14 ms·
Just one data point: I have Crohn's Disease. Up until a few years ago, I took Asacol for this. This is one of a whole class of drugs based on the active ingred
by CWuestefeld 11y ago
Just one data point:
I have Crohn's Disease. Up until a few years ago, I took Asacol for this. This is one of a whole class of drugs based on the active ingredient "mesalamine": Asacol is specialized in that it's got a coating that keeps it from dissolving until it gets to the colon. Somebody found that this coating (notice: not the drug itself, just an enteric coating) might be a risk for pregnant mothers - something that I will never be. So they stopped making Asacol, and came out with a new "Asacol HD", which is still good old-fashioned mesalamine, but with a slightly different enteric coating - and with a brand new patent.
Although I don't have any evidence to support the idea, it seems suspicious that this revelation about the coating being questionable during pregnancy, came to light not very long before the expiration of the patent on original Asacol.
So there exists a small group of patients (pregnant moms) who might have had trouble with original-packaging Asacol. Rather than putting these patients on other mesalamine meds (like Pentasa or Delzicol) for 9 months, that was parlayed into a need to discontinue the entire Asacol product and come out with a new one.
In this case, it seems that a desire (or a pretense) to make something safe for all sub-groups, even those that are small and easily segmented, becomes the engine for renewing the patent, and thus keeping generics out of the market.
- roadnottaken 11y agoBut as forrestthewoods pointed out, if the improvements in the new version are so marginal, then you'd think there would be a booming market for the old version if it was cheaper (generic). So what's stopping the generic manufacturers from cranking out the old versions? Seems like there would be lots of money to be made, unless patients (the market) actually did value the incremental improvements and would likely chose not to purchase the original formulation.
- CWuestefeld 11y agoWell, in my example, it seems like the manufacturer hasn't just moved onto an abstractly nicer formulation, but in the process they've left some FUD that the previous version might be problematic (for some subgroup).
- akavlie 11y agoI'm sure most people outside that subgroup would jump at the chance to get a cheaper substitute. Asacol HD is $600 - $700 for 90 pills: http://www.goodrx.com/asacol-hd http://www.goodrx.com/asacol-hd
- CWuestefeld 11y agoYou should see the other stuff I take, Entyvio[1], at around $25K/dose (which is every other month). I don't know why they list it for various pharmacies, since you can't buy it - it has to be administered by an infusion center. I'm the reason that healthcare insurance is so expensive. [1] http://www.goodrx.com/entyvio http://www.goodrx.com/entyvio
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- DenisM 11y agoGenerics could still be made on the old formula, that's not the issue. The issue is that generics have thinner margins due to unrestrained competition, not sufficient for a substantial marketing campaign against a well-funded adversary. Especially if said adversary has fear-mongering on their side. There are other situations where too much competition drives margins so thin as to make all participants starve, most notable being the Apple's App Store.
- venomsnake 11y agoOr android handset business.
- refurb 11y agonot sufficient for a substantial marketing campaign against a well-funded adversary Most states have mandatory generic substitution. That is, if you bring a Rx in for Lipitor, the pharmacy is required to fill it with the generic version. You don't need much marketing for that.
- DenisM 11y agoGood point! The result should be that doctors will prescribe the "safest" drug, for which there are no generics yet due to the renewed patents. Perhaps that's even more important than the marketing thing.
- uremog 11y agoBut... but it's in HD now! I think I'll wait for Asacol 4k.