Mirabegron

HILLSBOROUGH, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Campaign for Personal Prescription Importation (CPPI), a non-profit advocate for affordable access to prescription medications, has released a new price comparison study highlighting the stark differences between U.S. and Canadian pharmacy prices for popular brand-name prescription drugs. We’re in an affordability epidemic. With the ability to personally import essentially identical medications from Canada, U.S. consumers can find desperately needed relief. Using data researched in Mar. 2026, CPPI’s analysis shows that for a sample of 10 popular, name-brand prescription medicines – all daily maintenance medications for common conditions – U.S. consumers can save 52% to 89% by purchasing from licensed Canadian online pharmacies. These results show personal importation from Canada continues to be a significant option for those facing exorbitantly high drug costs. America in a Drug “Affordability Epidemic” CPPI’s study underscores how U.S. prescription costs outpace affordability – as a great number of Americans are dangerously non-compliant with their drug therapy. For instance, a recent survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) reveals that about one in five adults (21%) have not filled a prescription due to cost. Additionally, the KFF survey finds about one in seven adults say they have cut pills in half or skipped doses of medicine in the last year because of the cost. “These results highlight the ongoing need for easily accessible alternatives to notoriously high U.S. pharmaceutical prices. We’re in an affordability epidemic,” said CPPI’s Executive Director Ken Hunter. “Millions of Americans are on fixed incomes, have high-deductible health plans that skyrocketed in price when Affordable Care Act subsidies ended in December, or can’t afford insurance at all. With the ability to personally import essentially identical medications from Canada, consumers can find desperately needed relief.” CPPI’s findings, drawn from research comparing GoodRx and Amazon prices in the U.S. against Canadian equivalents, demonstrate average savings of over 64% across 10 commonly prescribed brand-name drugs. These include treatments for conditions including Type 2 diabetes, blood clots, and overactive bladder. Top savings examples for 90-day supplies include: Jublia (12 ml, antifungal): U.S. GoodRx price $2,236.00, U.S. Amazon price $2,502.10, Canadian pharmacy average $257.77 – 89% savings. Xifaxan (550 mg, treats IBS): U.S. GoodRx price $10,036.00, U.S. Amazon price $11,233.90, Canadian pharmacy average $2,325.78 – 78% savings. Myrbetriq (50 mg, treats overactive bladder): U.S. GoodRx price $1,129.00, U.S. Amazon price $994.78, Canadian pharmacy average $314.57 – 70% savings. Additional drugs researched in the study included Xarelto, Jardiance, Rybelsus, Farxiga, Trintellix, Premarin, and Eliquis. The full comparison chart of the 10 popular prescription medications is at https://shorturl.at/odDrW. "With U.S. drug prices being less affordable for millions, this study shows personal prescription importation from licensed Canadian pharmacies remains a proven lifeline that is available today," said Hunter. "Our data shows consumers can slash costs on essential brand-name medications, allowing them to prioritize health without financial ruin. This transforms lives, and Americans should know they have this safe, reliable option." For more information on safe importation and to join (for free) the fight for affordable medications, visit www.PersonalImportation.org. Methodology: Prices obtained Mar. 2026 for 90-day supplies. Amazon pricing is for delivery to N.J.; GoodRx pricing is from N.J. pharmacies using cash price with the lowest after-coupon discount price; Canadian mail-order pricing uses the average of a cross-section of pharmacies certified by Canadian International Pharmacy Assn. (CIPA.com) and is for Health Canada-approved, brand-name products dispensed by a pharmacy licensed in Canada. Savings based on average of GoodRx and Amazon prices. At time of survey, Rybelsus 7 mg was priced but unavailable at Amazon. All registered trademarks referred to herein belong to their respective owners. About CPPI: The Campaign for Personal Prescription Importation (CPPI), based in Hillsborough, N.J., is a national nonprofit patient advocacy organization fighting for Americans' access to safe, affordable prescription medications from Canada for personal use. Tens of millions of Americans – especially the elderly and others on fixed incomes – struggle to pay the extremely high prices of prescription medications in the U.S. CPPI is their voice. For more information and to join us: www.PersonalImportation.org.

Taylor Tieden for BioSpace An analysis finds that pharmas frequently similar patents on drugs, then use them as the basis for questionable litigation against would-be competitors. A four-decade-old framework intended to simplify generic drugmakers’ path to market is now “increasingly exploited” to maintain long-term exclusivity for brand-name pharmas, a new analysis finds. The work, led by Sean Tu of the University of Alabama School of Law, appeared in Health Affairs Scholar in December 2025. It cites multiple examples of pharmas using what the authors term serial litigation to stave off would-be competitors for years, allowing them to keep prices high. Generic drugmakers facing this strategy might well develop a sense of deja vu. “I’m litigating. I think the litigation is done. And then I get sued again,” Tu said. “And I do the litigation. And I think the litigation is done. And I get sued again. And it’s really problematic when it’s these patents that are really the same.” Use of the strategy is “certainly something that we’ve watched progress probably over the last decade, decade and a half,” notes Julia Pike, the global head of IP at generics maker Sandoz. This increase comes as brand-name drugmakers face patent cliffs that could see them lose billions in revenue in the coming years. According to analysts at William Blair, the lost exclusivity will affect assets that accounted for more than 30% of the collective revenues from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Regeneron in 2024. A Hatch-Waxman Loophole Pharmas are able to employ the serial litigation strategy because of the way the Hatch-Waxman Act is structured, Tu explained. Prior to that landmark 1984 legislation, generic drugmakers needed to run their own clinical trials in order to get the FDA’s nod to go to market, even when a brand-name version of their product had already been approved. The act removed the need for this duplicate effort by requiring the sponsor of the original drug to list all patents related to it with the FDA. Generics companies can then Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the agency that includes certifications regarding each of the relevant patents. These certifications might note that a patent is expired, for example, or assert that it is invalid. The brand-name drugmaker then has an opportunity to sue for patent infringement. Doing so triggers a 30-month stay on the FDA’s ANDA decision and engages the generics company in a costly legal battle. The act worked as intended for about two decades after its passage, Tu said. “You would see one or two patents per drug. People would challenge these patents. They would invalidate them. And then they would be able to go on the market, and the prices would drop by, like, 50% the next day” due to the new competition. But then, “in 2010, you saw this real huge uptake in the just number of patents per drug,” Tu noted—a trend he’s previously documented . Many of these are what’s known as continuation patents, meaning that they’re essentially identical to an existing patent. These are allowed, Tu explained, for cases in which companies want to get a product to market quickly, and thus elect to relatively narrow and easily-defended patent initially, with the option to broader version later. With multiple continuation patents on the books for a single drug, pharmas can choose to sue a generics maker for infringing one, and then, if the second company successfully defends against the suit, sue again under a different patent. “If we stop competition, that’s a win for brand companies, right? That means that we’re going to have higher drug prices for longer periods of time,” Tu said. “How do I get less competitors? I make it riskier. I make it more expensive. I force them to come on the market later. All of that I can do through patents.” Opinion Lessons From Humira on How to Tackle Unjust Extensions of Drug Monopolies With Policy AbbVie’s blockbuster Humira held 105 patents, shielding the anti-inflammatory drug from biosimilar competition for more than 20 years. Proposed reforms could help prevent companies from extending exclusivity with such patent thickets. December 18, 2024 · 4 min read · Timothy Bonis Read more Costs Pile Up Pike said the uptick in continuation patents and serial litigation is a costly trend for generics companies like hers. She cited an industry group estimate that each round of Hatch-Waxman litigation costs more than $6 million. “So you can imagine if we’ve been sued three, four, five times in a row, that accumulates fairly quickly,” she said. That’s not a hypothetical for Sandoz. In its attempt to market a generic version of Allergan’s Bimatoprost, for example, a medication for glaucoma and high eye pressure, “We’ve been in four waves of litigation on that case since 2011. And that case continues,” Pike notes. Sandoz was also one of several generic makers embroiled in litigation with Astellas over the right to make their own versions of the overactive bladder drug Myrbetriq, a story cited by Tu and his colleagues as an exampleof the serial litigation strategy. Astellas has so far filed five rounds of lawsuits over the drug, the paper notes, and of the original nine companies vying to make generics, all but two have settled, including Sandoz. Pike called the saga “a textbook example of serial patent litigation.” But, she added, “It’s not an Astellas strategy. It’s a broader industry strategy.” Astellas did not respond to a request for comment on this story. The cost of defending such lawsuits outstrips the cost of developing a drug, Pike noted. “Before you’ve even set foot in the U.S., you’re anticipating that the cost of developing that product is going to double just because of the first round of litigation.” “People say, ‘oh, this guy doesn’t like patents,’” Tu said of himself. “That’s not true. Patents are very effective at promoting innovation. . . . But your patents shouldn’t last for forever. And we’re asking the patent system to do something now that it was never intended to do, which is extend monopoly power.” Policy Companies Bend Patent System to Head Off Competition Long-Term: Analysis Brand pharmas not only leverage ancillary patents but sometimes hide or misrepresent information to the U.S. patent office in order to extend market exclusivity and high prices. January 8, 2024 · 5 min read · Sunitha Chari Read more