MS drug costs nearly triple over 7 years, even with introduction of generic

JacksinPA said:

MS drug costs nearly triple over 7 years, even with introduction of generic -- ScienceDaily

The cost of prescriptions for multiple sclerosis (MS) drugs nearly tripled over seven years, and the introduction of a generic version of one of the most common drugs had little overall effect on prices, according to a study published in the January 15, 2020, online issue of Neurology[emoji2400], the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

The study examined costs for disease-modifying drugs for MS from 2011 to 2017 based on a database for Medicaid. Researchers found spending on 15 MS drugs within the Medicaid program increased from $453 million to $1.32 billion during this time.
=====================================================
'A generic version of the drug glatiramer acetate was introduced in 2015. The study showed that when the generic version was introduced, the cost of the name brand drug immediately increased by $441 per prescription.'

Before the introduction of the generic drug, the producer of the proprietary drug increased the dosage from 20mg or 40mg, which was not interchangeable with the new generic form

Read the article for more. I'm not familiar with the historical background for this drug. But if you have MS & need to take this drug, you're looking at a cost of $70,0000/year. Generic drugs are not necessarily always cheaper than the original proprietary product.

This drug is not that complicated chemically. Glatiramer acetate (Copaxone, co-polymer I) is an immunomodulatory drug and consists of a pool of synthetic peptides composed of random sequences of four amino acids: l-alanine, l-lysine, l-glutamic acid, and l-tyrosine. Its composition is based on the amino acid structure of myelin basic protein. glatiramer acetate chemistry - Google Search

Click to expand...

trouble13 said:

My first reaction is to ask for an explination of why the costs increased? Inflation does not explain a 300% increase.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Helix said:

there's no reason that the NIH can't be used to fund drug discovery and public drug production. in fact, if we don't do exactly that with antibiotics, we could be turbo ****ed in a few decades.

Click to expand...

JacksinPA said:

The process for the discovery of new antibiotics was one of my first exposures to the pharmaceutical industry. My father was involved with advertising fore the drug company Lederle Labs in Pearl River, NY. I got myself a free tour of any department I wanted so I chose microbiology for some reason.

They have professional scouts all around the world sending them samples of things like soil, tree bark, etc., which they then put into fermentation tanks with nutrients & water. The fermentate is then screened against pathogenic microbes & active compounds are isolated & identified, then scaled up from pure strains. They discovered the antibiotic tetracycline with this method. So chemical wizadry plays a role in discovering new antibiotics but most come from natural sources, as did penicillin, which came from a mold spore in the air.

Click to expand...