The economics of follow-on drug research and development: Trends in entry rates and the timing of development - The authors' reply

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 23, Issue 12, 2005, Pages 1193-1202

  DiMasi, Joseph A ^a   Paquette, Cherie ^a  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIULCER AGENT; HISTAMINE H2 RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST;

DRUG COST; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SAFETY; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; NOTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 29144474513     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11707690     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200523120-00003     Document Type: Note

References (27)

1. Hollis A. Me-too drugs: is there a problem? 2004 Dec 13, WHO, Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health (CIPIH) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/topics/ip/Me- tooDrugs_Hollis1. pdf [Accessed 2005 Nov 2]
2. Hollis A. Comment on "The economics of follow-on drug research and development: trends in entry rates and the timing of development". Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (12): 1187-92
3. DiMasi JA, Paquette C. The economics of follow-on drug research and development: trends in entry rates and the timing of development. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 Suppl. 2: 1-14
4. DiMasi JA. Comment on "Me-too drugs: is there a problem?". 2005 Mar 1, WHO, Commission on intellectual property rights, innovation and public health (CIPIH) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.who.int/ intellectualproperty/forum/HollisResponse.pdf [Accessed 2005 Nov 2]
5. Angell M. The truth about the drug companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House, 2004
6. PBS Frontline. The other drug war: interview. Raymond Gilmartin. 2003 Jun 19 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ other/interviews/gilmartin.html [Accessed 2005 Nov 2]
7. Scherer FM. Comment. In: Helms RB, editor. Competitive strategies in the pharmaceutical industry. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1996: 269-73
8. Lu ZJ, Comanor WS. Strategic pricing of new pharmaceuticals. Rev Econ Stat 1998; 80 (1): 108-18, 133
9. Ekelund M, Persson B. Pharmaceutical pricing in a regulated market. Rev Econ Stat 2003; 85 (2): 298-306
10. DiMasi JA. Price trends for prescription pharmaceuticals: 1995-1999. A background report prepared for the Department of Health and Human Services conference on pharmaceutical pricing practices, utilization and costs; 2000 Aug 8-9; Washington, DC [online]. Available from URL: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/ reports/Drug-papers/dimassi/dimasi-final.htm [Accessed 2005 Nov 2]
11. US Department of Health & Human Services. Report to the President: prescription drug coverage, spending, utilization, and prices. 2000 April [online]. Available from URL: http://www.aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/drugstudy/ index.htm [Accessed 2005 Nov 2]
12. Cockburn IM, Anis AH. Hedonic analysis of arthritis drugs. NBER working paper 6574, 1998 May [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/ w6574 [Accessed 2005 Nov 2]
13. Azoulay P. Do pharmaceutical sales respond to scientific evidence? J Econ & Manag Strategy 2002; 11 (4): 551-94
14. Lichtenberg F, Philipson T. The dual effects of intellectual property regulations: within- and between-patent competition in the US pharmaceuticals industry. J Law Econ 2002; Part 2 (2): 643-72
15. Rosenthal MB, Berndt ER, Donohue JM, Epstein AM, Frank RG. Demand effects of recent changes in prescription drug promotion. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2003 Jun [online]. Available from URL: http://www.kff.org/rxdrugs/ loader.cfm?.url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=14380 [Accessed 2005 Nov 2]
16. Kravitz RL, Epstein RM, Feldman MD, et al. Influence of patients' requests for direct-to-consumer advertised antidepressants: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005; 293 (16): 1995-2002
17. Wosinska M. Direct-to-consumer advertising and drug therapy compliance. J Mark Res 2005; XLII (3): 323-32
18. Berndt ER, Bui LT, Lucking-Reiley DH, Urban GL. The roles of marketing, product quality, and price competition in the growth and composition of the US antiulcer drug industry. In: Bresnahan TF, Gordon RJ, editors. The economics of new goods, NBER studies in income and wealth, 58. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997: 277-322
19. Kaitin KI, DiMasi JA. Measuring the pace of new drug development in the user fee era. Drug Inf J 2000; 34 (3): 673-80
20. Bakke OM, Wardell WM, Lasagna L. Drug discontinuations in the United Kingdom and the United States, 1964 to 1983: issues of safety. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1984; 35: 559-67
21. Bakke OM, Manocchia MA, de Abajo F, et al. Drug safety discontinuations in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Spain from 1974 through 1993: a regulatory perspective. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 58: 108-17
22. Lasser KE, Allen PD, Wollhandler SJ, et al. Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications. JAMA May 1, 2002; 287 (17): 2215-20
23. US General Accounting Office. Food and Drug Administration: effect of user fees on drug approval times, withdrawals, and other agency activities. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, September 2002
24. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. CDER 2002 report to the nation: improving public health through human drugs. 2002 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/reports/rtn/2002/Rtn2002.PDF [Accessed 2005 Nov 2]
25. Olson MK. Are novel drugs more risky for patients than less novel drugs? J Health Econ 2004; 23 (6): 1135-58
26. Scherer FM. Time-cost tradeoffs in uncertain empirical research projects. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 1966; 13: 71-82
27. Scotchmer S. Innovation and incentives. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, 2004: 100