Authors : Anand Yadav; Anjali Gupta; Devashish Jena

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 3 - March

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/43zype26

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/3cwvxefk

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25mar1943

Google Scholar

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 15 to 20 days to display the article.

Abstract : This case analysis delves into the position of azithromycin in the international pharmaceutical market, tracing its evolution, marketplace dynamics, and challenges over the years. Registered in the early 1990s, azithromycin transformed the course of bacterial infections treatment with its broad-spectrum activity, abbreviated duration of therapy, and improved side-effect profile. The marketplace success of the drug was fuelled by the convenience of treatment, which ranked it as the preferred antibiotic both among healthcare practitioners and patients. Nevertheless, its market trajectory changed with the expiration of its patent in 2005, which led to the widespread availability of generics, whose effect on its pricing and market share was significantly adverse. Moreover, azithromycin also attracted attention following the COVID-19 pandemic when it was researched as a possible treatment for the disease despite the subsequent trials discrediting its efficacy for the same. This case study shows how critical azithromycin has been to dealing with global health issues, specifically in poor parts of the world, where generics have widened treatment access. It also tackles newer issues such as antibiotic resistance and changing regulations. The conclusion is that the success of GlaxoSmithKline underscores the challenges of balancing competitiveness in the pharmaceutical business while meeting public health demands and shifting treatment approaches.

References :

1. Panpanich R, Lerttrakarnnon P. Azithromycin for acute lower respiratory tract infections [M]// The Cochrane Library. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2000: CD001954. [Google Scholar]
2. Hicks LA, Taylor TH, Hunkler RJ. U.S. outpatient antibiotic prescribing, 2010. N Engl J Med Overseas Ed 2013;368:1461–10.1056/NEJMc1212055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Clavenna A, Bonati M. Differences in antibiotic prescribing in paediatric outpatients. Arch Dis Child 2011;96:590–5. 10.1136/adc.2010.183541 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Franchi C, Sequi M, Bonati M, et al. Differences in outpatient antibiotic prescription in Italy’s Lombardy region. Infection 2011;39:299–308. 10.1007/s15010-011-0129-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Grijalva CG, Nuorti JP, Griffin MR. Antibiotic prescription rates for acute respiratory tract infections in US ambulatory settings. JAMA 2009;302:758–66. 10.1001/jama.2009.1163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Langtry HD, Azithromycin BJA. A review of its use in paediatric infectious diseases. Drugs 1998;56:273–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Solomon AW, World Health Organization,, International Trachoma Initiative . Trachoma control: a guide for programme managers, 2006. [Google Scholar]
8. Porco TC, Gebre T, Ayele B, et al. Effect of mass distribution of azithromycin for trachoma control on overall mortality in Ethiopian children. JAMA 2009;302:962–8. 10.1001/jama.2009.1266 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Keenan JD, Ayele B, Gebre T, et al. Childhood mortality in a cohort treated with mass azithromycin for trachoma. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2011;52:883–8. 10.1093/cid/cir069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Keenan JD, Bailey RL, West SK, et al. Azithromycin to reduce childhood mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1583–92. 10.1056/NEJMoa1715474 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. The UPPSALA monitoring centre The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardized case causality assessment. Available: http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/WHOcausality_assessment.pdf [Accessed 05 Oct 2018].
12. Joint Formulary Committee British National formulary. London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press, 2018. [Google Scholar]
13. Medicine and healthcare products regulatory agency Azithromycin 500 Mg powder for infusion. Available: http://www.mhra.gov.uk [Accessed 05 Oct 2018].
14. Juurlink DN. The cardiovascular safety of azithromycin. CMAJ 2014;186:1127–8. 10.1503/cmaj.140572 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Ray WA, Murray KT, Hall K, et al. Azithromycin and the risk of cardiovascular death. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1881–90. 10.1056/NEJMoa1003833 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Svanström H, Pasternak B, Hviid A. Use of azithromycin and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1704–12. 10.1056/NEJMoa1300799 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Choi Y, Lim H-S, Chung D, et al. Risk evaluation of Azithromycin-Induced QT prolongation in real-world practice. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:1–8. 10.1155/2018/1574806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Anon Azithromycin: pyloric stenosis in neonates [J]. Prescribe International 2016;25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Morrison W. Infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis in infants treated with azithromycin. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2007;26:186–8. 10.1097/01.inf.0000253063.87338.60 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Eberly MD, Eide MB, Thompson JL, et al. Azithromycin in early infancy and pyloric stenosis. Pediatrics 2015;135:483–8. 10.1542/peds.2014-2026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Friedman DS, Robinette Curtis C, Schauer SL, et al. Surveillance for transmission and antibiotic adverse events among neonates and adults exposed to a healthcare worker with pertussis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25:967–73. 10.1086/502328 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Smith C, Egunsola O, Choonara I, et al. Use and safety of azithromycin in neonates: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2015;5:e008194 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chi Chester, UK: The Cochrane Library, John Wiley &Sons, 2011. [Google Scholar]
24. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535–35. 10.1136/bmj.b2535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Cochrane bias method group Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Available: http://bmg.cochrane.org/assessing-risk-bias-includedstudies [Accessed 05 Oct 2018].
26. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta analyses. Available: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinicalepidemiology/oxford.htm [Accessed 05 Oct 2018].
27. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer's manual. Available: https://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL/Joanna+Briggs+Institute+Reviewer%27s+Manual [Accessed 05 Oct 2018].
28. The UPPSALA monitoring centre The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardized case causality assessment.. Available: http://who-umc.org/Graphics/24734.pdf [Accessed 05 Oct 2018].
29. Rothman KJ, Lanes S, Sacks ST. The reporting odds ratio and its advantages over the proportional reporting ratio. Pharmacoepidem. Drug Safe. 2004;13:519–23. 10.1002/pds.1001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]