Generic drugs: international trends and policy developments in Australia

Public and private third-party payers in many countries encourage or mandate the use of generic drugs. This article examines the development of generics policy in Australia, against the background of a description of international trends in this area, and related experiences of reference pricing programs. The Australian generics market remains underdeveloped due to a historical legacy of small Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme price differentials between originator brands and generics. It is argued that policy measures open to the Australian government can be conceived as clustering around two different approaches: incremental changes within the existing regulatory framework, or a shift towards a high volume/low price role of generics which would speed up the delivery of substantial cost savings, and could provide enhanced scope for the financing of new, patented drugs.

Taste acceptability of pulverized brand-name and generic drugs containing amlodipine or candesartan.

Trials with pulverized brand-name antihypertensive drugs suggest that, from the perspective of taste acceptability, crushed candesartan, chlortalidon, hydrochlorothiazide, lercanidipine and lisinopril should be preferred to pulverized amlodipine, atenolol, bisoprolol, enalapril, irbesartan, losartan, ramipril, telmisartan and valsartan. Brand-name antihypertensive drugs and the corresponding generic medicines have never been compared with respect to their taste acceptability. We therefore investigated among healthy health care workers the taste acceptability of a pulverized 1 mg-test dose of the brand-name and two generics containing either the dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker amlodipine (Norvasc(®), Amlodipin-Mepha(®) and Amlodipin Pfizer(®)) or the angiotensin receptor antagonist candesartan (Atacand(®), Cansartan-Mepha(®) and Pemzek(®)). For this purpose, a smiley-face scale depicting four degrees of pleasure was used. Between November and December 2013, the taste test was performed among 19 nurses (15 female and 4 male subjects) and 12 physicians (5 female and 7 male subjects) aged between 25 and 49 years. Pulverized brand-names and generics containing either amlodipine or candesartan did not differ with respect to their taste acceptability.

Should Physicians be Encouraged to use Generic Names and to Prescribe Generic Drugs?

While using the brand names seems like a trivial issue at the outset, using these names is inherently problematic. Cardiovascular drugs remain the most commonly prescribed drugs by the physicians. The junior doctors are likely to introject practices of their seniors and consequently to reciprocate from the experiences learnt from their preceptors. Using the generic names may be one way to facilitate prescription of the generic drugs who have a better cost profile and similar efficacy than the more expensive branded drugs. In this editorial, we have outlined several arguments to suggest the importance of using the generic names in academic discussions and clinical documentation.

Therapeutic equivalence and the generic competition paradox

Following the passage of the Waxman-Hatch Act (1984), FDA approval for a generic drug requires the establishment of bio-equivalence between the generic drug and an FDA approved branded drug. However, a large body of evidence in the medical community suggests that bio-equivalence does not guarantee therapeutic equivalence; in some instances the lack of therapeutic equivalence can lead to fatal consequences for patients switching to generic products. In this paper, we construct a simple model to analyze the implications of therapeutic non-equivalence between branded and generic drugs. We show, theoretically and empirically, that this distinction can provide a plausible explanation of the generic competition paradox.

Generic drug prices and policy in Australia: room for improvement? A comparative analysis with England

To assess the degree to which reimbursement prices in Australia and England differ for a range of generic drugs, and to analyse the supply- and demand-side factors that may contribute to these differences.

Generic-branded drug competition and the price for pharmaceuticals in procurement auctions

This paper studies the effects of generic drug’s entry on bidding behavior of drug suppliers in procurement auctions for pharmaceuticals, and the consequences on procurer’s price paid for drugs. Using an unique data set on procurement auctions for off-patent drugs organized by Brazilian public bodies, we surprisingly find no statistically difference between bids and prices paid for generic and branded drugs. On the other hand, some branded drug suppliers leave auctions in which there exists a supplier of generics, whereas the remaining ones lower their bidding price. These findings explain why we find that the presence of any supplier of generic drugs in a procurement auction reduces the price paid for pharmaceuticals by 7 percent. To overcome potential estimation bias due to generic’s entry endogeneity, we exploit variation in the number of days between drug’s patent expiration date and the tendering session. The two-stage estimations document the same pattern as the generalized least square estimations find. This evidence indicates that generic competition affects branded supplier’s behavior in public procurement auctions differently from other markets.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Drug Discovery Research in India: Current State and Future Prospects

Indian civilization developed a strong system of traditional medicine and was one of the first nations to develop a synthetic drug. In the postindependence era, Indian pharmaceutical industry developed a strong base for production of generic drugs. Challenges for the future are to give its traditional medicine a strong scientific base and develop research and clinical capability to consistently produce new drugs based on advances in modem biological sciences.

Impactos concorrenciais da entrada dos medicamentos genéricos no mercado farmacêutico brasileiro de 2003 a 2007

Em 1999, o mercado de medicamentos genéricos foi criado no Brasil. Com isso, iniciou-se uma nova fase do mercado farmacêutico brasileiro. Através de dados cedidos pela ANVISA sobre o mercado varejista brasileiro, objetivou-se testar em até que ponto a política de medicamentos genéricos tem logrado êxito. Foram utilizados dados em painel para analisar o impacto da entrada dos medicamentos genéricos sobre a estrutura do mercado, assim como o impacto nos preços e na quantidade vendida entre 2003 e 2007. Os resultados foram favoráveis à diminuição da concentração dos mercados relevantes da amostragem e também ao aumento da quantidade comercializada. Em relação aos preços, o modelo se mostrou pouco significativo, provavelmente pela política de medicamentos genéricos ser um instrumento indireto de controle de preços. De qualquer forma, os resultados encontrados parecem sugerir o bom andamento da política de medicamentos genéricos, o que é um alívio em se tratando de um mercado tão essencial para o bem-estar da população.

A proteção jurídica dos dados clínicos de testes em medicamentos para humanos

A discussão jurídica versa acerca da proteção ou não dos dados clínicos e informações não divulgadas Data Package, obtidos através de pesquisas clinicas, a partir do desenvolvimento de um novo medicamento. È importante realizar-se uma investigação prévia para descobrir se o novo medicamento a ser comercializado, possui efeitos benéficos ou adversos, que possam afetar os seres humanos, garantindo assim a eficácia e a segurança de sua utilização. O dossiê contendo os dados clínicos é submetido à Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária que, no uso de sua atribuição específica, e em função da avaliação do cumprimento de caráter jurídico-administrativo e técnico-científico relacionado com a eficácia, segurança e qualidade do medicamento conforme a Lei 6360/76 e o Decreto 79.094/77 determina o registro sanitário. A tese defendida pelas sociedades farmacêuticas de pesquisa é a de que seria vedado à ANVISA deferir registros de medicamentos genéricos e similares de mesmo princípio ativo, com base nas pesquisas clinicas realizada, enquanto vigente o período de exclusividade, com fundamento no artigo 5, inciso XXIX da Constituição Federal, artigos 39.1, 39.2, 39.3 do Acordo sobre Aspectos dos Direitos de Propriedade Intelectual Acordo TRIPS, artigo 195, XIV da Lei n 9.279/96 (Lei da Propriedade Industrial), artigo 421, 884, 885 e 886 do CC, artigo 37, caput, da CF e artigo 2, da Lei 9.784/99 e aplicação analógica da Lei 10.603/2002. A ANVISA ao permitir aos fabricantes dos medicamentos genéricos e similares a utilização do pacote de dados clínicos, fornecido pelo titular do medicamento de referencia, estaria promovendo a concorrência desleal e parasitária, ao permitir que as versões genéricas e similares, ingressem no mercado, sob custos de produção e comerciais substancialmente menores, do que os praticadas pelos medicamentos de referencia. Este argumento tem fulcro na norma do artigo 39.3 do Acordo TRIPS firmado entre os membros da Organização Mundial do Comércio OMC, em 1994, no qual o Brasil é signatário, e que se comprometeram a adotar providências no sentido de manter em sigilo e protegidos contra o uso comercial desleal os dados clínicos relativos à pesquisa clínica, necessários à aprovação da comercialização de produtos farmacêuticos. A divulgação, exploração ou a utilização dos dados clínicos, sem a autorização do respectivo titular, o qual demandou recursos materiais e humanos consideráveis e desde que estas informações tenham sido apresentadas a entidades governamentais como condição para aprovação da comercialização de um medicamento, devem ser protegidas. Os Estados membros da OMC e subscritores do acordo internacional devem assegurar que os concorrentes não tenham acesso às informações recebidas pelo ente estatal, que não as explorarem ou delas possam aferir indevidamente tanto direta quanto indiretamente de vantagens que as beneficiem do conhecimento técnico-cientifico, investimentos e esforços realizados pelo titular daquela pesquisa clínica. Dentro deste cenário, faz-se necessário que o Estado produza um marco regulatório capaz de prover uma segurança jurídica, que permita as sociedades farmacêuticas disponibilizar elevado investimento, viabilizando a realização de pesquisa clinica e introdução de novos medicamentos.

Analyse des glissements juridiques de la politique canadienne en matière de brevets quant à son objectif d'équilibre entre la promotion des intérêts de l'industrie pharmaceutique novatrice et ceux de l'industrie du médicament générique

"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de maîtrise en droit". Ce mémoire a été accepté à l'unanimité et classé parmi les 10% des mémoires de la discipline.

Accès aux médicaments : comment expliquer et améliorer la situation au Brésil

Le Brésil figure parmi les plus grands marchés consommateurs de médicaments. Cependant, le droit à l'accès aux médicaments, prévu dans sa Constitution Fédérale, ne fait pas partie de sa réalité. Cette situation est attribuable à plusieurs facteurs: le Brésil n'est pas capable de répondre à ses besoins internes et la consommation de médicaments n'est pas équilibrée. En réaction à cette constatation, nous analyserons la situation juridique actuelle du Brésil, afin d'indiquer les lacunes et barrières au plein accès aux médicaments et, surtout, de trouver une solution qui pourrait améliorer cette situation. Les organismes gouvernementaux brésiliens jouant un rôle important dans le développement des nouveaux médicaments sont présentés et, ensuite, l'encadrement juridique applicable à la recherche clinique et à l'autorisation de mise en marché des nouveaux médicaments est analysé; un bref survol de la législation applicable aux médicaments génériques est fait. Dans un deuxième moment de l'étude, la question d'accès aux nouveaux médicaments est mise en lumière: la législation brésilienne relative aux brevets, ainsi que le régime de licence obligatoire sont abordés; de plus, nous évaluons la compatibilité de ce régime avec l'Accord sur les ADPIC et nous évoquons les conflits internationaux qu'il a suscités. En vue de trouver des solutions aux difficultés brésiliennes identifiées, nous concluons notre étude avec l'examen de l'initiative canadienne pour favoriser l'accès aux médicaments aux pays du Sud (RCAN). Nous constatons que l'utilisation du RCAM pourrait, à court terme, favoriser l'accès aux médicaments au Brésil et, à moyen terme, aider à réduire les conflits internationaux. Finalement, à long terme, nous croyons que le Brésil pourrait jouer un rôle de leader international en adoptant une loi semblable à celle du Canada et, ainsi, il serait capable d'aider d'autres pays dans le besoin, qui n'ont aucune capacité de production locale, comme par exemple, plusieurs pays en Afrique.

La incidencia del sistema de patentes estadounidense en la política de salud pública sudafricana 2000- 2012

El interés de este estudio de caso es explicar la incidencia del sistema de patentes estadounidense en la política de salud pública sudafricana del 2000 al 2012. Teniendo en cuenta los altos costos que este sistema impone en los precios de los medicamentos especialmente para tratar el VIH/SIDA y la malaria dos de los males que más aquejan a la población sudafricana. Se pretende explicar y establecer los cambios que ha implementado el gobierno sudafricano en su política de salud pública a través de la creación de una incipiente industria farmacéutica genérica que alivia en parte esta situación, pero que resulta insuficiente debido a su primordial interés de mantener relaciones cordiales con Estados Unidos antes que experimentar cualquier represalia como sucedió en India y Brasil.

Applicatiion of Almost ideal demand system for a pharmaceutical

This thesis is an application of the Almost Ideal Demand System approach of Deaton and Muellbauer,1980, for a particular pharmaceutical, Citalopram, in which GORMAN´s (1971) multi-stage budgeting approach is applied basically since it is one of the most useful approach in estimating demand for differentiated products. Citalopram is an antidepressant drug that is used in the treatment of major depression. As for most other pharmaceuticals whose the patent has expired, there exist branded and generic versions of Citalopram. This paper is aimed to define its demand system with two stage models for the branded version and five generic versions, and to show whether generic versions are able to compete with the branded version. I calculated the own price elasticities, and it made me possible to compare and make a conclusion about the consumers’ choices over the brand and generic drugs. Even though the models need for being developed with some additional variables, estimation results of models and uncompensated price elasticities indicated that the branded version has still power in the market, and generics are able to compete with lower prices. One important point that has to be taken into consideration is that the Swedish pharmaceutical market faced a reform on October 1, 2002, that aims to make consumer better informed about the price and decrease the overall expenditures for pharmaceuticals. Since there were not significantly enough generic sales to take into calculation before the reform, my paper covers sales after the reform.