Africa Asia Middle East عربي Français Português free subscription IRIN Site Map RSS find PlusNews on facebook follow PlusNews on twitter
Global HIV/AIDS news and analysis
Advanced search
 Wednesday 16 June 2010
Weekly reports 
In-Depth reports 
Country profiles 
Fact files 
Most read 
Print report Bookmark and Share
GLOBAL: Countries pay widely varying prices for ARVs

Photo: World Vision
Buying ARVs in large volumes does not necessarily make them cheaper
JOHANNESBURG, 9 September 2009 (PlusNews) - Many countries struggle to pay for antiretroviral (ARV) drugs for all those who need them, but a new study has found that some nations are paying up to three times more for the life-prolonging medicines than others with similar HIV prevalence and income levels.

In 2007 Nigeria paid US$334 per patient per year for a combination of first-line ARVs that cost Congo only US$95. Both are low-income countries, but Nigeria has a higher HIV prevalence of 3.1 percent, compared to Congo's 1.2 percent.

A working paper released last week by the AIDS2031 project, which draws on expertise from around the world to consider the most effective long-term responses to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, looks at why the prices of ARVs vary so widely from one country to another, and what can be done to improve affordability.

The price of first-line ARVs has dropped substantially in the last decade, but affording them is still a problem in low-income countries with high HIV burdens, many of which are experiencing the effects of the global economic downturn in donor countries.

About 4 million people are accessing ARVs worldwide, out of an estimated 10 million thought to be in need of them, and the need is expected to grow to around 22 million by 2015.

Moreover, an increasing number of people will develop resistance to first-line ARVs and need second-line regimens, which currently cost at least nine times more.

The authors of the working paper looked at price variations in 12 ARVs between 2005 and 2008, and identified some of the key factors behind the differences.

Pharmaceutical companies have long used a sliding scale to set ARV drug prices according to a country's socioeconomic status, but this was not the only reason for the cost variations.

The ability of the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI) to negotiate price reductions for its member countries, particularly for second-line drugs, was identified as one factor.

Whether countries purchased generic or brand-name versions of ARVs also played a major role - strict patent laws prevent some countries from buying generics.

The World Trade Organization's Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) allows countries to override patents - for public health purposes - by issuing "compulsory licenses" that enable the generic manufacture of drugs still under patent.

However, few developing countries have exercised this right, citing a lack of capacity and legal know-how to negotiate the complicated paperwork required, and political pressure from foreign governments.

Surprisingly, the volume of drugs a country purchased did not significantly affect price; higher-prevalence countries buying large quantities of ARVs often paid more than lower-prevalence countries.

"On one hand, volume gives countries more power to negotiate," the authors wrote. "On the other hand, the higher volume means that there are more people who will demand treatment, and the countries are facing political pressure to respond to this need, which could reduce their negotiating power."

The paper recommends various strategies to ensure that all countries obtain the best possible prices for ARVs: strengthening the ability of lower-income countries to take advantage of compulsory licensing, and providing technical assistance for the production of generic ARVs, could help increase competition among manufacturers; improving production efficiency and buying cheaper active ingredients could reduce manufacturing costs.

The authors also note that prices of first-line ARVs are unlikely to decline much further, but there is ample room for reduction in second-line drug prices.

"Many more patients could be treated if second-line therapy were closer to manufacturing costs," they commented. "Reducing the price of second-line therapy should remain a priority."


See also: GLOBAL: Action needed to avert "treatment time bomb"

Theme(s): (PLUSNEWS) Care/Treatment - PlusNews, (PLUSNEWS) HIV/AIDS (PlusNews)


[This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations]
Print report Bookmark and Share
FREE Subscriptions
Your e-mail address:

Submit your request
 More on Afghanistan
GLOBAL: IRIN/PlusNews Weekly Issue 489, 11 June 2010
GLOBAL: Factory closure could leave 7,000 babies without ARVs
GLOBAL: PMTCT could be key to cutting child mortality
GLOBAL: ARVs for prevention? Proceed with caution, say researchers
GLOBAL: Pregnancy increases men's HIV risk
 More on Care/Treatment - PlusNews
AFRICA: Mother knows best
SOUTH AFRICA: Poor MDR-TB knowledge among nurses
KENYA: For the first time, money for ARVs
SOUTH AFRICA: TB patients not getting HIV counselling
KENYA-SOMALIA: Halima*, "You find out very quickly who your friends are"
 Most Read 
EAST AFRICA: Pregnancy and HIV vaccine trials
KENYA: For the first time, money for ARVs
KENYA: "What would happen if my penis refused to heal?" Why men refuse circumcision
AFRICA: Mother knows best
SOUTH AFRICA: Poor MDR-TB knowledge among nurses
Back | Home page

Services:  Africa | Asia | Middle East | Film & TV | Photo | Radio | Live news map | E-mail subscription
Feedback · IRIN Terms & Conditions · Really Simple Syndication News Feeds · About PlusNews · Jobs · Donors

Copyright © IRIN 2010
This material comes to you via IRIN, the humanitarian news and analysis service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations or its Member States. Republication is subject to terms and conditions as set out in the IRIN copyright page.