DRugwatch BlogRSS 2.0

DRugwatch Blog > March 2012 > Payers Will Have the Final Say over PreP

Payers Will Have the Final Say over PreP

Contributors: LaTese Briggs, Ph.D. and Allison Thrower

In recent news on the HIV/AIDS front, the FDA is reviewing the possibility of marketing certain HIV drugs as a preventative measure for individuals who are healthy but at-risk for infection. However, research that was viewed optimistically over a year ago is coming under fire by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) as the group petitioned against FDA approval due to questions of efficacy, high costs, side effects and patients’ lack of commitment to the regimen. Whether or not the petition sticks, the real-world, widespread use of this treatment ultimately comes down to the payers.

In reality, they won’t pay for it. Why would they pay for a preventative method that only reduces the risk of infection by 40-50% and can lead to other health problems? This is especially true considering there is a perfectly viable prevention method that works more than 90% of the time – condoms (the AHF’s preferred preventive measure).

In that sense, the AHF has a point to its accusations. The 40-50% risk reduction is highly contingent upon adherence, which is critical in the treatment of HIV. HIV-positive patients who do not adhere to antiretroviral (ARV) schedules are at high risk for the development of drug resistance, which is also sexually transmissible. Now if those who need ARVs to keep them alive have adherence problems, it’s unlikely to expect it from HIV-negative individuals whose lives aren’t dependent on taking these drugs, also known as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PreP). There is an accountability issue here. How do we enforce to people that, if they don’t take PreP as scheduled, they can both contract HIV and greatly increase the risk of becoming resistant to a number of key HIV drugs? As the question seems to have no workable answer, therapeutic options may be limited. Also, as aforementioned, certain resistance mutations can be sexually transmitted, which adds to the public health risk. Furthermore, administration of PreP will require consistent monitoring to A) make certain that patients are taking the drug to avoid the development of drug resistance and B) keep an eye on kidney toxicity associated with tenofovir (one of the nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors [NRTIs] in Truvada). Physicians are trying to eventually move away from using NRTIs because of the toxicity profiles associated with long-term exposure. So while treatments are very effective, the related safety risks add another plausible argument to oppose PreP from a patient, physician or payer perspective.

All in all, even if Truvada is approved, the payers will shut down any real commercial opportunities because they will refuse to cover it. There may be special exceptions, such as use in serodiscordant couples, but for the most part this will be something that people will likely have to pay for out of pocket.
Posted on: 3/14/2012 4:21:49 PM | with 0 comments

Tags: Allison Thrower, Infectious Disease, LaTese Briggs

Trackback URL: http://decisionresources.com/trackback/b1d1a54c-0fb2-4c6f-9b4d-9ced91465d59/Payers-Will-Have-the-Final-Say-over-PreP.aspx?culture=en-us

Blog post currently doesn't have any comments.
Leave comment Subscribe

What is the abbreviation for Accountable Care Organization?


rss twitter linkedin


DRugwatch Blog

Quick insight on intriguing drug market developments from Decision Resources’ analysts.

Recent posts

Post title:
The Budgetary Impact of Diabetic Comorbidities in Brazil and Mexico - How Little is Being Done to Measure and Control It
Post date:
8/31/2015 10:48:39 AM
Post Summary:
The type 2 diabetes (T2D) therapy market is often tied to a high commercial opportunity. Indeed, when we look at key Latin American markets such as Brazil and Mexico -- each with over 14 million prevalent cases of T2D and growing, and Mexico with one of the highest prevalence rates in the world -- it is unsurprising that Brazil’s and Mexico’s total pharmaceutical market for type 2 diabetes rival the size of some of the more mature markets.

Post title:
2015 ESC Congress in London – Overview of Upcoming Hot Line Sessions
Post date:
7/2/2015 11:57:46 PM
Post Summary:
Conor WalshContributor: Conor Walsh M.Sc., Ph.D.
Topics: Conference Commentary, Cardiovascular

This year’s ESC congress will take place in the Excel Exhibition Centre in London, United Kingdom. The spotlight this year is “environment and the heart,” highlighting the many different kinds of interactions between the environment and cardiovascular diseases.

Post title:
FDA Approval for The Medicines Company’s Intravenous Antiplatelet Kengreal
Post date:
6/23/2015 1:22:54 PM
Post Summary:
Conor WalshContributors: Conor Walsh, M.Sc., Ph.D.
Topics: Cardiovascular

On June 22nd, 2015 the U.S. FDA approved Kengreal (cangrelor), the Medicines Company’s intravenous antiplatelet drug for use “as an adjunct to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for reducing the risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction, repeat coronary revascularization, and stent thrombosis in patients in who have not been treated with a P2Y12 platelet inhibitor and are not being given a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor.”

Post title:
Hematological Malignancies: Are Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Checking-in?
Post date:
6/17/2015 9:32:42 AM
Post Summary:
Contributor: Dana Gheorghe, Ph.D
: Conference Commentary, Oncology

Recent years have seen an added emphasis on the relationship between cancer and the activity of the immune system. Novel agents that aim to harness the immune system have already been approved in the U.S. for solid tumors (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Ono Pharmaceutical’s Opdivo [nivolumab] for NSCLC and malignant melanoma, and Merck & Co.’s Keytruda [pembrolizumab] for malignant melanoma), and are in development for a plethora of other oncology indications. Most of the development has been targeted towards solid tumors, but the potential of immune checkpoint inhibitors in hematological malignancies is becoming increasingly evident.

Post title:
Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials Answer Long-Asked Questions – But New Questions Arise
Post date:
6/12/2015 10:26:05 AM
Post Summary:
Contributor: Eamonn O'Connor, Ph.D.

The recent American Diabetes Association’s 75th Scientific Sessions in Boston saw the release of data from the ELIXA cardiovascular outcomes trial (CVOT) for lixisenatide (Sanofi/Zealand Pharma’s Lyxumia), the first such trial completed for the GLP-1 receptor agonist drug class. However, it was the publication of the data from the CVOT for sitagliptin (Merck’s Januvia/Ono’s Glactiv), known as TECOS1, that was most eagerly anticipated; this is because the previous CVOTs for saxagliptin (AstraZeneca’s Onglyza) and alogliptin (Takeda/Furiex’s Nesina/Vipidia) had raised significant concerns about a potential risk for increased rates of hospitalization due to heart failure. The results from TECOS therefore, were viewed as pivotal as to whether this risk was a feature specific to the DPP-IV inhibitor drug class.

Decision Resources Group brands include: