic competition began for 3-times-weekly glatiramer in 2017, prices decreased by 47% to 64%, and spending decreased to $508 million per quarter in 2019 (P < .001 for slope). The delay in decreased spending from 2015 to 2017 was associated with excess spending of $4.3 billion to $6.5 billion.

Conclusions and relevance

These findings suggest that 2.5 years of delayed generic competition related to introduction of a new version of branded glatiramer acetate was associated with $4.3 billion to $6.5 billion in excess spending. Extended market exclusivity from introducing a new version of an existing brand-name drug can yield manufacturer returns out of proportion to the level of investment or risk involved; more limited incentives could encourage incremental innovations to existing drugs at a lower societal cost.

SUBMITTER: Rome BN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7372513 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Glatiramer acetate (GA) is a well-established treatment option for patients with clinically isolated syndrome and relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) with few side effects. The double transgenic mouse model spontaneous opticospinal encephalomyelitis (OSE), based on recombinant myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein35-55 reactive T and B cells, mimicks features of chronic inflammation and degeneration in MS and related disorders. Here, we investigated the effects of prophylactic GA treatment on the clinical course, histological alterations and peripheral immune cells in OSE. Objective: To investigate the effects of prophylactic glatiramer acetate (GA) treatment in a mouse model of spontaneous opticospinal encephalomyelitis (OSE). Methods: OSE mice with a postnatal age of 21 to 28 days without signs of encephalomyelitis were treated once daily either with 150 µg GA or vehicle intraperitoneally (i. p.). The animals were scored daily regarding clinical signs and weight. The animals were sacrificed after 30 days of treatment or after having reached a score of 7.0 due to animal care guidelines. We performed immunohistochemistry of spinal cord sections and flow cytometry analysis of immune cells. Results: Preventive treatment with 150 µg GA i. p. once daily significantly reduced clinical disease progression with a mean score of 3.9 ± 1.0 compared to 6.2 ± 0.7 in control animals (p < 0.01) after 30 d in accordance with positive effects on weight (p < 0.001). The immunohistochemistry showed that general inflammation, demyelination or CD11c+ dendritic cell infiltration did not differ. There was, however, a modest reduction of the Iba1+ area (p < 0.05) and F4/80+ area upon GA treatment (p < 0.05). The immune cell composition of secondary lymphoid organs showed a trend towards an upregulation of regulatory T cells, which lacked significance. Conclusions: Preventive treatment with GA reduces disease progression in OSE in line with modest effects on microglia/macrophages. Due to the lack of established prophylactic treatment options for chronic autoimmune diseases with a high risk of disability, our study could provide valuable indications for translational medicine.