Generic Clozapine: A Cost-Saving Alternative to Brand Name Clozapine?
Abstract
As a consequence of its prevalence, early onset and chronicity, schizophrenia imposes clinical and economic impediments to healthcare practitioners and society alike. Among the many antipsychotics available to treat the symptoms of this devastating illness, clozapine has emerged and differentiated itself from the others as the agent most efficacious for the treatment of refractory patients. Since the patent for Clozaril(R) (Novartis) expired in 1998, three manufacturers of generic clozapine have submitted abbreviated new drug applications to the US FDA for review and approval to market a generic clozapine product. In each case, the US FDA deemed the generic formulations to be bioequivalent to the brand name Clozaril(R). Apart from case reports, industry-sponsored studies have been conducted comparing Clozaril(R) with two generic formulations. In one case, a generic formulation of clozapine manufactured by Creighton Products Corporation (formerly a subsidiary [generic house] of Sandoz Pharmaceuticals) was found to be bioequivalent to Clozaril(R). On the other hand, studies (sponsored by Novartis) have challenged the bioequivalence, therapeutic equivalence and interchangeability between Clozaril(R) and a generic formulation manufactured by Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals (now IVAX Corporation). The IVAX Corporation-sponsored studies refuted these claims citing data from two patient registry database studies and one small clinical trial. Apart from a single in-house bioequivalence study, no further investigations have been conducted with a third generic formulation manufactured by Mylan Pharmaceutical. Although the clinical significance of the above discrepancy is obvious, what is less than obvious is the pharmacoeconomic implications that arises from this debate. Clearly, if the brand name and generic formulations are `truly' bioequivalent, then the cost savings realised would be the difference in acquisition cost. On the other hand, if the various formulations are not bioequivalent, then the economic benefits of a lower-priced generic formulation may be compromised. In the worst-case scenario, if a patient decompensates as a result of switching from Clozaril(R) to a generic formulation, the added direct costs (i.e. hospitalisation) and indirect cost (i.e. lost productivity) will most certainly offset any cost savings resulting from the use of a generic formulation. Until further studies have been conducted, we suggest that patients who are treatment refractory and stabilised on Clozaril(R) are not switched to a generic formulation. On the other hand, if a patient is stabilised on Clozaril(R) and not treatment refractory, then cautious switching to a generic formulation may be reasonable. Finally, initiating a generic formulation in a `clozapine-naive' individual would be appropriate. The cost implications related to these recommendations will depend on the success or failure of treatment.Download Info
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic Info
Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.
Volume (Year): 21 (2003)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 1-11
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:21:y:2003:i:1:p:1-11
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://pharmacoeconomics.adisonline.com/
For corrections or technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Dave Dustin).
Related research
Keywords: Antipsychotics; Clozapine; Cost minimisation; Generic substitution; Pharmacoeconomics;Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
- D - Microeconomics
- I - Health, Education, and Welfare
- Z - Other Special Topics
- I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
- I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other
- I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
- I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
References
No references listed on IDEASYou can help add them by filling out this form.
Citations
Lists
This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Statistics
Access and download statisticsCorrections
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:21:y:2003:i:1:p:1-11For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.