An analysis of volumes, prices and pricing trends of the pediatric antiretroviral market in developing countries from 2004 to 2012.

BACKGROUND: The pediatric antiretroviral (ARV) market is poorly described in the literature, resulting in gaps in understanding treatment access. We analyzed the pediatric ARV market from 2004 to 2012 and assessed pricing trends and associated factors. METHODS: Data on donor funded procurements of pediatric ARV formulations reported to the Global Price Reporting Mechanism database from 2004 to 2012 were analyzed. Outcomes of interest were the volume and mean price per patient-year ARV formulation based on WHO ARV dosing recommendations for a 10 kg child. Factors associated with the price of formulations were assessed using linear regression; potential predictors included: country income classification, geographical region, market segment (originator versus generic ARVs), and number of manufacturers per formulation. All analyses were adjusted for type of formulations (single, dual or triple fixed-dose combinations (FDCs)) RESULTS: Data from 111 countries from 2004 to 2012 were included, with procurement of 33 formulations at a total value of USD 204 million. Use of dual and triple FDC formulations increased substantially over time, but with limited changes in price. Upon multivariate analysis, prices of originator formulations were found to be on average 72 % higher than generics (p < 0.001). A 10 % increase in procurement volume was associated with a 1 % decrease (p < 0.001) in both originator and generic prices. The entry of one additional manufacturer producing a formulation was associated with a decrease in prices of 2 % (p < 0.001) and 8 % (p < 0.001) for originator and generic formulations, respectively. The mean generic ARV price did not differ by country income level. Prices of originator ARVs were 48 % (p < 0.001) and 14 % (p < 0.001) higher in upper-middle income and lower-middle income countries compared to low income countries respectively, with the exception of South Africa, which had lower prices despite being an upper-middle income country. CONCLUSIONS: The donor funded pediatric ARV market as represented by the GPRM database is small, and lacks price competition. It is dominated by generic drugs due to the lower prices offered and the practicality of FDC formulations. This market requires continued donor support and the current initiatives to protect it are important to ensure market viability, especially if new formulations are to be introduced in the future.

Review of the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of elvitegravir with an emphasis on resource-limited settings.

Integrase inhibitors represent an important new class of antiretroviral drugs. Elvitegravir, the second available integrase inhibitor to be submitted for regulatory approval appears to be a promising once-daily agent when combined with other antiretroviral drugs. Elvitegravir has demonstrated good efficacy and safety, with minimal side effects and no specific requirements in terms of laboratory monitoring. In addition, elvitegravir is available as a fixed-dose combination. However, the drug requires boosting and this leads to a number of drug-drug interactions and necessary dose adjustment when dosing with certain drugs, including dose reduction in the presence of atazanavir, lopinavir, rifabutin, and ketoconazole, and dose increase for ethinyl estradiol when co-administered with boosted elvitegravir. The main advantage of elvitegravir lies in its potential to be administered as a once-daily, single pill. Limitations include dose adjustment requirements, a relatively low genetic barrier to resistance, high price, and lack of data for use in children. Clinical trials addressing specific challenges encountered in resources-limited settings should be encouraged.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenomics of once-daily raltegravir and atazanavir in healthy volunteers.

Atazanavir inhibits UDP-glucuronyl-transferase-1A1 (UGT1A1), which metabolizes raltegravir, but the magnitude of steady-state inhibition and role of the UGT1A1 genotype are unknown. Sufficient inhibition could lead to reduced-dose and -cost raltegravir regimens. Nineteen healthy volunteers, age 24 to 51 years, took raltegravir 400 mg twice daily (arm A) and 400 mg plus atazanavir 400 mg once daily (arm B), separated by ≥3 days, in a crossover design. After 1 week on each regimen, raltegravir and raltegravir-glucuronide plasma and urine concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry in multiple samples obtained over 12 h (arm A) or 24 h (arm B) and analyzed by noncompartmental methods. UGT1A1 promoter variants were detected with a commercially available kit and published primers. The primary outcome was the ratio of plasma raltegravir C(tau), or concentration at the end of the dosing interval, for arm B (24 h) versus arm A (12 h). The arm B-to-arm A geometric mean ratios (95% confidence interval, P value) for plasma raltegravir C(tau), area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC(0-12)), and raltegravir-glucuronide/raltegravir AUC(0-12) were 0.38 (0.22 to 0.65, 0.001), 1.32 (0.62 to 2.81, 0.45), and 0.47 (0.38 to 0.59, <0.001), respectively. Nine volunteers were heterozygous and one was homozygous for a UGT1A1 reduction-of-function allele, but these were not associated with metabolite formation. Although atazanavir significantly reduced the formation of the glucuronide metabolite, its steady-state boosting of plasma raltegravir did not render the C(tau) with a once-daily raltegravir dose of 400 mg similar to the C(tau) with the standard twice-daily dose. UGT1A1 promoter variants did not significantly influence this interaction.