The NIHCM study "appears to be little more than a
political and financially motivated cheap shot masquerading as science
in the public interest."
pharmaceutical industry spokesman
Richard Smith
(AP) Only 15 percent of new drugs approved in the last decade were
novel chemicals that the Food and Drug Administration deemed a significant
improvement over older drugs, a study says.
The vast majority instead were similar to existing medicines. Yet during
the same time, consumer spending on prescription drugs more than doubled
to $132 billion and most of the increase was spent not on the most
innovative drugs, but on the less important or copycats, says the study by
the National Institute for Health Care Management.
The FDA and other groups have long cautioned that major pharmaceutical
breakthroughs are rare. But the study to be released Wednesday by an
institute partly funded by managed care is among the first to rank
spending according to drugs' relative importance to health care.
The findings show patients must be smart consumers, said institute
president Nancy Chockley. "We are all under the impression that 'new and
improved' is always much better," yet that's not always true, she said.
But the study drew immediate fire from the drug industry.
It "appears to be little more than a political and financially motivated
cheap shot masquerading as science in the public interest," said Richard
Smith of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The FDA ranks drugs according to different criteria, such as whether they
contain a never-before-used chemical. In addition, FDA-dubbed "priority
drugs" promise a significant health improvement over existing treatments.
FDA deems "standard" drugs that don't promise a significant improvement
although having options is important, as patients unhelped by one drug may
respond to another, and small differences between competitors can prove
important to individuals.
The institute reviewed 1,035 drugs that FDA approved between 1989 and
2000, and found that only 153 were both FDA-designated priority drugs and
made of novel chemicals in other words, a highly innovative drug.
Many other drugs that won FDA approval were modified versions of an
existing medicine, a trend that increased as the decade wore on: Between
1995 and 2000, the FDA approved 304 such drugs, compared with 168 in the
previous six years.
New drugs are often more expensive than their older competitors. But when
the study examined the $132 billion Americans spent on prescription drugs
in 2000, it found $44 billion went for drugs approved since 1995 and
only one-third of the spending was for the most innovative medicines.
The industry's Smith attacked the study's premise that a "standard" drug
isn't very important. He said up to half of depression patients try two or
three antidepressants before finding the one that works for them, and that
many patients would deem very important a new weekly version of a pill
they must take daily.
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820
"What's the point of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from the unvaccinated?"
-- Sandy Gottstein
"Who gets to decide what the greater good is and how many will be sacrificed to it?"