↓ Skip to main content

Estimation of Potential Savings Through Therapeutic Substitution

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Internal Medicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
77 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
154 X users
patent
3 patents
facebook
7 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Estimation of Potential Savings Through Therapeutic Substitution
Published in
JAMA Internal Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1704
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael E. Johansen, Caroline Richardson

Abstract

Therapeutic substitution offers potential to decrease pharmaceutical expenditures and potentially improve the efficiency of the health care system. To estimate potential savings through therapeutic substitution in terms of both overall and out-of-pocket expenditures of branded drugs when a generic in the same class with the same indication was available. Repeated cross-sectional study using the 107 132 individuals included in the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2010-2012) along with their reported prescribed medicine use. The Orange Book, company financial statements, US Food and Drug Administration records, and published research were used for adjunctive information. Estimated excess expenditure due to branded drug overuse when a lower-cost generic in the same class with the same indication was available. The study included 107 132 individuals between 2010 and 2012, of whom 62.1% (95% CI, 61.4%-62.8%) reported use of any prescribed medicine. A total of 31.5% (95% CI, 30.7%-32.2%) used a medication from an included drug class, whereas 16.6% (95% CI, 16.0%-17.1%) of the population used a branded drug from the included classes compared with 24.0% (95% CI, 23.4%-24.7%) who used a generic and 9.1% (95% CI, 8.7%-9.4%) who used both. In the included drug classes, the majority of the drugs were generics, with a total of 93.5 billion standardized doses compared with 47.4 billion standardized doses of branded drugs. Total expenditure of the branded drugs accounted for $147 (95% CI, $137-$156) billion compared with $62.7 (95% CI, $58.9-$66.5) billion for the generics. Between 2010 and 2012, an estimated $73.0 (95% CI, $67.6-$78.5) billion in total excess expenditure and $24.6 (95% CI, $22.6-$26.5) billion in out-of-pocket excess expenditure was attributable to branded drug overuse. The excess was present across numerous drug classes throughout many aspects of medicine and equates to 9.6% of total and 14.1% of out-of-pocket prescribed medicine expenses. The drug classes with the highest excess expenditure included statins ($10.9 [SE, $0.41] billion), atypical antipsychotics ($9.99 [SE, $1.03] billion), proton pump inhibitors ($6.12 [SE, $0.38] billion), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ($6.08 [SE, $0.49] billion), and angiotensin receptor blockers ($5.53 [SE, $0.35] billion). Although therapeutic substitution is controversial, it offers a potential mechanism to significantly decrease drug costs if it can be implemented in a way that does not negatively affect quality of care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 154 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Master 10 15%
Other 7 10%
Professor 5 7%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 34%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 9%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 21 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 688. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2023.
All research outputs
#31,185
of 25,846,867 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Internal Medicine
#298
of 11,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#564
of 354,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Internal Medicine
#14
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,846,867 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 85.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,992 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.