Dataset Information

Minimum Manufacturing Costs, National Prices, and Estimated Global Availability of New Repurposed Therapies for Coronavirus Disease 2019.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Currently, only dexamethasone, tocilizumab, and sarilumab have conclusively been shown to reduce mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Safe and effective treatments will need to be both affordable and widely available globally to be used alongside vaccination programs. This analysis will estimate and compare potential generic minimum costs of a selection of approved COVID-19 drug candidates with available international list prices.

Methods

We searched for repurposed drugs that have been approved by at least one of the World Health Organization, US Food and Drug Administration, or the United Kingdom National Institute of Health and Care Excellence organizations or at least given emergency use authorization or recommended for off-label prescription. Drug prices were searched for dexamethasone, budesonide, baricitinib, tocilizumab, casirivimab, and imdevimab, and sarilumab, using active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) data extracted from global shipping records. This was compared with national pricing data from a range of low-, medium-, and high-income countries. Annual API export volumes from India were used to estimate the current availability of each drug.

Results

Repurposed therapies can be generically manufactured for some treatments at very low per-course costs, ranging from US $2.58 for intravenous (IV) dexamethasone (or US $0.19 orally) and US $4.34 for inhaled budesonide. No export price data were available for baricitinib, tocilizumab, casirivimab, and imdevimab, or sarilumab, but courses of these treatments have higher prices, ranging from US $6.67 for baricitinib to US $875.5 for sarilumab. When comparing international list prices, we found wide variations between countries.

Conclusions

Successful management of COVID-19 will require equitable access to treatment for all populations, not just those able to pay high prices. Dexamethasone and budesonide are widely available and affordable, whereas monoclonal antibodies and IV treatment courses are more expensive.

SUBMITTER: Wang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8709896 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe burden of diabetes is growing worldwide. The costs associated with diabetes put substantial pressure on patients and health budgets, especially in low- and middle-income countries. The prices of diabetes medicines are a key determinant for access, yet little is known about the association between manufacturing costs and current market prices.ObjectivesTo estimate the cost of manufacturing insulins, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2Is), and glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists (GLP1As), derive sustainable cost-based prices (CBPs), and compare these with current market prices.Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic evaluation, the cost of manufacturing insulins, SGLT2Is, and GLP1As was modeled. Active pharmaceutical ingredient cost per unit (weighted least-squares regression model using data from a commercial database of trade shipments, data from January 1, 2016, to March 31, 2023) was combined with costs of formulation and other operating expenses, plus a profit margin with an allowance for tax, to estimate CBPs. Cost-based prices were compared with current prices in 13 countries, collected in January 2023 from public databases. Countries were selected to provide representation of different income levels and geographic regions based on the availability of public databases.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated CBPs; lowest current market prices (2023 US dollars).ResultsIn this economic evaluation of manufacturing costs, estimated CBPs for treatment with insulin in a reusable pen device could be as low as $96 (human insulin) or $111 (insulin analogues) per year for a basal-bolus regimen, $61 per year using twice-daily injections of mixed human insulin, and $50 (human insulin) or $72 (insulin analogues) per year for a once-daily basal insulin injection (for type 2 diabetes), including the cost of injection devices and needles. Cost-based prices ranged from $1.30 to $3.45 per month for SGLT2Is (except canagliflozin: $25.00-$46.79) and from $0.75 to $72.49 per month for GLP1As. These CBPs were substantially lower than current prices in the 13 countries surveyed.Conclusions and relevanceHigh prices limit access to newer diabetes medicines in many countries. The findings of this study suggest that robust generic and biosimilar competition could reduce prices to more affordable levels and enable expansion of diabetes treatment globally.

Project description:BackgroundAccess to affordable and good quality medicines is a key to meeting Sustainable Development Goal No. 3 by the year 2030. Prices, availability and affordability of essential medicines have been studied in many developing countries, but no such information has been published about Rwanda yet. This study aimed at providing data on prices, availability and affordability of medicines in different health facilities of Rwanda.MethodsA survey was carried out on availability, prices and affordability of 18 medicines in Kigali City and five districts of Rwanda. 44 health facilities were surveyed, including public and faith-based hospitals, public and faith-based health centers and private pharmacies. The standardized methodology developed by WHO and Health Action International (HAI) was used to collect and analyze the data.FindingsPrices for generic medicines in public and faith-based health facilities were remarkably low, with median price ratios (MPRs) of 1.0 in comparison to the international procurement prices published by Management Sciences for Health. In private pharmacies, prices were twice as high (MPR = 1.99 for generics). Availability of medicines fell short of the of 80% target set by WHO, but was better than reported from many other developing countries. Availability of medicines was highest in the private sector (71.3%) and slightly lower in the faith-based (62.8%) and public (59.6%) sectors. The government procurement agency was found to work efficiently, achieving prices 30% below the international procurement price given in the International Medical Product Price Guide. Affordability of medicines was better in the public and faith-based sectors than in the private sector.ConclusionIn Rwanda, medicines are affordable but poorly available in both the public and the faith-based sectors. Further improvements of the availability of medicines in the public and the faith-based health facilities represent the most important key to increase accessibility and affordability of medicines in Rwanda.

Project description:BackgroundThe surge of critically ill patients due to the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) overwhelmed critical care capacity in areas of northern Italy. Anesthesia machines have been used as alternatives to traditional ICU mechanical ventilators. However, the outcomes for patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure cared for with Anesthesia Machines is currently unknow. We hypothesized that COVID-19 patients receiving care with Anesthesia Machines would have worse outcomes compared to standard practice.MethodsWe designed a retrospective study of patients admitted with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis at a large tertiary urban hospital in northern Italy. Two care units were included: a 27-bed standard ICU and a 15-bed temporary unit emergently opened in an operating room setting. Intubated patients assigned to Anesthesia Machines (AM group) were compared to a control cohort treated with standard mechanical ventilators (ICU-VENT group). Outcomes were assessed at 60-day follow-up. A multivariable Cox regression analysis of risk factors between survivors and non-survivors was conducted to determine the adjusted risk of death for patients assigned to AM group.ResultsComplete daily data from 89 mechanically ventilated patients consecutively admitted to the two units were analyzed. Seventeen patients were included in the AM group, whereas 72 were in the ICU-VENT group. Disease severity and intensity of treatment were comparable between the two groups. The 60-day mortality was significantly higher in the AM group compared to the ICU-vent group (12/17 vs. 27/72, 70.6% vs. 37.5%, respectively, p = 0.016). Allocation to AM group was associated with a significantly increased risk of death after adjusting for covariates (HR 4.05, 95% CI: 1.75-9.33, p = 0.001). Several incidents and complications were reported with Anesthesia Machine care, raising safety concerns.ConclusionsOur results support the hypothesis that care associated with the use of Anesthesia Machines is inadequate to provide long-term critical care to patients with COVID-19. Added safety risks must be considered if no other option is available to treat severely ill patients during the ongoing pandemic.Clinical Trial NumberNot applicable.