OBJECTIVES: To describe the active principles (AP) marketed in Spain from 1992 to 2002, to determine their characteristics, and to find whether they supposed genuine therapeutic advances (TA). DESIGN: Transversal, descriptive study. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The degree of TA in the AP analysed was studied with the classification used by the FDA (A*: exceptional therapeutic novelty; A: important therapeutic novelty; B: modest therapeutic improvement; C: null or very little therapeutic improvement, corresponding to "me-too" drugs; and D: not classified), the context of use and the price. RESULTS: 369 new AP were marketed. 3.5% were in group A*, 11.9% in A, 30.1% in B, 49.3% in C, and 5.1% in D. 42.3% corresponded to AP used in hospitals for therapy or diagnosis. Significant differences were found (P<.05) on comparing the degree of TA and the context of use, such that more AP in the A/A* (32.6%) and B (44.0%) groups were found in AP used in hospital therapy and diagnosis than in AP used in primary care and generally (5.3% in the A/A* groups and 23.4% in group B). Only 11 AP of the A/A* groups were used in primary care. The cost per defined daily dose was 17.6 euros; and the new AP in group C were dearer than already existing alternatives in 93.4% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Real TA are few in number and preferentially used in hospitals. Almost all the new AP are "me-too" drugs and are dearer than already existing alternatives.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the active principles (AP) marketed in Spain from 1992 to 2002, to determine their characteristics, and to find whether they supposed genuine therapeutic advances (TA). DESIGN: Transversal, descriptive study. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The degree of TA in the AP analysed was studied with the classification used by the FDA (A*: exceptional therapeutic novelty; A: important therapeutic novelty; B: modest therapeutic improvement; C: null or very little therapeutic improvement, corresponding to "me-too" drugs; and D: not classified), the context of use and the price. RESULTS: 369 new AP were marketed. 3.5% were in group A*, 11.9% in A, 30.1% in B, 49.3% in C, and 5.1% in D. 42.3% corresponded to AP used in hospitals for therapy or diagnosis. Significant differences were found (P<.05) on comparing the degree of TA and the context of use, such that more AP in the A/A* (32.6%) and B (44.0%) groups were found in AP used in hospital therapy and diagnosis than in AP used in primary care and generally (5.3% in the A/A* groups and 23.4% in group B). Only 11 AP of the A/A* groups were used in primary care. The cost per defined daily dose was 17.6 euros; and the new AP in group C were dearer than already existing alternatives in 93.4% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Real TA are few in number and preferentially used in hospitals. Almost all the new AP are "me-too" drugs and are dearer than already existing alternatives.