Advertisement
Advertisement


News

1,000-Fold Mark-Up for Drug Prices in High Income Countries Blocks Access to HIV, HCV and Cancer Drugs

October 24, 2016

An opening lecture at the 2016 Glasgow HIV Congress challenged the current model of drug pricing in high-income countries by showing mark-ups that are sometimes more than 1,000 times higher than production costs making many medicines largely unaffordable.

The analysis was presented by Andrew Hill, an independent advisor to international health organisations but who also has worked for many of the largest pharmaceutical companies.1

Three examples of the current urgency for better pricing are PrEP, new drugs for viral hepatitis (both HBV and HCV) and the broad range of chemotherapies for cancer. Even discounting very low access to cancer treatment in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) globally, more than five million people die annually from preventable infections due to hepatitis B and C, HIV, TB and malaria.2

This analysis argues for a more affordable model based on the bulk costs of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (per kilogram) and include 10-50% profits after allowing for manufacturing and other production costs.3

The presentation also showed the disparity of prices charged for the same drugs across similar high-income countries, with the U.S. generally paying highest. For example, a 12-week course of daily sofosbuvir has target production costs of about €55 but currently costs €50,000 in the U.S. and only €3,485 in Australia (based on volume discount to treatment hepatitis C in Australia on a population level).

Differences between target costs for a range of HIV, hepatitis and cancer medicines compared to current prices are shown in Table 1 below. For example, the annual U.S. vs target generic prices for commonly used ARVs are approximately $18,000 vs $161 for abacavir/3TC, $21,000 vs $67 for tenofovir-DF/FTC and $34,400 vs $110 for Atripla. The recently off-patent cancer drug imatinib (Glivic/Gleevic), used to treat chronic myeloid leukaemia, has a U.S. price of $106,000 but a potential generic target price of just $180.


Table 1: Examples of Current and Target Prices of Commonly Used Srugs (USD$)
Drug Current U.S. Price Current Lowest Generic * Minimum Target Cost Comment / Patent Expiry Date
Hepatitis B (annual cost)
entecavir 15,111 427.00 36.00 Expired
Hepatitis C direct acting antivirals (DAAs) (3 month course)
sofosbuvir 49,680 324 62  
daclatasvir 50,653 153 14  
sofosbuvir + ledipasvir 56,700 507 96  
sofosbuvir + velpatasvir 74,760 -- 181-216  
HIV antiretrovirals (annual cost)
abacavir/3TC 18,600 161 161 Dec 2016
tenofovir/FTC 21,120 67 67 Jul 2017
efavirenz/TDF/FTC 34,428 110 110 Dec 2017
efavirenz 12,120 36 38 Expired
nevirapine 7,776 28 28 Expired
rilpivirine 12,900 -- 40 2021
atazanavir 19,872 219 219 2018
darunavir 19,584 -- 658 2018
Cancer drugs (treatment cost)
imatinib 106,322 790 180 Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia
erlotinib 79,891 1932 240 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
sorafenib 139,138 1332 1450 Renal Cell Carcinoma
lapatinib 75,161 18,603 4020 Breast cancer
cabazitaxel 120,613 30,810 660 Metastatic prostate cancer
dasatinib 10,408 1183 15 Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia

* From India, Thailand, Brazil or South Africa.


In some high income countries, including the UK, it is legal to important generic medicine for personal use (defined as a three-month course. This has become increasing used to enable the only access to PrEP and HCV medications, often supported by community websites and byers clubs.

Three other posters at Glasgow 2016 present new data on effectiveness of generic medicines. A pharmacokinetic analysis of generic PrEP used by gay men at the Dean Street clinic supported the used of several FDA-approved generic formulations that are easily available online.4

Two other posters report high HCV cure rates by users of two international online buyer's clubs.5,6

In addition to making vast profits from this inflated approach to pricing medicines in high-income countries, many of the largest manufactures avoid billions of dollars in U.S. tax by registering profits in offshore accounts. In 2015, Pfizer, Merck, J&J, Amgen, Abbott and BMS avoided USD $ 20, 16, 14, 9, 7 and 7 billion dollars respectively.7

The $10 billion in taxes avoided by Gilead, the manufacturer of sofosbuvir and other recently approved HCV drugs, would be sufficient to globally cure HCV based on lowest cost target prices.


Comment

This study was based on a growing body of work that has been presented by Dr. Hill and colleagues at other major conferences. At AIDS 2016 in Durban he nicely connected pricing to other global health targets by showing that $90, $90, $90 are achievable goals in LMICs to treat HIV and HBV for a year and to cure HCV.8

High-income countries should not be planning health care based on LMIC prices while medicines are in patent -- wealthier economies can and should pay more for medicines. But the excessively greed shown by the current prices is destablising drug access globally to treatment that people need now. As such, the personal importation in the UK of generic versions of in-patent drugs is easy to support.

Two years ago at Glasgow, Dr. Hill reported that availability of generic ARVs could save the UK more than £1.25 billion over five years.9


References

  1. Hill A. Treatment for cancer, HIV and viral hepatitis in Europe using low cost generic drugs: what could be done? HIV Glasgow, 23-26 October 2016, Glasgow.
  2. GBD 2013 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and national age -- sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015; 385: 117-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61682-2.
    www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)61682-2/fulltext
  3. India Info Drive. Global export import data.
    www.indiainfodrive.com
  4. Nwokolo N et al. InterPrEP: internet-based pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with generic TDF/FTC in London -- analysis of pharmacokinetics, safety and outcomes. HIV Glasgow, 23-26 October 2016, Glasgow. Oral abstract ???
  5. Hill A et al. High sustained virological response rates using imported generic direct-acting antiviral treatment for hepatitis C, imported into Australia, UK, Europe and North America. HIV Glasgow, 23-26 October 2016, Glasgow. HIV Glasgow, 23-26 October 2016, Glasgow. Poster abstract 256.
  6. Hill A et al. Efficacy of generic direct-acting antiviral treatment for hepatitis C, imported into Russia and Eastern Europe. HIV Glasgow, 23-26 October 2016, Glasgow. Poster abstract 261.
  7. Citizens for Tax Justice, 2016.
    http://gormanandjoneslaw.com/offshore-tax-havens http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/12/obama-gambit-for-corporate-cayman-cash.html
  8. Hill A et al. Mass treatment programmes for HIV and hepatitis. Presented at ITPC satellite session MOSA3301.
    http://programme.aids2016.org/Programme/Session/1063
  9. Hill A et al. Predicted saving to the UK National Health Service from switching to generic antiretrovirals: 2015-2019. International Congress of Drug Therapy in HIV Infection, 2-6 November 2014, Glasgow. Oral abstract 0-216.
    www.jiasociety.org/index.php/jias/article/view/19497


Related Stories

Large Disparities in Costs of Antiretrovirals Between Low- and Middle-Income Countries
Ups and Downs in the Struggle for Fair Drug Pricing (Video)



This article was provided by HIV i-Base. It is a part of the publication HIV Treatment Bulletin. Visit HIV i-Base's website to find out more about their activities, publications and services.
 

No comments have been made.
 

Add Your Comment:
(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in
Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Before
adding your comment, please read TheBody.com's Comment Policy.)

Your Name:


Your Location:

(ex: San Francisco, CA)

Your Comment:

Characters remaining:

Advertisement

The content on this page is free of advertiser influence and was produced by our editorial team. See our content and advertising policies.