Search

While much has been written about the distinctions between biologics and small molecules in terms of their scientific, manufacturing and regulatory experiences, relatively little has been published comparing their clinical and commercial experiences. Employing a data base encompassing all 96 biologics and 212 small molecules newly launched in the U.S. between 1998Q1 and 2008Q4, we compare their downstream clinical and commercial characteristics. Substantial heterogeneity occurs across therapeutic classes. Biologics are more concentrated than small molecules in their therapeutic class composition, but have obtained FDA indication approvals in 13 of 15 classes. While average delays between FDA approval and first observed sales revenues are similar, biologics are twice as likely as small molecules to be Orphan Drugs, are slightly more likely to be designated FDA priority rather than standard review status, and gain slightly more supplemental indication approvals. Although 9.4% of new small molecules permanently exited the market for a variety of reasons, 7.3% of new biologics exited, but 26% of biologics had black box warnings compared to 20% of small molecules. Both biologics and small molecules take 21-22 quarters from launch to reach $100 million in real revenues. Small molecules have an initially more rapid uptake, but thereafter biologics' mean revenues tend to be slightly greater than for small molecules. While launch prices for biologics are commonly perceived as being greater than for small molecules, price growth per standard unit is generally greater for small molecules than biologics, with rates of price growth increasing for small molecules in the first five years since launch, and decreasing thereafter. We conclude that the market dynamics of biologics differ substantially from those of small molecules, although therapeutic class composition plays a major role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the worldwide use of personalized medicines for the treatment of central nervous system and immunological conditions. It mentions several criteria including drug approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agency for the use of personalized medicines. A graph of worldwide utilization of biologic personalized medicines from 1998 to 2009 is also presented.

Biologic drugs account for a disproportionate share of the increase in pharmaceutical spending in the US and worldwide. Against this backdrop, many look to the expanding market for biosimilars- follow-on products to biologic drugs-as a vehicle for controlling pharmaceutical spending. This study explores the early years of entry of biosimilars and related follow-on products in the US. Using monthly sales data from the period 2005-19 for ten drug classes, we examine how quickly biosimilars/follow-on products gained market share and the subsequent trajectory of prevailing (national average invoice) prices. Our analysis suggests that although uptake has been slower than what is typically seen in generic drug markets, the most recent entrants have captured market share more rapidly than comparable earlier biosimilars/ follow-on products. We also document that from biosimilar/follow-on products' time of entry, their lower prices help offset the overall trend in average annual reference-product price increases. Our findings can provide insight into future policy reforms aimed at increasing competition and use of biosimilars, leading to expanded patient access and significant cost savings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]