E-drug: Anti retrovirals (cont)
---------------------------------------------
Listen, I understand that there are complex issues of manufacturing organic
compounds. I also know that pharmacokinetic studies of the CIPLA
manufactured product compare favorably withthe product sold in the USA and
are priced retail at 21% of the CVS price in Boston MA in the fall of 1999.
I have the tablets and those who are skeptical can have some to test out.
With respect to Mexico, I cannot vouch for their quality though their price
is even lower, but John Ziokowlski whom I trust tells me the reputation is
better than India's.
Who ever is right is not really relevant. The point is that there is a need
to allow competition and there is a need to allow azt which is after all a
taxpayer produced and tested product (if you would like grant numbers, names
of researchers etc. I can provide them) to be produced by who ever wishes to
do so under the watchful eye of agencies that normally review products in the
respective countries. I am sick and tired of hearing stuff from companies
that produce nothing but statements about how much things cost. Be specific.
Give us an actual breakout of costs including advertising, packaging,
profits etc. and then maybe we can go along with this, but the history of
drug development is well documented by the large generic firms. Historically
virtually all generic products are sold at a modest fraction of the label
brand prices under the scrutiny and after further testing results are
approved by the FDA. In many ways generic ddrugs are the MOST likely to be
of high quality, make a profit and obviously given their price reflect an
actual production cost WAY below what we get from the labelled products. It
is virtually impossible to find a drug that has not been shown to be
produceable aat a SMALL fraction of the cost. Rather than support the
contention that the data that is self serving and without any substantiation
from a drug company which gets rich from a product is correct I would assume
one would pay attention to the fact that you cannot find a drug offpatent
that didnt fall in price, very often to one percent of the retail price of
the labelled brand.
I think it is transparent that the drugs are overpriced and that the costs
are incorporating factors that have nothing to do with drug production. I am
an economist, and while it does take a lot of people to disect WHY a price is
lower there is simply no real argument that you cant lower the price of a
drug by manufacturing it in the context of a competitive market.
In addition we need to acknowledge that in fact there have been few trials
that would identify in real life situations the most cost effective uses of
our antiviral armamentarium. There has to the besst of my knowledge not been
a systematic head to head series of efforts to find the best approach, but
rather a haphazard approach essentially one sset involving AZT and the other
involving Nevirapine. This is too little info for a country like SA or
others to decide a best course of action. Perhaps the drug companies could
be persuaded to conduct head to head trials...after all for all of them save
for the makers of azt and nev. they could only gain from the trials.
Incidentally there WERE good chemists at the NIH the NCI actually who wrote a
letter to nature complaining about the huge tax payer investment in AZT and
the obstacles to development that were occasioned when Burroughs took over.
I think one ought to read the letter.
David Scondras
President, Search for a Cure
Treatment Information and Advocacy
Organization is at 58 burbank Street Boston MA 02115
Phone 617 266 0735
fax 617 266 0051
webpage sfac.org
Scondras@aol.com
--
Send mail for the `E-Drug' conference to `e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.
Mail administrative requests to `majordomo@usa.healthnet.org'.
For additional assistance, send mail to: `owner-e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.