The beginning of the end of AIDS?

[JamesK840]

So I'd seen an ad or two for clinical trials of AIDS vaccines, haven't really been following it much but I took it as a sign that progress was being made. Then today I noticed this:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12039614/

 

If they could make it cheaper and easier to take (why don't we see more drugs dispensed like the birth-control Norplant?) it could start to break the cycle, especially in places like Africa where it's so rampant. Quite an uphill battle, but at least it's finally apparent that ground is being gained...

[Guest zipperzone]

Wouldn't it be wonderful - a medication that could stop the spread of the HIV virus? How long have we hoped that day would come?

 

However I must confess I read this report with DISPAIR & DISGUST and let me tell you why.

 

The company that has discovered this possible cure and who manufactures it, sells it AT COST to "poor" (read 3rd world) countries, - very noble of them.

 

There are two medications to be considered. One is called TENOFOVIR, the other is TRUVADA. The report is unclear as to whether one has to take both, as a "cocktail" or if just one of them will do the trick.

 

Now here's the part that disgusts me.

 

In poor countries, the COST price they sell it for is:

 

TENOFOVIR 57 cents per pill which equates to $17.10 per month

TRUVADA 87 cents per pill which equates to $26.20 per month.

 

In North America, they are quoting the wholesale price for TENOFOVIR will be $417. per month which is $13.90 per pill for which they admit their cost is 57 cents - and for TRUVADA, the wholesale price will be $650 per month which is $21.67 per pill for which they admit their cost is 87 cents.

 

THESE FIGURES EQUATE TO A PROFIT OF ROUGHLY 2450% FOR TENOFOVIR and 2480% FOR TRUVADA.

 

And thats just the wholesale prices - God only knows what additional costs the pharmacies will tack on to them.

 

Every company deserves to make a profit. R&D is expensive - we all know that. But I think the degree of profit they are attempting to make on these drugs is unconscionable.

 

Can you afford to pay these prices on an ungoing monthly basis - forever, to ensure you won't be infected? I sure as hell can't and I would be surprised if health plans would leap to offer to cover the costs.

 

What good is a wonderful new med, if people can't afford to buy it?

[Juan Vancouver]

hey Mr Zipper,

 

I also cringed when reading your post... however on a second thought, if my paying a high price for those drugs will help pay the research and partly fund the cheap prices for the less privileged, I would do it gladly.

 

Not only I would do everything in my power to stay negative and healthy (as I already do), but I would know that I am helping in a small way to stop the spreading of the virus.

 

We, living in rich countries have been milking and indirectly exploiting the poor countries for ages. (Paying unfair prices for every single product, service or worker's time.) I think this would be a Karmic way of finally trying to give back what we have been taking from them.

 

(Even if yes, the farmaceutical corporations are unethically milking death and pain. But there is nothing we can do about it right now.)

 

Trying to look at the bright side of it... and it looks very bright.

[JamesK840]

"The drugs are tenofovir (Viread) and emtricitabine, or FTC (Emtriva), sold in combination as Truvada by Gilead Sciences Inc., a California company best known for inventing Tamiflu, a drug showing promise against bird flu."

 

So Truvada's a pre-made cocktail. Drug companies often combine drugs and create a new name to artificially extend the patent. They will then stop making the individual drugs, a practice I've heard doctors complain about. Not so much the problem here though, 1 pill once a day sounds a lot easier then previous generations. Still not ideal for a preventative in a place like Africa though. Now a 'Norplant' kinda thing that could be injected under the skin and releases the medication reliably for 5 years and was affordable really could break the cycle, I think.

 

But the prices are indeed painful. Even the 'at cost' price is quite high for places HIV is most rampant, especially as a preventative, and I agree the regular price seems pretty damn exorbitant, basically a car payment on a $30,000 car. The good news is that eventually there will be a generic of Truvada (maybe sooner in countries that realize this is more important than patent laws and drug company profits), and if it works as well as this piece suggests that will be a great day.

 

I also agree with Juan that it's good for the "1st world" to pay the R&D and basically help supplement the developing world, but when mechanisms like this are run by companies instead of by governments with public oversight it always feels like the consumers get gouged. Same thing happens in hospitals: some people pay nothing, people with insurance pay a fairly reasonable amount (well, the insurance company does), people who don't have insurance but don't want their credit destroyed find themselves buried in bills for $7 Tylenol and $20 boxes of kleenex. But hey, if they ultimately can't pay the "Compassionate Conservatives" recently made it practically impossible to get out from under such bills with bankruptcy...

 

That's what the passionate 'bed wetting liberal' side of me feels. There's another side which notes that this is also the company responsible for Tamiflu, thinking maybe I should buy some stock in Gilead Sciences Inc., current price $62.71 (GILD). Of course is there ever is a bir flu or other pandemic they might find themselves the first company to be nationalized in quite a while...

[Guest zipperzone]

>hey Mr Zipper,

>

>I also cringed when reading your post... however on a second

>thought, if my paying a high price for those drugs will help

>pay the research and partly fund the cheap prices for the

>less privileged, I would do it gladly.

 

Juan: You seem to be missing my point. Your willingness to gladly pay the inflated price in order to help the less privileged is all well and good on the surface. If, as a successful escort, you can afford this on-going expense - good for you.

 

But for many (perhaps even most) of gay men living in our so-called privlidged countries, they simply can't afford to pay $650 a month FOR EVER to protect them from infection. Remeber - this cost would go on forever. It's not like a med that you would take until your condition clears up then you are off it. The cost would be never ending.

 

And after all the R&D costs have been recovered, do you think they will lower the price? Dream on, honey!

 

I stand by my original statement. I think this price gouging is absolutely unconscionable. There is no way any company can justify a profit margin of 2500 per cent.

 

I guess we could always appeal to the government to interceed on our behalf - but I'd bet we would be told to just abstain - no problem!

[VaHawk]

In the U.S., almost all reputable health plans, especially those thru an employer would pay for these drugs. On most of those plans the cost would be in the $20 - $30 range for the insured. The price would be slightly higher maybe in the $40 - $50 range if they are not on the list of fully covered drugs on the insurer's policy.

 

The markup on these new drugs is not any higher than those on the currently available AIDS drugs. For instance, 60 pills of Trizivir (1 month's supply) sells at the pharmacy for $1300. I imagine since its been around a while, that the costs to produce them are even less than what the new drugs cost.

[buckguy]

Yawn. The trials for Tenofavir have been on the drawing boards for a couple years and there have been stores about it in the past. If it works--terrific. But there have been dozens of vaccines that have gone into human trials and the only one to get to completed Phase III trials was a failure. I used to be involved with HIV vaccine trials. We're many years away. The main benefits of the research have been to build an infrastructure to do more trial of promising products like these (it's very expensive to set-up this infrastrusture; you can't wait for the perfect product) and a lot of basic science of HIV transmission and replication has come from vaccine work. The animal model for HIV is weak and we've been down the path of successful animal trials before. What happened was a wire service person stumbling onto the trials, not knowing any history and the various outlets recycling this. File this way and maybe in 4-5 years you'll hear what happens.