Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T18:59:07.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BENEFITS OF PHARMACEUTICAL INNOVATION: THE CASE OF SIMVASTATIN IN CANADA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2012

Nguyen Xuan Thanh ,
Anderson W. Chuck ,
Arto Ohinmaa  and
Philip Jacobs
Nguyen Xuan Thanh
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Economics e-mail: [email protected]
Anderson W. Chuck
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Economics and University of Alberta
Arto Ohinmaa
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Economics and University of Alberta
Philip Jacobs
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Economics and University of Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: The benefits of pharmaceutical innovations are widely diffused; they accrue to the healthcare providers, patients, employers, and manufacturers. We estimate the societal monetary benefits of simvastatin in Canada and its distribution among different beneficiaries overtime.

Methods: Monetary benefits to developing and generic manufacturers were estimated by calculating public and private revenues minus the development costs of simvastatin and the contribution toward further research and development. We used a dynamic Markov model to estimate monetary benefits to healthcare and employment sectors in terms of cost avoidance associated with prevented cardiovascular events, including stroke and myocardial infarction, and lost productivity due to disability and premature death in working population.

Results: Cumulative monetary benefits of simvastatin from 1990 to 2009 were $4.8 billion (2010 CA$), of which developing and generic manufacturers, and healthcare and employment sectors accounted for 32 percent, 27 percent, 32 percent, and 9 percent, respectively. The yearly trend showed that after the patent expired in 2002 the generic manufacturers became dominant in the market. Benefits for the healthcare sector started to decrease from 2003 corresponding to the decreasing population taking simvastatin during the same time period. Sensitivity analysis showed the higher the compliance or the efficacy, the larger the benefits to healthcare and employment sectors, while monetary benefits for manufacturers were unchanged.

Conclusions: Societal monetary benefits of simvastatin are significant and the distributions of the benefits have changed overtime. Patent, compliance, and efficacy play a vital role in the estimation of the benefits. Analysis of all beneficiaries separately overtime is important when assessing the value of pharmaceutical innovation.

Keywords

Societal monetary benefitsPharmaceutical innovationSimvastatinCanada
Type
ASSESSMENTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 390 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Adams, CP, Brantner, VV. Estimating the cost of new drug development: Is it really 820 million? Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:420–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Alberta Health and Wellness. Health costing in Alberta: 2006 annual report. http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/Case-Cost-Hospital-04–05.pdf (accessed January 14, 2011).Google Scholar
3.Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan. Schedule of medical benefits as of 2010/10/01. http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/SOMB-medical-procedures.pdf (accessed January 14, 2011).Google Scholar
4.Bestehorn, HP, Rensing, UFE, Roskamm, H, et al.The effect of simvastatin on progression of coronary artery disease. The Multicentre Coronary Intervention Study (CIS). Eur Heart J. 1997;18:226–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Bonner, PS, Daley, JM. Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement in Canada: An Overview for Innovative Drug Manufacturers. January 2010. http://www.ogilvyrenault.com/files/PBonner_JDaley_PharmaPricing_WhosWho_Jan2010.pdf (accessed February 24, 2011).Google Scholar
6.Briggs, A, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.CIHI. National Health Expenditure Trends, 1975 to 2010. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/products/NHEX_Trends_Report_2010_final_ENG_web.pdf (accessed January 14, 2011).Google Scholar
8.Cohen, FJ. Macro trends in pharmaceutical innovation. http://www.discoverymedicine.com/Fredric-J-Cohen/2009/07/17/macro-trends-in-pharmaceutical-innovation (accessed January 19, 2011).Google Scholar
9.DiMasi, JA, Hansen, RW, Grabowski, HG. The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ. 2003;22:151–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Engstad, T, Viitanen, M, Arnesen, E. Predictors of death among long-term stroke survivors. Stroke. 2003;34:2876–2880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Goeree, R, Blackhouse, G, Petrovic, R, Salama, S. Cost of stroke in Canada: A 1-year prospective study. J Health Econ. 2005;8:147–167.Google Scholar
12.Gogovor, A, Dragomir, A, Savoie, M, Perreault, S. Comparison of persistence rates with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors used in secondary and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Value Health. 2007;10:431–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Grover, SA, Coupal, L, Zowall, H, et al.How cost-effective is the treatment of dyslipidemia in patients with diabetes but without cardiovascular disease? Diabetes Care. 2001;24:45–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Health Canada in collaboration with the Interdepartmental Committee on Aging and Seniors Issues. Canada's Aging Population. © Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada 2002. Cat. H39-608/2002E. ISBN 0-662-31821-8. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H39-608-2002E.pdf (accessed February 24, 2011).Google Scholar
15.Heart and Stroke Foundation. Statistics. http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/c.ikIQLcMWJtE/b.3483991/k.34A8/Statistics.htm (accessed January 14, 2011).Google Scholar
16.Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: A randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360:7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Koopmanschap, MA. A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996;10:460–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Lindgren, P, Jonsson, B. Cost–effectiveness of statins revisited: Lessons learned about the value of innovation. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13:445–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.MAAS Investigators. Effects of simvastatin on coronary atheroma: The Multicentre Anti-Atheroma Study (MAAS). Lancet. 1994;344:633–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Naylor, DC, Szalai, JP, Katic, M. Benchmarking the vital risk of waiting for coronary artery bypass surgery in Ontario. CMAJ. 2000;162:775–779.Google ScholarPubMed
21.O'Brien, JA, Caro, I, Getsios, D, Caro, JJ. Diabetes in Canada: Direct medical costs of major macrovascular complications. Value Health. 2001;4:258–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.O'Brien, JA, Patrick, AR, Caro, JJ. Cost of managing complications resulting from type 2 diabetes mellitus in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2003;3:7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Pilote, L, Joseph, L, Belisle, P, Penrod, J. Universal health insurance coverage does not eliminate inequities in access to cardiac procedures after acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2003;146:938–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet. 1994;344:1383–1389.Google Scholar
25.Sherer, FM. Pricing, profits, and technological progress in the pharmaceutical industry. J Econ Perspect. 1993;7:97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Sherer, FM. The link between gross profitability and pharmaceutical R&D spending. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20:216–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Sherer, FM. The pharmaceutical industry — prices and progress. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:927–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Sleight, P. Angiotensin I and trials of cardiovascular outcomes. Am J Cardiol. 2002;89 (Suppl):A11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Statistics Canada. Labour force characteristics. http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/econ10-eng.htm (accessed January 14, 2011).Google Scholar
30.Teo, KK, Burton, JR, Buller, CE, et al.Long-term effects of cholesterol lowering and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition on coronary atherosclerosis: The Simvastatin/Enalapril Coronary Atherosclerosis Trial (SCAT). Circulation. 2000;102:1748–1754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.The AIRE Study Investigators. Effect of Ramipril on mortality and morbidity of survivors of acute myocardial infarction with clinical evidence of heart failure. Lancet. 1993;342:821–828.Google Scholar
32.Vuong, AD, Annis, LG. Ramipril for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease. Ann Pharmacother. 2003;37:412–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed