Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30383117›Full record

ArticleJAMA dermatology2018

Association Between Market Competition and Prices of Generic Topical Dermatology Drugs.

David G Li, Cara Joyce, Arash Mostaghimi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA dermatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David G LiDepartment of Dermatology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cara JoyceDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois.
Arash MostaghimiDepartment of Dermatology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Tufts Clinical and Translational Research InstituteTL1TR001062 · NCATS · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI SELKER, HARRY P. · 2013 to 2017
$2.1M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001062
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: During the last decade, increases in drug prices for commonly prescribed dermatologic medications have outpaced the rate of inflation, national health care growth, and reimbursements. Among nondermatologic medications, studies have shown a role for robust generic market competition in reducing drug prices. The association between competition and the costs of topical dermatologic generic drugs has not been evaluated. Objective: To characterize the association between changes in drug price and the number of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved manufacturers among the most commonly used topical dermatologic generic products. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cost analysis of the most commonly prescribed topical dermatologic generic drugs used cumulative annual claims data from the Medicare Part D Prescriber Public User File to identify 597 dermatologist-prescribed drugs with more than 10 claims. The number of manufacturers and the price per unit were identified from the FDA Orange Book and the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) database, respectively, for 2013 through 2016. Drugs that were nondermatologic, were not topically administered, were missing NADAC data, were lacking a generic formulation, or had fewer than 400 claims were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included per-unit drug price and number of FDA-approved manufacturers. Pricing measures were adjusted for inflation and are reported in 2016 dollars. Results: The present analysis included 116 topical dermatologic generic formulations, representing 70.5% of the total Medicare Part D dermatologist-coded claims from 2015. Drug formulations with 1 to 2 manufacturers during the study period sustained a median percentage increase in price of 12.7%, whereas those with more than 6 manufacturers had a median percentage decrease in price of 20.5%. Formulations with 1 to 2 manufacturers had a 20.6%, 19.5%, and 33.2% higher percentage increase in price than those with 3 to 4 manufacturers, 5 to 6 manufacturers, and more than 6 manufacturers, respectively. There was a statistically significant inverse association between the percentage change in drug price and median number of manufacturers (Spearman correlation coefficient, -0.26; P = .005). Conclusions and Relevance: The negative association between the change in drug price and the median number of manufacturers of generic topical dermatologic drugs indicates a role for market competition in controlling the costs of generic drug prices within dermatology. These findings support policies that facilitate robust market competition among topical dermatologic generic drugs produced by a limited number of manufacturers.

Indexed as

Economic CompetitionAdministration, TopicalDermatologic AgentsDrug CostsDrug IndustryDrugs, GenericHumansRetrospective StudiesSkin DiseasesUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationDermatologic AgentsDrugs, Generic

Identifiers

PMID30383117
PMCPMC6583314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.