Search

Objectives Seven years after the introduction of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for the treatment of hepatitis C, high prices remain a barrier for treatment programs worldwide. This study seeks to describe current prices for originator DAAs in 50 countries and evaluate the relationship between prices and GDP per capita. Methods Data on prices of sofosbuvir, daclatasvir, sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, sofosbuvir/velpatasvir, and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir were collected from national databases for 50 countries. Cost-based generic prices were estimated using an established algorithm, which accounts for costs of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), excipients, conversion costs of API to finished pharmaceutical product, taxes assuming manufacture in India, and a 10% profit margin. Correlation between current market prices and GDP per capita was assessed by Spearman rank-order correlation. Results Median originator prices per standard course were US$40,502 for sofosbuvir, US$26,928 for daclatasvir, US$46,812 for sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, US$34,381 for sofosbuvir/velpatasvir, and US$30,710 for glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (G/P). The estimated cost-based generic prices for a 12-week course were US$28 for sofosbuvir, US$31 for ledipasvir, US$58 for velpatasvir, US$4 for daclatasvir. For fixed-dose combinations, estimated cost-based prices were US$58 for sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, US$85 for sofosbuvir/velpatasvir, and US$31 for sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (API cost data were insufficient to calculate an estimate for G/P). Cumulative originator sales of WHO-recommended DAAs reached US$82 billion by the end of 2019. Across the 50 countries, there was no correlation between GDP per capita and DAA price, nor between estimated viraemic population and DAA price. Sub-analyses within World Bank income groups found a significant negative correlation between price and GDP per capita for all DAAs within the high-income countries group. Conclusions Prices of DAAs vary widely across countries. The lack of correlation between DAA price and GDP per capita and viraemic population suggests that prices for DAAs are not adjusted based on country income level or potential patient population. Among high-income countries, DAA prices fall as income levels rise, possibly due to greater negotiating power of wealthier countries. DAA prices in most countries remain many times higher than estimated cost-based generic prices.

Introduction: Rifabutin, a rifamycin of equivalent potency to rifampicin, has several advantages in its pharmacokinetic and toxicity profile, particularly in HIV co-infected patients on combined antiretroviral therapy (cART). In this commentary we evaluate evidence supporting increased global use of rifabutin and highlight key recommendations for action. Discussion: Although extrapolation of data from HIV uninfected patients would suggest non-inferiority, there has been no randomized controlled study comparing rifabutin versus rifampicin in the outcomes of relapse-free cure, in drug susceptible tuberculosis, in HIV co-infected patients on currently utilized cART regimens or in paediatric populations. An important advantage of rifabutin is that compared to the dose adjustments required with rifampicin, it can be co-administered with the integrase strand inhibitors (INSTIs) raltegravir or dolutegravir without the need for dose adjustments. This strategy would be easier to implement in a programmatic setting and save costs. We have assessed cost incentives to utilize rifabutin and have estimated generic costs for a range of rifabutin dosage scenarios. Where facilities are present for drug re-challenge and monitoring for drug toxicity and cross-reactivity, rifabutin offers a switch alternative for adverse drug reactions (ADR)s attributed to rifampicin. This would negate the need to prolong treatment in the absence of a rifamycin as part of short-course multi-drug therapy. There is evidence of incomplete cross-resistance to rifampicin and rifabutin. Rifabutin may be useful in rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, in an estimated 20% of cases, based on phenotypic or genotypic rifabutin susceptibility testing. Conclusions: Rifabutin should be available globally as a first line rifamycin in HIV co-infected individuals and as a switch option in cases of rifampicin associated ADRs. Further studies are needed to ascertain the utility of rifabutin in rifampicin-resistant rifabutin-susceptible tuberculosis.

IntroductionThere are persistent gaps in access to affordable medicines. The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) includes medicines considered necessary for functional health systems.MethodsA generic price estimation formula was developed by reviewing published analyses of cost of production for medicines and assuming manufacture in India, which included costs of formulation, packaging, taxation and a 10% profit margin. Data on per-kilogram prices of active pharmaceutical ingredient exported from India were retrieved from an online database. Estimated prices were compared with the lowest globally available prices for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria medicines, and current prices in the UK, South Africa and India.ResultsThe estimation formula had good predictive accuracy for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria medicines. Estimated generic prices ranged from US$0.01 to US$1.45 per unit, with most in the lower end of this range. Lowest available prices were greater than estimated generic prices for 214/277 (77%) comparable items in the UK, 142/212 (67%) in South Africa and 118/298 (40%) in India. Lowest available prices were more than three times above estimated generic price for 47% of cases compared in the UK and 22% in South Africa.ConclusionA wide range of medicines in the EML can be profitably manufactured at very low cost. Most EML medicines are sold in the UK and South Africa at prices significantly higher than those estimated from production costs. Generic price estimation and international price comparisons could empower government price negotiations and support cost-effectiveness calculations.

ObjectivesChallenges remain in ensuring universal access to affordable essential medicines. We previously estimated the expected generic prices based on cost of production for medicines in solid oral formulations (ie, capsules or tablets) on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML). The objectives of this analysis were to estimate cost-based prices for injectable medicines on the EML and to compare these to lowest current prices in England, South Africa, and India.DesignData on the cost of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) exported from India were extracted from an online database of customs declarations (www.infodriveindia.com). A formula was designed to use API price data to estimate a cost-based price, by adding the costs of converting API to a finished pharmaceutical product, including the cost of formulation in vials or ampoules, transportation and an average profit margin.ResultsFor injectable formulations on the WHO EML, medicines had prices above the estimated cost-based price in 77% of comparisons in England (median ratio 2.54), and 62% in South Africa (median ratio 1.48), while 85% of medicines in India had prices below estimated cost-based price (median ratio 0.30). 19% of injectable medicines in England, 9% in South Africa, and 5% in India had prices more than 10 times the estimated cost-based price. Medicines that appeared in the top 20 by ratio of lowest current price to estimated cost-based price for more than one country included numerous oncology medicines—irinotecan, leuprorelin, ifosfamide, daunorubicin, filgrastim and mesna—as well as valproic acid and ciclosporin.ConclusionsEstimating manufacturing costs can identify cases in which profit margins for medicines may be set significantly higher than average.

IntroductionHigh prices for insulin pose a barrier to treatment for people living with diabetes, with an estimated 50% of 100 million patients needing insulin lacking reliable access. As insulin analogues replace regular human insulin (RHI) globally, their relative prices will become increasingly important. Three originator companies control 96% of the global insulin market, and few biosimilar insulins are available. We estimated the price reductions that could be achieved if numerous biosimilar manufacturers entered the insulin market.MethodsData on the price of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) exported from India were retrieved from an online customs database. Manufacturers of insulins were contacted for price quotes. Where market API prices could not be identified, prices were estimated based on comparison of similarity, in terms of manufacturing process, with APIs for which prices were available. Potential biosimilar prices were estimated by adding costs of excipients, formulation, transport, development and regulatory costs, and a profit margin.ResultsThe manufacturing processes for RHI and insulin analogues are similar. API prices were US$24 750/kg for RHI, US$68 757/kg for insulin glargine and an estimated US$100 000/kg for other analogues. Estimated biosimilar prices were US$48–71 per patient per year for RHI, US$49–72 for neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin and US$78–133 for analogues (except detemir: US$283–365).ConclusionTreatment with biosimilar RHI and insulin NPH could cost ≤US$72 per year and with insulin analogues ≤US$133 per year. Estimated biosimilar prices were markedly lower than the current prices for insulin analogues. Widespread availability at estimated prices may allow substantial savings globally.