Medicine - same ingredients but different pricing.

Malc said:
With something like Neurofen I don't think research costs come into it. I think it's expensive because people are overly cautious with their health and assume because it's advertised, the packaging is professional and striking and the capsule is a gelatin like substance containing a liquid solution (as opposed to a standard tablet) it's going to be better.

Considering Ibuprofen was out of patent about 30 years ago, the reason Neurofen is £3 a box is probably just because it's a money spinner for the company who produces it.

The way I thought drug development worked was that a drug with a specific effect is desired. Numerous drugs are developed, produced and trailled. Only one makes the cut (other drugs may be accidently discovered) and a price for the drug is determined based on the cost for development + a mark up.
Click to expand...
Nurofen is expensive because of marketing costs and they want to position it as a premium product. Same way a Ralph Lauren tshirt is expensive, but a Primark one is not.
 
Actually doing some research shows that a new drug costs £500m to bring to market, they have a monopoly for 12 years, and only 23% of likely drugs researched make it to a final product.

On that basis, Boots when they came up with Ibuprofen, if you include the failed drugs, will have cost £2000m in todays money to complete. Thats a lot of packs at £3 to get your money back............
 
Greebo said:
Actually doing some research shows that a new drug costs £500m to bring to market, they have a monopoly for 12 years, and only 23% of likely drugs researched make it to a final product.

On that basis, Boots when they came up with Ibuprofen, if you include the failed drugs, will have cost £2000m in todays money to complete. Thats a lot of packs at £3 to get your money back............
Click to expand...
I'm happy to be corrected, but I understood the 'it costs £500m to bring a drug to market' figure to include drugs which didn't make it - is that true?
 
Hatter The Mad said:
If you're talking about patented and licensed drugs, that's not true. Otherwise by your implication, every drug which gets researched goes to market.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm not talking about drugs currently in patent, we're talking about drugs for which generic alternatives are available. Those, by definition, are no longer patent protected. The research costs are covered, easily, during the time that the patent protection applies.
 
Disco Boy said:
The big companies actually do research into new compounds/ mixtures. Whereas own brands simply manufacture whatever isn't patented/ patent expired.

So the big companies have higher costs, and occasionally better products.

People pay the higher rate because of marketing.
Click to expand...

This, Hard as it might be to believe, but when it comes to medicine, compounds/mixtures make a hell of a difference. It make a difference between working or not at all in some cases.

Azathioprine for example. The glaxo-smith version is rubbish but the other brands work ok for me
 
SideWinder said:
I think i am getting a cold. I have a sore throat and i thought i would be the responsible adult i am and buy some medicine. :cool:

Upon comparing the £2 whatever Superdrug own brand versus Lemsip/Beechams...i could see no difference whatsoever. Both had the same ingredients but one was twice the price.

Why is this? I went for the cheaper one of course as there was no difference and they both contained the exact ingredient and exact .mg.
Click to expand...

Why do you pay more for a 2.5ltr 5 Series BMW than you do for a 2.5ltr Ford Mondeo? They're both pretty much the same.
 
robgmun said:
Azathioprine for example. The glaxo-smith version is rubbish but the other brands work ok for me
Click to expand...

That's quite unusual as azathioprine tends to enter the body quite readily. Unless I am continuing something long-term and established then I don't give it anymore but I can't recollect seeing that happen.
 
Xordium said:
That's quite unusual as azathioprine tends to enter the body quite readily. Unless I am continuing something long-term and established then I don't give it anymore but I can't recollect seeing that happen.
Click to expand...

I take it from what you say you're a GP? Yes my consultant was puzzled by that as well. But over the years i tried it several times so i'm sure now

Glaxo-Smith, symptoms return after a couple of week on the drug. Almost as if i wasn't taking anything at all.

Switch to any other brand and it starts to work again and the symptoms dissappear after a few days
 
robgmun said:
I take it from what you say you're a GP? Yes my consultant was puzzled by that as well. But over the years i tried it several times so i'm sure now

Glaxo-Smith, symptoms return after a couple of week on the drug. Almost as if i wasn't taking anything at all.

Switch to any other brand and it starts to work again and the symptoms dissappear after a few days
Click to expand...

No, I am not a GP although we do have a few on here. I have mainly worked in high dependency and ITU environments although I have moved out of that now. My involvement with aza is more to do transplantation however now we tend to advocate usage of MMF.
 
robgmun said:
Ah, ok i'm using it to treat ulcerative colitis which is different from transplantation
Click to expand...

Which is where the explanation is I suspect in terms of the specific coating they use for their tablets and the altered absorption you may have because of your condition. As long as you have a medium to deliver what you need, which you have, then it is of little consequence now you know. But it does demonstrate that these things can not be wholly interchanged.
 
Greebo said:
Actually doing some research shows that a new drug costs £500m to bring to market, they have a monopoly for 12 years, and only 23% of likely drugs researched make it to a final product.

On that basis, Boots when they came up with Ibuprofen, if you include the failed drugs, will have cost £2000m in todays money to complete. Thats a lot of packs at £3 to get your money back............
Click to expand...

You're forgetting two HUGE factors here, some drugs only end up £3, some end up costing thousands, sometimes because they are much more dangerous to make, or produce or use much more expensive ingredients, often because its a niche drug and won't get a lot of people using it. Chemo and the like cost a bomb.

The other thing is, £3 a pack isn't a lot, but the ingredients cost pennies so its basically £2.90 pure profit from that point on, and 12 years of world wide sales of a pill some people take several times a week add's up to a LOT of sales. people pop ibuprofen like candy these days, hospitals go through craploads of it. It doesn't sound like a lot but it will have made them a hell of a lot of cash. Hell 10 million house holds using 3 packs a year would be 90mil coming in, 12 years, with 20 times the population using it worldwide minimum, its a cash cow.
 
Xordium is correct about coatings etc for some drugs. I once did a drugs trial where they were working on a coating specifically so it would release the drug in the lower intestine where it would work best.

Had to have different days eating different types of food to see where the (slightly) radioactive capsule broke down in the body and we had to stand in front of a scanner every half an hour.

So in some cases the generic, although containing the same active ingredients, may not actually be as effective as the original.

I know from my gf who works in the generic pharmaceutical industry that sometimes because of the base that their generic drug is in, it's medical proven to be not quite as effective as the brand leader however is a fraction of the price to make.

However, this does not really apply to simple things like paracetamol.
 
drunkenmaster said:
You're forgetting two HUGE factors here, some drugs only end up £3, some end up costing thousands, sometimes because they are much more dangerous to make, or produce or use much more expensive ingredients, often because its a niche drug and won't get a lot of people using it. Chemo and the like cost a bomb.

The other thing is, £3 a pack isn't a lot, but the ingredients cost pennies so its basically £2.90 pure profit from that point on, and 12 years of world wide sales of a pill some people take several times a week add's up to a LOT of sales. people pop ibuprofen like candy these days, hospitals go through craploads of it. It doesn't sound like a lot but it will have made them a hell of a lot of cash. Hell 10 million house holds using 3 packs a year would be 90mil coming in, 12 years, with 20 times the population using it worldwide minimum, its a cash cow.
Click to expand...

I was refering to my specific example of Ibuprofen. ANd just cause it's sold in shops for £3 does not get the manufacturer that. The fancy packaging, retail markup of at least 100%, advertising campaigns to make you buy the £3 one over the 16p generic probably means they get a quid per packet but point taken it adds up to a lot over the millions sold.

But it needs to. Every big drug company needs a few "cash cows" to keep the hundreds of millions of pounds needed to research the new drugs.

I don't have an issue with this and you either beleive the hype and buy branded or shop wise and get the generic.
 
coupe69 said:
Really :confused: What makes you say this? Do you have proof, or are you just surmising?
Click to expand...

I'd much rather take some normal paracetemol (or gargle with soluble aspirin) and have a nice smooth natural honey drink (hot choc with honey = win), rather than some bitter chemical tasting rubbish.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
I'm happy to be corrected, but I understood the 'it costs £500m to bring a drug to market' figure to include drugs which didn't make it - is that true?
Click to expand...

Most drugs fail in phase 3 and by then, more often than not, around £500m has been spent researching them.

Recovering the costs through a successful drug is the only way a pharmaceutical company can be viable.
 
EdGey said:
I've never used any medicine other than paracetamol for a cold. Always assumed it was purely marketing and that they don't work.
Click to expand...

Not far wrong BUT some do work but they do so by providing specific symptomatic relief. The paracetamol will essentially work as an anti-pyretic to reduce your temperature but nothing else in this case. Most others contain things like pseudoephedrine, pholcodine, and caffeine which will help to alleviate symptoms such as blocked noses, coughs and tiredness. In the vast majority of cases they won't help much and the cold will run it's course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom