company:gilead sciences

  • Comment #Big_Pharma pénalise-t-il le traitement de l’épidémie des opiacés ? - Actualité Houssenia Writing
    https://actualite.housseniawriting.com/sante/2017/08/09/comment-big-pharma-penalise-t-il-le-traitement-de-lepidemie-des-opiaces/23013

    Traduction d’un article de The Conversation par Robin Feldman, professeure de propriété intellectuelle à l’université de Californie.

    Les grandes entreprises pharmacologiques (Big Pharma) utilisent de nombreuses tactiques pour retarder l’arrivée des #génériques et on peut prendre l’exemple des traitements contre l’épidémie des #opiacés.

    • En 2015, 80 % de la croissance des bénéfices des 20 plus grandes entreprises technologiques provenaient de l’augmentation des prix. Et les médicaments aux États-Unis sont largement plus chers que dans d’autres pays. Par exemple, le Syprine, un médicament contre l’insuffisante hépatique, coute moins de 400 dollars pour un an de traitement dans de nombreux pays. Aux États-Unis, ce médicament coute 300 000 dollars. Sovaldi, le médicament contre l’hépatite C de Gilead, coute environ 1 000 dollars à l’étranger. Aux États-Unis, il coute 84 000 dollars.

      Il faudra un motif d’inculpation pour trainer les gens qui décident cela devant la justice. Un truc du genre crime contre l’humanité.

    • Un des aspects intéressants des câbles diplomatiques américains, publiés par Wikileaks, c’était justement qu’une des activités principales des ambassades ricaines dans monde consiste à défendre les intérêts des grands groupes pharmaceutiques américaines.

      Par exemple (quasiment au hasard), ce câble de 2005 à ce sujet au Brésil :
      https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/05BRASILIA1567_a.html

      1. (C) Summary. Ambassador Hugueney of Brazil’s Foreign Ministry (Itamaraty) told Ambassador June 6 that U.S. pharmaceutical companies should improve their offers on pricing and/or voluntary licenses for AIDS treatment drugs so as to avoid compulsory licensing by the Ministry of Health (MoH). Hugueney believed movement in the Chamber of Deputies of legislation that would deny patentability to AIDS drugs was likely intended to provide greater leverage to the Ministry of Health in its negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies. The bill’s broad political backing, he observed, makes a presidential veto unlikely should the legislation pass. On the WTO Doha Round of trade negotiations, Hugueney said Brazil will submit a “substantially improved” revised services offer the week of June 6. Hugueney expects to take up the post of Brazil’s Ambassador to the WTO by late August or early September. Hugueney confirmed Brazil’s plan to attend the June 21 to 22 US-EU International Conference on Iraq. End Summary.

      2. (SBU) On June 6, Ambassador met with Clodoaldo Hugueney, Itamaraty’s Under Secretary for Economic and Technological Affairs, to discuss a number of trade issues, principally, pending legislation that would render drugs to prevent and treat AIDS un-patentable, and the continuing threat of compulsory licensing facing the U.S. pharmaceutical companies Gilead Sciences, Abbott Laboratories, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme for their AIDS treatment drugs (ref A). Hugueney was accompanied by his assistant, Miguel Franco, and Otavio Brandelli, Chief of the Ministry’s IPR Division. Ecouns, Commoff, and Econoff accompanied Ambassador.

      AIDS Drugs - Compulsory License Threat and Patent Legislation

      3. (C) Hugueney, who had just returned from Doha negotiations in Geneva, said Itamaraty is following MoH negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies closely and described them as boiling down to issues of pricing or voluntary license/royalty payments. He noted the intense pressure the GoB is under from civil society, particularly NGOs, to issue compulsory licenses. Hugueney agreed the best outcome would be to avoid compulsory licenses, but opined that to do so would require improved offers on price or voluntary licensing from the companies. (Upon relaying this message to the companies, the Merck representative here told us his company was in the process of preparing a more detailed offer, although he did not say that it would be more forthcoming on prices. As for Gilead and Abbott, they have taken Hugueney’s suggestion “under advisement.”) Hugueney further advised the companies to maintain a dialog with the MoH to forestall precipitous, politically motivated action by that Ministry, and encouraged them to explain/present their proposals to a wide array of GoB interlocutors.

  • “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” Goldman Sachs analysts ask | Ars Technica
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/curing-disease-not-a-sustainable-business-model-goldman-sachs-analysts-

    One-shot cures for diseases are not great for business—more specifically, they’re bad for longterm profits—Goldman Sachs analysts noted in an April 10 report for biotech clients, first reported by CNBC.

    The investment banks’ report, titled “The Genome Revolution,” asks clients the touchy question: “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” The answer may be “no,” according to follow-up information provided.

    Analyst Salveen Richter and colleagues laid it out:

    The potential to deliver “one shot cures” is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically engineered cell therapy, and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies... While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.

    For a real-world example, they pointed to Gilead Sciences, which markets treatments for hepatitis C that have cure rates exceeding 90 percent. In 2015, the company’s hepatitis C treatment sales peaked at $12.5 billion. But as more people were cured and there were fewer infected individuals to spread the disease, sales began to languish. Goldman Sachs analysts estimate that the treatments will bring in less than $4 billion this year.

    “[Gilead]’s rapid rise and fall of its hepatitis C franchise highlights one of the dynamics of an effective drug that permanently cures a disease, resulting in a gradual exhaustion of the prevalent pool of patients,” the analysts wrote. The report noted that diseases such as common cancers—where the “incident pool remains stable”—are less risky for business.

  • Goldman Sachs report : « Is curing patients a sustainable business model ? » / Boing Boing
    https://boingboing.net/2018/04/14/shared-microbial-destiny.html
    Soigner les pauvres est seulement rentable s’ils demeurent malades.

    In Goldman Sachs’s April 10 report, “The Genome Revolution,” its analysts ponder the rise of biotech companies who believe they will develop “one-shot” cures for chronic illnesses; in a moment of rare public frankness, the report’s authors ask, “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?”

    The authors were apparently spooked by the tale of Gilead Sciences, who developed a Hepatitis C therapy that is more than 90% effective, making $12.5B in 2015 — the year of the therapy’s release — a number that fell to $4B this year.

    The analysts are making a commonsense observation: capitalism is incompatible with human flourishing. Markets will not, on their own, fund profoundly effective cures for diseases that destroy our lives and families. This is a very strong argument for heavily taxing the profits of pharma companies’ investors and other one percenters, and then turning the money over to publicly funded scientific research that eschews all patents, and which is made available for free under the terms of the Access To Medicines treaty, whereby any country that devotes a set fraction of its GDP to pharma research gets free access to the fruits of all the other national signatories.

    Humans have shared microbial destiny. If there’s one thing that challenges the extreme libertarian conception of owing nothing to your neighbor save the equilibrium established by your mutual selfishness, it’s epidemiology. Your right to swing your fist ends where it connects with my nose; your right to create or sustain reservoirs of pathogens that will likely kill some or all of your neighbors is likewise subject to their willingness to tolerate your recklessness.

    Goldman Sachs’s analysts suggest three “cures” for the problem of one-shot cures; and taxing the rich to fund socialized pharma research isn’t among them; rather, they propose eschewing rare diseases, to ensure that the pool of patients is large enough to produce a return on their investment, or developing one-shot cures fast enough to “offset the declining revenue trajectory of prior assets.”

    #capitalisme #santé

  • Gilead offers Egypt new hepatitis C drug at 99 percent discount | Reuters
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/21/us-hepatitis-egypt-gilead-sciences-idUSBREA2K1VF20140321

    Gilead Sciences, facing mounting criticism over the high price of its new hepatitis C pill Sovaldi, has offered to supply the medicine to Egypt at a 99 percent discount to the U.S. price.

    While the drug will still cost $900 for a 12-week course of treatment, that is a fraction of the $84,000 charged for a course of treatment in the United States.

    The high price tag in America prompted questions from U.S. lawmakers on Friday, after U.S. health insurers said they were seeking help from state health officials to foot the bill.

  • Gilead to Share 4 AIDS and Hepatitis Drugs With Patent Pool - NYTimes.com
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/health/12global.html?_r=1

    In the first agreement between a pharmaceutical company and the new international Medicines Patent Pool, Gilead Sciences announced Tuesday that it would license four of its AIDS and hepatitis B drugs to the pool.
    (...)
    “This is a great achievement,” said James P. Love, a campaigner for lower drug prices who first proposed a pool in 2002. “The other drug companies didn’t want Gilead to sign anything, and this will put pressure on them.”

    #santé #pharma #brevets

  • Protéger la propriété intellectuelle américaine sur les médicaments au Brésil. #Sida #médicaments

    http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/08/09BRASILIA1017.html

    ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: In July, the Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) rejected a patent application by California-based Gilead Sciences for its HIV drug Viread (scientific name: tenofovir). During a trip to Brazil to discuss the case with GOB officials, senior Gilead representatives briefed Econ and Commercial officers on August 6 in Brasilia. The patent rejection (which INPI told Gilead was “purely technical” but accompanied by “lots of pressure” from the Ministry of Health) could be the final step in allowing generic production of tenofovir, since the Ministry of Health (MOH) has already declared tenofovir to be a drug of public interest (April 2008) and established an inter-ministerial group to oversee the development of domestic production capacity (May 2009). More broadly, the decision carries troubling indications for the protection of innovative pharmaceutical products in Brazil. END SUMMARY.

    ¶9. (SBU) The Viread decision (and the signs of political pressure applied by MOH) raises new questions about the protection of intellectual property in the pharmaceutical sector in Brazil, where the Health Ministry’s apparent “industrial policy” approach to the health care sector has not been countered by other, more pro-IP/pro-innovation voices within GOB. Based on decisions from patent authorities around the world, Viread’s scientific case seems strong. INPI’s admission of MOH pressure calls into question the “purely technical” nature of this decision and, more broadly, the strength and independence of Brazil’s patent regime.

    ¶10. (SBU) Compulsory licensing has been a topic of much discussion since Brazil’s 2007 decision to issue a compulsory license for Merck’s HIV drug Stocrin (scientific name: efavirenz) and will continue to be so. However, Brazil’s current stance against patents for incremental innovation in pharmaceuticals could have equally damaging results. Political pressure to reject patent applications for legitimately innovative drugs could be a new front in Brazil’s push to cut health costs and bolster its generic drug industry, but will ultimately damage innovation and competitiveness. The USG has opportunities to engage on these issues with MRE (through the Economic Partnership Dialogue, the Bilateral Consultative Mechanism, and the Joint Consultative Mechanism[JCM]), MDIC (through the Commercial Dialogue), the Ministry of Science and Technology (which will lead the delegation to the next JCM), and through direct dialogue with the Brazilian Congress. Continuing to press innovation/competitiveness themes and raise their profile within the spectrum of stake-holder agencies will remain an important part of the strategy to affect progress on intellectual property protection in Brazil. END COMMENT. KUBISKE