Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKornfield, Rachel
dc.contributor.authorDonohue, Julie M.
dc.contributor.authorBerndt, Ernst R.
dc.contributor.authorAlexander, G. Caleb
dc.date.accessioned2013-04-17T20:10:48Z
dc.date.available2013-04-17T20:10:48Z
dc.date.issued2013-03
dc.date.submitted2012-10
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/78572
dc.description.abstractBackground: Pharmaceutical firms heavily promote their products and may have changed marketing strategies in response to reductions in new product approvals, restrictions on some forms of promotion, and the expanding role of biologic therapies. Methods: We used descriptive analyses of annual cross-sectional data from 2001 through 2010 to examine direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) (Kantar Media) and provider-targeted promotion (IMS Health and SDI), including: (1) inflation-adjusted total promotion spending ($ and percent of sales); (2) distribution by channel (consumer v. provider); and (3) provider specialty both for the industry as a whole and for top-selling biologic and small molecule therapies. Results: Total promotion peaked in 2004 at US$36.1 billion (13.4% of sales). By 2010 it had declined to $27.7B (9.0% of sales). Between 2006 and 2010, similar declines were seen for promotion to providers and DTCA (both by 25%). DTCA’s share of total promotion increased from 12% in 2002 to 18% in 2006, but then declined to 16% and remains highly concentrated. Number of products promoted to providers peaked in 2004 at over 3000, and then declined 20% by 2010. In contrast to top-selling small molecule therapies having an average of $370 million (8.8% of sales) spent on promotion, top biologics were promoted less, with only $33 million (1.4% of sales) spent per product. Little change occurred in the composition of promotion between primary care physicians and specialists from 2001–2010. Conclusions: These findings suggest that pharmaceutical companies have reduced promotion following changes in the pharmaceutical pipeline and patent expiry for several blockbuster drugs. Promotional strategies for biologic drugs differ substantially from small molecule therapies.en_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherPublic Library of Scienceen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055504en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attributionen_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/en_US
dc.sourcePLoSen_US
dc.titlePromotion of Prescription Drugs to Consumers and Providers, 2001–2010en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.citationKornfield, Rachel et al. “Promotion of Prescription Drugs to Consumers and Providers, 2001–2010.” Ed. Alberico Catapano. PLoS ONE 8.3 (2013): e55504.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentSloan School of Managementen_US
dc.contributor.mitauthorBerndt, Ernst R.
dc.relation.journalPLoS ONEen_US
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dspace.orderedauthorsKornfield, Rachel; Donohue, Julie; Berndt, Ernst R.; Alexander, G. Caleben
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6388-0768
mit.licensePUBLISHER_CCen_US
mit.metadata.statusComplete


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record