戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 off-patent brand-name drugs vs substitutable generic drugs.
2        Most topical steroids prescribed were generic drugs.
3  drugs and did not switch from brand-name to generic drugs.
4 ately shield companies from competition with generic drugs.
5 ls counsel against the interchangeability of generic drugs.
6 and-name drugs may be clinically superior to generic drugs.
7  no evidence of superiority of brand-name to generic drugs.
8 y switching from innovator brands to cheaper generic drugs.
9 databases of approved new drugs (1984-2018), generic drugs (1970-2018), biologics (1984-2018), and va
10 5% of brand drugs (4357 of 5280) vs 42.2% of generic drugs (71 370 of 169 328) faced restrictions.
11 ), HIV care ($3100-34 600), and PrEP program/generic drug ($900/360).
12 ed in cardiovascular disease are superior to generic drugs, a substantial number of editorials counse
13                          The availability of generic drugs after this exclusivity period is the main
14 njection site reactions, were similar in the generic drug and brand drug groups.
15 tting multiple sclerosis, glatiramer acetate generic drug and brand drug had equivalent efficacy, saf
16 numbers of gadolinium-enhancing lesions with generic drug and brand drug were lower than with placebo
17 d-name and > or =1 generic formulation) or a generic drug and the potential cost savings associated w
18                              Overall, 73% of generic drugs and 6% of brand-name drugs were widely cov
19 small chains had the highest cash prices for generic drugs and big box pharmacies the lowest.
20                        Of approximately 4000 generic drugs and drug classes evaluated, the method det
21 ve to explore new indications for soon-to-be generic drugs and drugs that are already generic.
22 strategies to promote greater prescribing of generic drugs and follow-on biologics.
23                    Screening a collection of generic drugs and natural products identified the antifu
24 udy was identified; 83,731 (93%) initiated a generic drug, and 6380 (7%) initiated a brand-name drug.
25                                 Although the generic drug approval process has a long-term successful
26               Unlike for most small-molecule generic drugs, approval requirements for a biosimilar in
27      The cardiac glycoside (CG) digoxin is a generic drug approved for the treatment of heart failure
28                  The median annual number of generic drugs approved was 136 from 1970 to the enactmen
29 drugs only or both brand-name and authorized generic drugs; approximately 3% were in plans that cover
30 nce the patent of a brand-name drug expires, generic drugs are commercialized, and substitution from
31                                              Generic drugs are essential for affordable medicine and
32 ever, it is unclear whether these authorized generic drugs are offered on Medicare Part D formularies
33 servational studies comparing brand-name and generic drugs are susceptible to bias favoring the brand
34 efficacy and price reduction associated with generic drugs are unknown, and estimates are intended to
35 arate data sets were created: brand-name and generic drugs as well as biologics and biosimilars data
36 digit ZIP code, the relative cash prices for generic drugs at big box, grocery-based, small chain, an
37 ts; enhancing competition by ensuring timely generic drug availability; providing greater opportuniti
38    Two trends related to drugs/biologics and generic drugs/biosimilars underlie this overall increase
39 rices may be reduced for both brand-name and generic drugs, but the prevalence of unauthorized produc
40     Few studies have assessed outcomes after generic drug commercialization at a population level.
41 cies, which sometimes offer lower prices for generic drugs compared to insurance.
42 cting the regression model of brand-name and generic drug competition to observed biologic and biosim
43                          Branded and branded generic drugs comprised most of the prescriptions writte
44 17 600 per QALY gained at 30 years) and when generic drug costs were assumed in place of median US dr
45      Medicare beneficiaries using authorized generic drugs could save $270 per year for 12 vials of H
46                                   Those with generic drug coverage in the gap reduced their monthly a
47 he inclusion criteria for the brand-name and generic drug data set and 28 (2.8%) met the criteria for
48                                              Generic drug equivalence is evaluated through comparativ
49 bed to treat erectile dysfunction) and their generic drug equivalents have been widely marketed and c
50 ir-brand-name drugs (ETV-Brand) to entecavir generic drugs (ETV-Generic) with 0.5 mg once daily.
51  the unadjusted hazard ratios strongly favor generic drugs for all three pooled treatment indications
52 may exist to reposition existing approved or generic drugs for alternate uses in cancer therapy.
53 ide the basis for the design of specific and generic drugs for cancer therapy purposes.
54  and Drug Administration to review potential generic drugs for Competitive Generic Therapy (CGT) desi
55 ross-sectional study suggest that authorized generic drugs for insulin and direct-acting antiviral ag
56 piration of brand name drugs to marketing of generic drug forms.
57 rse effects on KSHV-infected cells, and this generic drug has potential as a therapeutic agent for KS
58                                   Some older generic drugs have become very expensive, owing to facto
59                              Prices for some generic drugs have increased in recent years, adversely
60                             These authorized generic drugs have list prices at least 50% lower than t
61                             Exclusive use of generic drugs improved the cost-effectiveness to $17 162
62 d average drug prices were estimated for the generic drugs in each period.
63 rge differences in the market penetration of generic drugs in general, and for immunosuppressive drug
64 refrain from forcing pharmacists to dispense generic drugs in patients on maintenance treatment with
65 ons to help promote timely patient access to generic drugs including enhanced patent scrutiny or ince
66     In recent years, the price of many older generic drugs, including numerous antibiotics, has incre
67 upply disruptions, and consolidations in the generic-drug industry.
68 used to delay the availability of affordable generic drugs into the United States and world markets.
69  treatment since 1999 and now available as a generic drug, is being considered for over-the-counter (
70                          Observed authorized generic drug list prices were 67%, 62%, and 50% lower th
71                                       Due to generic drug manufacturer monopolization, flucytosine cu
72   The US Food and Drug Administration allows generic drug manufacturers to market versions with skinn
73                          We demonstrate that generic drug-masking groups may be selectively removed b
74 xpensive than in the United States (although generic drugs may be more expensive).
75         For the treatment of CHB, affordable generic drugs may be more widely used in developing and
76 is goal may, however, not be fully achieved: generic drugs may be underused or misused in comparison
77 t savings resulting from the introduction of generic drugs may not be fully realized unless the gover
78  new indications for soon-to-be and existing generic drugs may result in a missed opportunity to furt
79 re reimbursement framework as brand-name and generic drugs, Medicare spending on these products was e
80         A cardiovascular polypill containing generic drugs might facilitate sustained implementation
81 articipants were randomized and treated with generic drug (n = 353), brand drug (n = 357), or placebo
82 e chronic neutropenia (SCN), known under the generic drug name filgrastim, exemplifies this challenge
83 ers have an incentive to place higher-priced generic drugs on insurers' drug formularies to profit by
84 kinetic bioequivalence of 3 (1 branded and 2 generic drugs) on-market, immediate-release lamotrigine
85 ely 3% were in plans that covered authorized generic drugs only.
86 ffordable equivalents, either small-molecule generic drugs or interchangeable biologics, but the deta
87 0.02), lower copay after introduction of the generic drug (P < 0.0001), and black race (OR, 1.25; 95%
88 ely exceed savings available with authorized generic drugs, particularly for beneficiaries with spend
89  market competition levels and the change in generic drug prices in the United States.
90                                              Generic drug prices measured by transaction prices, aver
91 tion levels were associated with a change in generic drug prices.
92 quivalence and enable more efficient complex generic drug product development.
93               Regulatory approval of complex generic drug products that are applied topically to trea
94 lated (r = 0.92) with the use of the branded generic drugs promoted by these samples.
95                 Improved adherence after the generic drug's introduction was also associated with hig
96                          The introduction of generic drugs should lower health care costs by reducing
97 y review the specific products driving their generic drug spending.
98  Patients and clinicians share concerns that generic drug substitution might lead to loss of efficacy
99         This cross-sectional analysis of the generic drug substitution regulations in the 50 US state
100 rials, 23 (53%) expressed a negative view of generic drug substitution.
101 rements is an important step when developing generic drugs such as biosimilars.
102          Second, prices for some established generic drugs such as digoxin and captopril have seen sh
103                                     Selected generic drugs surveyed in 2011 and 2014 also increased a
104 ues call for greater use of this inexpensive generic drug that can improve surgical outcomes, avoid u
105  of the increased use of branded and branded generic drugs, the national mean total retail cost of pr
106 um-enhancing lesions, the estimated ratio of generic drug to brand drug was 1.095 (95% CI, 0.883-1.36
107 t savings in clinical use based on increased generic drug use and single-agent substitution for combi
108 e limited incentives to encourage authorized generic drug use because rebates for brands likely excee
109  1984; 284 from 1985 to the enactment of the Generic Drug User Fee Act in 2012; and 588 from 2013-201
110                         This result favoring generic drugs was also present in a number of sub-analys
111 illion prescription claims, a cohort of 1120 generic drugs was identified.
112 icularly with regard to conditions for which generic drugs were available, out-of-pocket costs remain
113 ist clinicians in prescribing, since not all generic drugs were widely covered.
114 s overall is the appropriate use of domestic generic drugs, which are available for almost every majo
115                                       Use of generic drugs, which are bioequivalent to brand-name dru
116 similars differently than for brand-name and generic drugs, which has generated greater price reducti
117       From a previously conducted screen for generic drugs with antioxidant properties, we selected t
118 assessed the frequency of approvals of first generic drugs with skinny labels in the US.
119               Although broad substitution of generic drugs would affect only a modest percentage of d
120  cells per mm(3), and 15% PrEP coverage with generic drugs would avert 47% (range 27-51) of new infec

 
Page Top