ライフサイエンスコーパス: generic drug

1 Most topical steroids prescribed were generic drugs.

2 drugs and did not switch from brand-name to generic drugs.

3 ately shield companies from competition with generic drugs.

4 ls counsel against the interchangeability of generic drugs.

5 and-name drugs may be clinically superior to generic drugs.

6 no evidence of superiority of brand-name to generic drugs.

7 y switching from innovator brands to cheaper generic drugs.

8 ed in cardiovascular disease are superior to generic drugs, a substantial number of editorials counse

9 The availability of generic drugs after this exclusivity period is the main

10 njection site reactions, were similar in the generic drug and brand drug groups.

11 tting multiple sclerosis, glatiramer acetate generic drug and brand drug had equivalent efficacy, saf

12 numbers of gadolinium-enhancing lesions with generic drug and brand drug were lower than with placebo

13 d-name and > or =1 generic formulation) or a generic drug and the potential cost savings associated w

14 Overall, 73% of generic drugs and 6% of brand-name drugs were widely cov

15 ve to explore new indications for soon-to-be generic drugs and drugs that are already generic.

16 strategies to promote greater prescribing of generic drugs and follow-on biologics.

17 Screening a collection of generic drugs and natural products identified the antifu

18 udy was identified; 83,731 (93%) initiated a generic drug, and 6380 (7%) initiated a brand-name drug.

19 Although the generic drug approval process has a long-term successful

20 nce the patent of a brand-name drug expires, generic drugs are commercialized, and substitution from

21 efficacy and price reduction associated with generic drugs are unknown, and estimates are intended to

22 ts; enhancing competition by ensuring timely generic drug availability; providing greater opportuniti

23 Two trends related to drugs/biologics and generic drugs/biosimilars underlie this overall increase

24 rices may be reduced for both brand-name and generic drugs, but the prevalence of unauthorized produc

25 Few studies have assessed outcomes after generic drug commercialization at a population level.

26 Branded and branded generic drugs comprised most of the prescriptions writte

27 Those with generic drug coverage in the gap reduced their monthly a

28 Generic drug equivalence is evaluated through comparativ

29 may exist to reposition existing approved or generic drugs for alternate uses in cancer therapy.

30 ide the basis for the design of specific and generic drugs for cancer therapy purposes.

31 rse effects on KSHV-infected cells, and this generic drug has potential as a therapeutic agent for KS

32 Some older generic drugs have become very expensive, owing to facto

33 Prices for some generic drugs have increased in recent years, adversely

34 d average drug prices were estimated for the generic drugs in each period.

35 rge differences in the market penetration of generic drugs in general, and for immunosuppressive drug

36 refrain from forcing pharmacists to dispense generic drugs in patients on maintenance treatment with

37 In recent years, the price of many older generic drugs, including numerous antibiotics, has incre

38 upply disruptions, and consolidations in the generic-drug industry.

39 used to delay the availability of affordable generic drugs into the United States and world markets.

40 Due to generic drug manufacturer monopolization, flucytosine cu

41 We demonstrate that generic drug-masking groups may be selectively removed b

42 xpensive than in the United States (although generic drugs may be more expensive).

43 is goal may, however, not be fully achieved: generic drugs may be underused or misused in comparison

44 t savings resulting from the introduction of generic drugs may not be fully realized unless the gover

45 new indications for soon-to-be and existing generic drugs may result in a missed opportunity to furt

46 articipants were randomized and treated with generic drug (n = 353), brand drug (n = 357), or placebo

47 kinetic bioequivalence of 3 (1 branded and 2 generic drugs) on-market, immediate-release lamotrigine

48 0.02), lower copay after introduction of the generic drug (P < 0.0001), and black race (OR, 1.25; 95%

49 market competition levels and the change in generic drug prices in the United States.

50 tion levels were associated with a change in generic drug prices.

51 lated (r = 0.92) with the use of the branded generic drugs promoted by these samples.

52 Improved adherence after the generic drug's introduction was also associated with hig

53 The introduction of generic drugs should lower health care costs by reducing

54 Patients and clinicians share concerns that generic drug substitution might lead to loss of efficacy

55 rials, 23 (53%) expressed a negative view of generic drug substitution.

56 rements is an important step when developing generic drugs such as biosimilars.

57 Second, prices for some established generic drugs such as digoxin and captopril have seen sh

58 Selected generic drugs surveyed in 2011 and 2014 also increased a

59 of the increased use of branded and branded generic drugs, the national mean total retail cost of pr

60 um-enhancing lesions, the estimated ratio of generic drug to brand drug was 1.095 (95% CI, 0.883-1.36

61 t savings in clinical use based on increased generic drug use and single-agent substitution for combi

62 illion prescription claims, a cohort of 1120 generic drugs was identified.

63 ist clinicians in prescribing, since not all generic drugs were widely covered.

64 s overall is the appropriate use of domestic generic drugs, which are available for almost every majo

65 Use of generic drugs, which are bioequivalent to brand-name dru

66 Although broad substitution of generic drugs would affect only a modest percentage of d