ArticleJAMA network open2026
Brand Manufacturer Coupons and Pharmaceutical Product Hopping.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Biologic manufacturer copay coupon programs reduce patient out-of-pocket spending but may undermine biosimilar competition. Whether biologic manufacturers deploy coupons strategically to facilitate shifting patients to reformulated drugs to extend market exclusivity (ie, product hopping), remains unclear. Objective: To examine coupon use and coupon value for biologics line extensions whose originators are at risk of biosimilar competition. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from national prescription drug claims from the IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer, October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2019, including 43 088 commercially insured patients with 382 550 claims across 47 biologic products. Analyses were conducted February to September 2025. Exposures: Candidate product hop status interacted with the time since originator approval (≥12 vs <12 years). Candidate product hops were defined as biologic line extensions approved between 2017 and 2019; comparators were biologics with earlier approval. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was manufacturer coupon use. Secondary outcomes included coupon amount, share of patient costs covered by coupons, and postbuydown out-of-pocket spending. Linear probability models with product line random effects estimated associations among candidate hop status, time since originator approval (≥12 vs <12 years), and coupon outcomes. Results: Among 43 088 patients (22 113 [51.3%] female; mean [SD] age, 47.6 [15.2] years), coupon use for candidate hops increased relative to comparators as originators approached 12 years since approval (change, 19.0 [95% CI, 1.7-36.4] percentage points; P = .03). For products with older originators, coupons for candidate hops offset 38.8 (95% CI, 28.0 to 49.7) percentage points more of patient cost-sharing than comparators (P < .001), and postbuydown costs were $124 (95% CI, -$183 to -$65) lower (P < .001). Candidate hops accounted for 11 122 of 382 550 claims (2.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, manufacturer coupon use for candidate hop biologics diverged from comparators as originators neared exclusivity loss, suggesting coupons may facilitate product hopping. Regulators should consider monitoring coupon programs during biologic exclusivity transitions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.