5 ms·
Cost is the largest factor. HIV could be nearly eliminated entirely if PREP wasn’t a cash cow for Gilead.
by taurath 6y ago
Cost is the largest factor. HIV could be nearly eliminated entirely if PREP wasn’t a cash cow for Gilead.
- fny 6y agoUhm... Last I checked many pharmaceuticals that compete with Gilead also operate in the HIV space.
- heavyset_go 6y agoNo, the only two drugs approved for PrEP in the US are Truvada and Descovy, both of which are Gilead drugs.
- fny 6y agoI stand by what I said. On a worldwide revenue basis, there are many other manufacturers that have strong incentives to develop a cure. Also, I disagree that "PrEP" would eliminate HIV. It's a prophylactic, not a cure, and one that will not be affordable globally for a looooong time. Even at $30 per month, the drug would be out of reach for many (see Africa where annual incomes hover around $1-2K annually.) 1. Gilead owns 3 of 4 top HIV drugs. GSK owns the #2, Triumeq. 2. GSK, Merk, J&J are all megacap, viable competitors with their own HIV products. Yes, its true that Merk and Gilead are in cahoots, but this was out of fear of GSKs dominance. 3. Some other US-listed names who are developing HIV drugs: ViiV (GSK subsidiary), Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Mylan, Genentech, Abbvie. Yes, the US is currently dominated by one company, but that does not mean there are heavy incentives for competitors--who are already well invested in the space--to break in. [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/273434/revenue-of-the-worlds-most-important-aids-drugs/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/273434/revenue-of-the-wo...
- taurath 6y agoI stand by my assertion that cost is the limiting factor :)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tjohns 6y agoGilead's patent on Truvada (the most common drug used for PrEP) just expired. As of a few months ago it's available as a generic.
- heavyset_go 6y agoGeneric Truvada costs between $1600 - $2200 a month without a discount. GoodRx brings it down to about $600 - $1200.
- tjohns 6y agoAs I understand it, only one company makes the generic right now. As others begin producing it market pressure will hopefully drive those costs down. It’s also worth noting that some insurance companies have recently begun classifying it as preventative medicine (as it should’ve been this whole time) and covering it at 100%.
- ceejayoz 6y ago> As others begin producing it market pressure will hopefully drive those costs down. That's the idea, but it doesn't really work that way. https://hbr.org/2017/04/how-pharma-companies-game-the-system-to-keep-drugs-expensive https://hbr.org/2017/04/how-pharma-companies-game-the-system... > One of the ways branded drug manufacturers prevent competition is simple: cash. In so-called “pay for delay” agreements, a brand drug company simply pays a generic company not to launch a version of a drug. The Federal Trade Commission estimates these pacts cost U.S. consumers and taxpayers $3.5 billion in higher drug costs each year. and this fun one... > Another way pharmaceutical firms are thwarting generics is by restricting access to samples for testing. Generic drug makers need to be able to purchase a sample of a brand-name product to conduct bioequivalence testing. That’s because they have to prove they can make a bioequivalent product following the current good manufacturing practices (CGMP) standard. These manufacturers don’t need to conduct clinical trials like the original drug company did. > But the original drug developer often declines to sell drug samples to generics manufacturers by citing “FDA requirements,” by which they mean the agency’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies program. The idea behind this program is a good one: give access to patients who will benefit from these personalized medicines, and bar access for patients who won’t benefit and could be seriously harmed. However, brand drug makers are citing these requirements for the sole purpose of keeping generics from coming to market.
- ChickeNES 6y agoWhy does this falsehood keep being repeated as the truth?