CVS Caremark Plays Kicks-the-Can on Yeztugo; Undermines HIV Prevention Efforts

By: Ranier Simons, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor

Benjamin Franklin is credited with the phrase, ‘An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.’ In simple terms, it is easier to prevent a negative outcome from happening than to expend energy repairing damage that has already occurred. This is especially true regarding HIV. Given that there is currently no cure for the virus, it is imperative to prevent HIV transmission. Recent innovations, especially long-acting injectable agents, have expanded the toolbox of HIV prevention. Consequently, the mere existence of life-saving tools is not beneficial if the people who need them are denied access. CVS Caremark recently announced that it will not be adding coverage for Yeztugo (lenacapavir), Gilead Sciences' bi-annual HIV PrEP injectable, to its commercial plans (Beasley, 2025).

Pharma.com | The Economic Times

Yeztugo was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2025, following the successful outcomes of its Phase 3 clinical trials, PURPOSE 1 and PURPOSE 2. Approximately 99.9% of participants remained HIV negative, proving Yeztugo in the trial to be more effective than daily Truvada administered as PrEP (Gilead, 2025). Out of the 2,179 participants in the PURPOSE 2 trial, only two people contracted HIV.

Medicare, Veterans’ Administration, and some Medicaid plans are already covering Yeztugo. In contrast, CVS Caremark has stated that it will not cover the drug in its commercial plans, nor in any of its Affordable Care Act (ACA) formularies. CVS follows the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for HIV prevention medications. Presently, USPSTF only recommends daily Truvada (Gilead), Descovy (Gilead), and the bimonthly injectable Apretude (ViiV). Prevention measures recommended by the USPSTF must be covered without any patient cost-sharing. Many in the HIV care community are concerned about Yeztugo ever being recommended by the USPSTF, given the current paradigm of the embattled JFK Jr.-led U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (Beasley, 2025).

Photo Source: Metro Weekly

In a statement emailed to the publication Fierce Pharma, a CVS spokesperson explained, “As is typical with new-to-market products, we undergo a careful review of clinical, financial, and regulatory considerations, under the guidance of our external Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee of independent medical experts” (Kansteiner, 2025). Given that Medicare, Veterans’ Administration, and some state Medicaid plans (including California and New York) are already covering Yeztugo, and it has had stellar results in its clinical trials, it is unclear what clinical, financial, and regulatory considerations are of concern. Those in the HIV care community feel CVS’s decision is based on Yeztugo’s list price of $28,000 per year for the two injections. The average lifetime cost of treating a person living with HIV ranges from $420,285.00 to over $1 million (Bingham et al., 2021). Thus, in the long term, preventative treatment would appear cost-effective.

Notably, CVS Caremark is currently embroiled in legal disputes. Chief Judge Mitchell Goldberg, a Philadelphia federal judge, issued a ruling ordering CVS Caremark to pay a $289.9 million judgment for fraudulent prescription drug charges to Medicare. Initially, the penalty issued was $95 million (Stempel, 2025). In 2014, a former head actuary for Medicare Part D at Aetna initiated a whistleblower case, accusing CVS Caremark of causing health insurers to file false and inflated claims to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), while paying Rite Aid and Walgreens pharmacies less. The judge explained that CVS knowingly manipulated drug pricing to its financial benefit. Due to the motivations and intent of CVS, Judge Goldberg, using the False Claims Act, tripled the $95 million and added a $4.87 million civil fine. 

CVS is being admonished for causing fiscal harm to the government via CMS, as well as weakening public trust in the CMS. Judge Goldberg wrote, “CMS relies on companies like Caremark to truthfully and accurately report Part D drug prices," he wrote. "Caremark's conduct broke CMS's trust, and as a result, the public's trust in CMS." In the decision, Judge Goldberg specifically spelled out, “ Caremark devised a scheme to earn hidden spread or indirect profit on Part D purchases, and in the process, caused CMS to over-subsidize prescription drug costs to the tune of some $95 million. When CMS and other industry participants asked questions, Caremark consistently concealed the true nature of its scheme”. In addition to this case, CVS is appealing a separate $948.8 million judgment against its Omnicare unit, issued by a Manhattan federal judge in July, over allegations of fraudulent billing.

Photo Source: Review of Optometric Business

This pattern of profit-motivated questionable behavior is additional reasoning for why CVS’s initial decision not to cover Yeztugo is causing concern among many stakeholder groups. Yeztugo is a way to ensure adherence, given that it is only administered twice a year. It is crucial to increase the possibility of preventing HIV acquisition among those at high risk, not reduce it. Prevention reduces health care expenditures for the system and the individual. 

Stakeholders like Brian Hujdich, Executive Director at HealthHIV, explain the quandary: “It’s hard to reconcile Franklin’s wisdom together with CVS’s decision. Long-acting PrEP injectables could prevent unnecessary transmission, medical costs, and sick days, while reducing the time and effort required to stay protected. They can also help minimize situations where stigma commonly shows up — whether internal, like the stress of daily pill-taking, or external, like repeated pharmacy pickups and clinic visits — while supporting people to stay healthy.”

[1] Beasley, D. (2025, August 21). CVS holds off adding Gilead’s new HIV prevention shot to drug coverage lists. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/cvs-holds-off-adding-gileads-new-hiv-prevention-shot-drug-coverage-lists-2025-08-20/

[2] Bingham, A., Shrestha, R. K., Khurana, N., Jacobson, E. U., & Farnham, P. G. (2021). Estimated Lifetime HIV-Related Medical Costs in the United States. Sexually transmitted diseases, 48(4), 299–304. https://doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001366

[3] Gilead Sciences. (2025, June 18). Press Release: Yeztugo® (Lenacapavir) Is Now the First and Only FDA-Approved HIV Prevention Option Offering 6 Months of Protection. Retrieved from https://www.gilead.com/news/news-details/2025/yeztugo-lenacapavir-is-now-the-first-and-only-fda-approved-hiv-prevention-option-offering-6-months-of-protection#:~:text=In%20the%20PURPOSE%202%20trial,with%20once%2Ddaily%20oral%20Truvada

[4] Kansteiner, F. (2025, August 21). For now, CVS declines to cover Gilead's long-acting HIV PrEP treatment Yeztugo. Retrieved from https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/now-cvs-declines-cover-gileads-twice-yearly-hiv-prep-treatment-yeztugo

[5] Stempel, J. (2025, August 20). CVS unit must pay $290 million in drug whistleblower lawsuit, judge rules. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/cvs-unit-must-pay-290-million-drug-whistleblower-lawsuit-judge-rules-2025-08-20/#:~:text=In%20a%20Tuesday%

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.   

HIV Advocates Worry About the Unintended Consequences of the Inflation Reduction Act

By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Executive Director, Appalachian Learning Initiative

Advocates across the HIV patient, provider, and pharmaceutical sectors are sounding the alarm about the potential for provisions within the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 to have unintended consequences for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). Specifically, advocates, including ADAP Advocacy, are concerned that Sections 11001 and 11002—the sections that establish the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program that will give the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) the ability to negotiate maximum fair prices (MFPs) for certain high expenditure, single source drugs and biologic products—will stifle innovation, limit the selection of antiretroviral (ARV) medications for PLWHA, and create new barriers for PLWHA attempting to access medications to treat other conditions as PLWHA continue to age while living with the disease.

Photo Rights Purchased via iStock

Aside from restricting access to medications, there are other concerns. One of the primary arguments being made is that the setting of MFPs for ARV medications may inadvertently have a negative impact on AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) revenues generated by the 340B Drug Pricing Program.

For the uninitiated, 340B is a federal pricing program that requires pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs to covered entities—including ADAPs—at the lowest possible price. Pharmacies then sell those drugs to outpatients and receive rebates for the difference between the drug’s list price and the lowest possible price. The rebates are considered “revenues,” and are used to sustain operations by many AIDS Service Organizations’ and HIV clinics. (Editor's Note: Learn more about the 340B Program)

When MFPs are set, these rebates may, depending upon the medications in questions, leave pharmacies purchasing drugs at significantly lower “best prices” or even “penny prices,” where the total 340B discounts are greater than the MFP set for the drug and pharmacies are required to purchase the drugs for $0.01. This means that the rebate amount for those drugs would actually end up costing the pharmacy money to sell the medications, thus disincentivizing them from carrying the drugs, at all (Newton, 2024).

Right now, the MFPs would only apply to drugs covered by the Medicare program, and it is unknown how or if MFPs would have any direct impacts on ADAPs. However, as PLWHA continue to live relatively healthy lives into their later years, they will become eligible for Medicare. Once ADAP recipients become eligible for Medicare, they must enroll in Medicare Part D, and ADAPs can help clients with Part D plan-related co-pays, deductibles, and premiums.

A secondary concern related to MFPs is that placing price controls (in this case, MFPs) will disincentivize drugmakers from continuing to innovate (i.e., develop new treatments, potential vaccines, and potential cures) by limiting the profits they can make from their products. There is evidence to suggest it is already happening.

Section 11001 also instituted Prescription Drug Inflation Rebates, a mechanism by which drug manufacturers are required to issue rebates to CMS for brand name drugs without generic equivalents that cost $100 or more per year per patient and for which those manufacturers increase the prices of those drugs faster than the rate of inflation. Section 11002 goes further, requiring manufacturers that fail to comply with civil penalties (i.e., financial fines).

The issue with attempting to convince consumers that these provisions of the IRA will have negative impacts on the pharmaceutical market—and thus for patients—is that these provisions are broadly popular across the political spectrum. A majority of consumers have consistently been in favor of multiple approaches to lowering drug prices, with the Kaiser Family Foundation finding that 88% of respondents supporting the institution of price increase caps and 88% being in favor of forcing drug manufacturers to negotiate drug prices with the government for Medicare (Figure 1). In fact, majorities of patients across the political spectrum have reported being in favor of expanding these provisions beyond Medicare (Figure 2).

Figure 1 - Before the Inflation Reduction Act, There Was Broad Support to Many Approaches to Lowering Drug Costs

Photo Source: KFF

(Source: Sparks, Kirzinger, Montero, Valdes, & Hamel, 2024)

Figure 2 - Majorities of Voters Across Partisanship Support Proposals to Expand IRA Provisions Beyond Those With Medicare

Photo Source: KFF

(Source: Sparks, Kirzinger, Montero, Valdes, & Hamel, 2024)

Drug manufacturers and other experts across the healthcare industry, however, have consistently argued that the financial impacts of these types of measures are not conducive to continuing their investments in research and development for new drugs, and will force them to reevaluate their expenditures in continuing to innovate and bring new drugs to the market, as well as force them to make tough choices about which medications to continue making (Chen, 2024).

Part of what makes these arguments difficult to explain is the significant opacity as it relates to exactly how manufacturers determine the list prices of their medications in the United States and what percentage of that list price is actually paid by providers, insurers, and patients.

In general, American consumers are broadly unaware of how the United States healthcare system actually works. From the consumer perspective, the only concerns they tend to take into account are if and when they can see their doctors, whether or not the medications prescribed to them will work, and whether or not they can afford the costs of healthcare services and their prescription drugs. While this may seem like simple concerns, each of these steps along the way is fraught with multiple complex cost considerations behind the scenes.

From determining which physicians are “in-network” vs. “out-of-network,” to which services are covered, to whether or not a drug is included on a formulary, and what the out-of-pocket costs are to patients, every step includes complex price negotiations between public and private insurers, the providers, and drug manufacturers to which patients are both unaware and unallowed to evaluate due to trade secrets laws that protect how list prices and negotiated prices are determined.

Moreover, insurers, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and manufacturers are not forthcoming with how these prices are established. This leaves both consumers and legislators to attempt to figure out these issues without being provided with a full picture of the greater healthcare ecosystem.

The MFPs and penalties for price increases above inflation, while popular with consumers and many legislators, may ultimately end up making the costs associated with developing, testing, branding, getting approval for, marketing to consumers, and selling prescription medications so cost prohibitive that manufacturers will simply decide to slow down the pace of innovation or to exit the market entirely.

An example of this can be directly seen in the decision by Novo Nordisk to discontinue Levemir (insulin detemir) in the United States. Levemir is basal insulin product that is widely used by some patients with Type 2 diabetes and Type 1 patients who are teens, athletes, or pregnant due to its short-lasting effects and the ability of patients to adjust their dosages to meet their insulin needs (Chen, 2024).

The IRA specifically set out-of-pocket price caps on insulin at $35 for patient on Medicare. While Novo Nordisk initially indicated that they would cut the prices of their insulin products by 75% for NovoLog and 65% for Novolin and Levemir (Silverman, 2023), the decision to discontinue this product for American consumers has left patients scrambling to find scrambling to find either new medications to treat their diabetes or new sources for Levemir, which may drive them to attempt to purchase the drug from other countries, and thus open them to the risk of counterfeit medications that could potentially kill them.

Additionally, this decision has exposed a key gap between the intention of these provisions and the reality of a relatively open market for drug manufacturers: even if officials can force manufacturers to lower their prices, those companies can simply pull the drugs off the markets without guaranteeing that other manufacturers will continue to make the compound (Chen, 2024).

This, again, goes back to why transparency in pricing and price negotiations is such a vital piece of information for both consumers and legislators. Without access to these details, pushes to make drugs more affordable to patients come up against the financial realities that drive the for-profit healthcare industry, as for-profit drug manufacturers are essentially the only entities developing, testing, and bringing medications to market.

Finally, one of the key arguments being made by advocates and drug manufacturers is that the voices of the patients who are impacted by healthcare laws and policies need to be more regularly and publicly included during the crafting of legislation and administrative rules.

Over the past forty years, patients and other consumers have become increasingly vocal about the healthcare services we receive, particularly in chronic disease spaces, like HIV. It is hard to argue the impacts that early HIV/AIDS groups, such as ACT UP New York, have had on several facets of the drug development and healthcare delivery arenas. Their very public, disruptive, and vocal protests and demonstrations during the 1980s and 90s forced the the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to shorten wait times during the development of key HIV medications during the early day of the epidemic (Neus, 2023).

While this type of patient activism has largely fallen out of favor, these actions paved the way for legislators and government agencies to establish patient and community advisory bodies. As part of the creation of those bodies, the processes through which patients could have a direct say in the decisions that impact them were formalized, and heavy emphases have been placed on civility and “right time; right place” expectations that have left many advocates hesitant to participate in formalized settings with which they’re unfamiliar and for which the rules of engagement are both unspoken and unclear.

Essentially, the fire and ire tactics used in the 1980s and 90s no longer fly in the 2020s, as politicians and administrative officials simply refuse to tolerate them. That isn't to say protests don't happen, because they do but their effectiveness is hard to measure. This means that public comment periods and other opportunities for patients to speak to these officials have become increasingly inaccessible over time, often requiring significant financial and time investments from those patients to attend oddly scheduled and poorly advertised in-person sessions, as well as submit written public comments through labyrinthine pathways that are made purposely difficult to navigate.

What ended up replacing those early protests were patient advocacy groups run by people who are more familiar with these processes and rules, and who work very diligently to craft specific messaging that, in their experiences, are more likely to move officials to go in directions that they believe most beneficial to patients. This has resulted in fewer realistic opportunities for patients to engage with the people who are making decisions that directly impact their lives.

Beyond those advocacy groups, drug and device manufacturers make significant financial investments in patient-level advocacy efforts. These efforts are almost always not specific to any one medication, instead focusing on specific disease states (e.g., HIV/AIDS, breast cancer, and other chronic conditions) where patients are both dependent upon the medications used to treat those conditions and have the most to lose if they lose access to them.

Investments in patient advocacy groups, such as ADAP Advocacy, are often used to craft educational campaigns designed to make patients aware of disease statistics and policies that may impact patient access to life-saving medications. Industry groups representing hospitals, PBMs, and insurers often use these investments as “evidence” to discount patient perspectives, both implying and directly stating that any advocacy efforts funded, either in part or in whole, by drug manufacturers cannot be trusted because they are being influenced by those manufacturers. It amounts to nothing more than a cheap shot, designed to further dismiss the patient perspective. (Editor's Note: Read ADAP Advocacy's transparency statement)

Photo Rights Purchased via iStock

As with every aspect of healthcare in the United States, including patients can be tricky. As tensions between political parties in this country have become more fraught over the past two decades, legislators in particular are more likely to treat public testimonies during hearings not as opportunities to hear from patients, but to cross examine “witnesses.” Example of this can be seen at all levels of government, particularly when the legislation being discussed relates to the provision of healthcare services that certain segments of the population have turned into “moral” issues (e.g., the sale of contraception, the provision of abortion services, and the dispensing of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis [PrEP] to prevent the transmission of HIV). During these hearings, some legislators will use their time to not just ask questions of the patients and medical experts giving testimony, but to call into question their experiences and expertise, accuse them of being “funded” by nefarious sources (e.g., “You’re being funded by George Soros!”), and make openly defamatory and bigoted statements about the patients who need access to medications and services, such as contraceptives, in-vitro fertilization, abortions, and PrEP, making statements that imply that the fact that they need those services and medications is a moral failing on their part.

This adversarial atmosphere has convinced many patients that their voices are neither welcomed nor actually considered when laws and rules are made that directly impact their lives. This makes including the patient voice all the more vital to ensure that laws like the IRA are crafted with all of the stakeholders in mind and that careful consideration is given to the potential downstream consequences.

The inclusion of patient voices is invaluable. It affords elected officials and policy-makers to consider perspectives they may not otherwise think to includes; to take into account the real-world impacts of their policies that they may not see because those officials often have the best healthcare coverage tax dollars can buy, while patients—particularly those living with chronic conditions—are often just scraping by to survive.

The long-term impacts of the IRA can, just two years after its passage, only be predicted. While some short-term impacts are being felt, we don’t actually have good data to definitively state that certain outcomes will come to pass. We can only make our best guesses given the information we have at hand and the environments in which we work. We will continue to monitor the impacts of the IRA as the years progress, as well as any other developments that will directly impact patients.

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.

Fraudsters are Using Grindr to Buy HIV Meds

By: Brandon M. Macsata, CEO, ADAP Advocacy; Shabbir Imber Safdar, Executive Director, Partnership for Safe Medicines

Earlier this year, ADAP Advocacy, in collaboration with the Partnership for Safe Medicines (PSM),  issued an important safety alert warning Grindr's users to stop selling their HIV and other medications on the popular gay dating App. Medicine buyback schemes falsely claim to be "Buyers Clubs" making medicine available to people who cannot afford them. In reality criminals buy medicine, and sometimes empty bottles, from patients and sell them at a discount to unsuspecting pharmacies who dispense it to patient victims. The safety alert urged Grindr's users to be more mindful of patient safety.

Photo Source: ADAP Advocacy

Grindr, as well as potentially other dating Apps, are being used as a platform for fake user profiles operating under counterfeit drug rings to buy prescription medications. This seemingly innocent practice is not only illegal, but it is jeopardizing the drug supply chain and putting the health of patients at risk for health complications, severe illness, and even death. It often targets high-cost drugs – because the potential profit spread is higher – often associated with the treatment of cancer, diabetes, and HIV (and others).

This is not a theoretical patient danger: over the past five years, hundreds of millions of dollars of HIV medicine has been diverted and counterfeited in the drug supply this way, resulting in some patients getting fake medicines. 

ADAP Advocacy and PSM potentially uncovered one such counterfeit drug ring in New Orleans Parish earlier this year and immediately alerted both the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, as well as Gilead Sciences. Earlier this year, Gilead Sciences uncovered a criminal enterprise centered in Florida distributing over $230 million of counterfeit drugs, some of which were their HIV antiretroviral medications.

In response to the Florida fraudsters, ADAP Advocacy and PSM aired a public service announcement sharing some important steps patients can take to combat counterfeit drugs. Additionally, PSM hosted an online briefing focused on recent breaches in the United States drug supply chain that put patients living with HIV at risk.

If you see people trying to buy medicine on dating apps, please report them to us.

• REPORT FRAUDSTERS by filling out this webform
• By emailing us at report@safemedicines.org
• By texting us at (415) 367-0067.

Additional collaboration on patient safety in the fight against counterfeit drug rings is warranted in this space. Download the safety alert, here.

Photo Source: ADAP Advocacy

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.

Drug Shortages Growing, but Spares HIV-related Injectable Therapies

By: Ranier Simons, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor

Periodic shortages of all kinds of products are common. The height of the coronavirus pandemic even created a widespread shortage of toilet paper, Lysol, and baby formula. At times, drug shortages are also not uncommon. Nevertheless, drug shortages have been a trending topic in the media. The heightened discourse is atypical for so many drugs to be experiencing shortages simultaneously. Not only are there many drugs in shortage, but they have been in scarcity for a long time. Moreover, some of the drugs in shortage treat life-threatening conditions. Now shortages appear to be impacting injectable therapies.

Photo Source: Forbes

Drug shortages have increased over time, with the end of 2023 being the highest in the past ten years. At the end of 2025, according to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), 125 drugs were in shortage status. Some of the drugs were new to the shortage list. However, many have been in shortage status for years. Furthermore, the duration of shortage status has also been increasing. In 2023, the average shortage was about three years compared to a duration of two years in 2020.[1] Unfortunately, at 2023 year-end, about a quarter of the drugs on the list had been in shortage for approximately five years, and treatments such as epinephrine injections had been in shortage for over ten years.[1,2]

Drug shortages affect all aspects of healthcare. No one therapeutic class is disproportionately harmed. Clinicians are frustrated because shortages of life-saving medications endanger many living with life-threatening conditions. Complete outages of supply mean that some patients must suffer through dangerous delays in care. In other cases, doctors must switch regimens completely due to shortages, forcing them to use medications they do not feel are the best options for patients. This results in using less efficacious medications with poorer desired outcomes and undesirable side effects. Additionally, when shortages result in switching from a regimen in progress, there is a danger of the body becoming unresponsive to the original regimen when the shortage is resolved.

A myriad of issues create drug shortages. Some of those issues are economic, supply and demand, and even manufacturing quality problems. Shortages are more common with lower-priced drugs such as generics.[3] A prescription for most of the injectables and solid oral medications in shortage costs less than five dollars to produce.[1,2] This translates into meager manufacturer profit margins, especially with wholesalers and purchasing groups driving down pricing. Thus, manufacturers are not incentivized to produce those medications in sustained large quantities. The FDA cannot force a company to make a particular medication, even if it is needed.

Photo Source: FDA

Supply and demand issues also drive shortages. In some cases, demand outpaces supply when drugs are used for expanded use cases. This is the case for drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy, which are GLP-1 drugs whose primary indications are to treat diabetes. The discovery of its effectiveness in weight loss has resulted in a vastly increased demand. The demand driven by the population of those dependent upon GLP-1 drugs to manage diabetic conditions in combination with those using them for weight loss has driven outages as well as increased pricing. Some of the demand for other drugs is driven by increases in prescriptions due to telemedicine. During the pandemic, restrictions were lifted on the prescribing of certain classes of medicines via telemedicine, such as Adderall, which is used for ADHD.[4] This resulted in increased demand for the drug which contributed to shortages that are still seen presently. This is especially pertinent since some obtain Adderall and other medications online for purposes of substance abuse.

Manufacturing problems and supply chain issues strongly contribute to drug shortages as well. The U.S. is dependent upon sources outside of the country for many of the drugs in shortage status. Less than one-quarter of the oral generics used in the U.S., and about 40 percent of sterile injectable generics are manufactured domestically. Approximately 17% of injectables used in the U.S. are manufactured in China.[5] Most importantly, many of the raw ingredients for pharmaceuticals are sourced outside of the U.S., with materials for 90-95 percent of U.S. generic injectable drugs coming from China and India.[5,6] Manufacturing certain older generic drugs, especially sterile injectables, is difficult due to the sterile manufacturing conditions required; thus, the number of capable facilities is low.

About 53 percent of the newest drug shortages are generic injectable medicines.[7] Sterile injectables include normal saline, antibiotics, flu vaccines, chemotherapy drugs, morphine, and insulin. Shortages in chemotherapy drugs have caused doctors and hospitals to resort to drug rationing. In those instances, hard decisions must be made regarding the treatment of life-threatening cancers. Doctors must choose which patients receive certain medications based on decisions based on curative intent and probability versus overall survival.

Photo Source: ADAP Advocacy

Drug shortages were also of heightened concern for those living with HIV during the coronavirus pandemic. In March 2020, ADAP Advocacy received assurances directly from each drug manufacturer that the coronavirus pandemic wasn’t negatively impacting the availability of anti-retroviral medications. The pharmaceutical industry was applauded for its efforts to protect the anti-retroviral drug supply chain.[8] At that time all of the drug manufacturers – AbbVie, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Merck. Theratechnologies, and ViiV Healthcare – did not foresee disruption to their supply chain.

Considering injectable therapies are increasingly showing up on the FDA’s drug shortage list, ADAP Advocacy once again inquired with its industry partners about potential concerns over shortages of injectable HIV-related medications, such as the injectables Cabenuva for the treatment of HIV, and Sunlenca for the prevention of HIV. 

Reaching out to the industry resulted in very positive feedback. A representative from ViiV Healthcare stated that “there are no current shortages nor anticipation of any prolonged shortages of any injectable within the ViiV portfolio.”

A Gilead spokesperson likewise stated, “Gilead’s commercial supply chain is robust, and we have a strong inventory position. We continually monitor the forecast and actively manage supply; thus, we do not anticipate any supply concerns related to Sunlenca®, Gilead’s twice-yearly injectable HIV treatment option for people living with the virus who are heavily treatment-experienced with multi-drug resistant HIV. We are committed to person-centric HIV treatment research and development, ensuring our advances in biomedical innovation reach the wide range of individuals and communities who are most in need.” 

Drug shortage is a serious concern that will require a multi-pronged approach to solve. The White House, FDA, and others must find solutions to the manufacturing, regulatory, and supply chain challenges. The government is already looking into investing in some of the raw materials needed for drug creation, which is a good start.

[1] Lokuwithana, D. (2024, June 15). U.S. drug shortages worsen to reach a decade high: report. Retrieved from https://seekingalpha.com/news/4116477-us-drug-shortages-reach-decade-high

[2] Silverman, E. (2024, June 4). U.S. drug shortages have reached a decade high and are lasting longer, too. Retrieved from https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2024/06/04/shortages-medicines-drugs-hospitals-manufacturing-cancer-adhd-gpo/

[3] IQVIA. (2023, November 15). Drug shortages in the U.S. 2023. Retrieved from https://www.iqvia.com/insights/the-iqvia-institute/reports-and-publications/reports/drug-shortages-in-the-us-2023

[4] Gilbert, D., Amenabar, T. (2023, March 14). An Adderall shortage has not let up. Here is why. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/03/14/adderall-shortage-telehealth-prescriptions/

[5] Owens, C. (2024, January 5). Low prices are contributing to America's drug shortage problem. Retrieved from https://www.axios.com/2024/01/05/america-generic-drug-shortage-reasons

[6] United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (2023, March). Short Supply: The Health and National Security Risks of Drug Shortages. Retrieved from https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023-06-06-HSGAC-Majority-Draft-Drug-Shortages-Report.-FINAL-CORRECTED.pdf

[7] U.S. Pharmocopeia. (2024, June). USP Annual Drug Shortages Report. Retrieved from https://go.usp.org/l/323321/2024-05-31/92zsjg/323321/1717187146zgOpt4vW/GEA_GC_056R_MSM_Report_2024_05_FINAL.pdf?_gl=1*e6c4sj*_gcl_au*Mjc1NzUzOTg5LjE3MTc1MTMzOTM.*_ga*OTI0OTQ1ODI4LjE3MTc1MTMzOTM.*_ga_DTGQ04CR27*MTcxNzUxMzM5My4xLjEuMTcxNzUxMzc1Ny4wLjAuMA

[8] ADAP Advocacy. (2020, March 26). Press Release: ADAP Advocacy Association Applauds Pharmaceutical Industry Efforts on Protecting the Drug Supply Chain during the Coronavirus Pandemic. Retrieved from https://www.adapadvocacy.org/pdf-docs/2020_ADAP_Press_COVID_19_Supply_Chain_03-26-20.pdf

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.  

What are 'Major Statements' for Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertisements

By: Ranier Simons, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor

In the United States, it is common to see advertisements for drugs. Ads appear in print magazines, on television, on the radio, on the internet, and mobile devices. In 2022, the pharmaceutical industry spent nearly $17.4 billion on advertising.[1] The majority of this spending is direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertisement (DTCPA) spending. Coincidentally, the United States and New Zealand are the only countries in the world allowing DTCPA. Other countries have banned DTCPA because they feel it does more harm than good. In addition to well-established prescription drug advertising regulations, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) released a final rule in November of 2023, effective as of May 20, 2024.[2] Companies have until November 20, 2024, to come into full compliance. 

Photo Source: FDA

The new rule is specific to DTCPAs that are delivered in radio or television format, which name a drug and describe what it is used for. This rule focuses on the presentation of the ‘major statement’, which is the explanation of a drug's side effects and contraindications. There are five key standards the rule establishes. Major statements must be delivered in consumer-friendly language; audio information must be understandable; text must be presented clearly, conspicuously, and neutrally; text information must be readable; and ads cannot include distractions.

Requiring statements to be delivered in consumer-friendly language means that information regarding a drug's side effects and contraindications does not contain scientific and medical jargon. Most consumers must easily understand it. The rule’s requirements concerning the audio information are a direct response to the way ads used to appear and sound. Audio must be understandable in terms of volume, articulation, and pacing.[2] Previously, ads, whether on television or radio, would list a long line of side effects and concerns with a rapid cadence and sometimes in a less audible tone than the rest of the advertisement. This is because ads were required to list almost every possible side effect of a medication. The new rules now mean that only the major and most frequent side effects must be stated. They must be articulated in audio that is as clear as the remainder of the advertisement.[2]

With respect to text, the rule explains that textual information must be presented in an appropriate font, positioned in a visually advantageous manner, against an appropriately contrasting background, and appear for a proper duration of time.[2] Regarding distractions, the rule explains that ads cannot contain statements, text, images, or sounds that distract from the communication of the major statement of side effects and contraindications.[2] Most importantly, in terms of transparency, the contents of the major statement have to appear simultaneously in the audio and video portions of television ads, which is referred to as dual-modality.[2]

The new rule, in addition to the longstanding advertisement regulations, is meant to protect consumers and ensure they are not misled about what drugs can and cannot do. It also informs them about a medication’s risks. Many critics feel the new rules do not go far enough, primarily since they do not address the content of the information, only its presentation.

Photo Source: FDA

There are many pros and cons to DTCPA. Advertisements can educate patients about available treatment options, encourage people to seek care, especially regarding underdiagnosed conditions, and improve communication between doctors and patients. Moreover, when someone sees an ad for a drug they are already taking, it can be a reminder to take their medication as well as positively influence how they feel about the medication, which can increase adherence. Negative attributes of DTPCA are it can lead to overuse of some prescription drugs, which increases drug spending, can cause higher utilization of brand name drugs instead of effective lower-cost generics, and can negatively affect the patient-doctor relationship.[3] Consumers may see an advertisement for a drug and demand it from their physician. However, the physician may deny them a particular medication because the physician is knowledgeable of medical reasons why a drug may not be a good fit or actually be harmful. This could affect the trust and communication between a doctor and a patient.

A notable shift regarding DTCPA is regarding drugs to treat and prevent HIV/AIDS. Over the past few years, there has been a recognizable increase in the number of ART-related television, print, radio, and digital ads. In 2021, ads for ART accounted for six percent of total prescription drug ad spend. Gilead Sciences and GSK accounted for almost all of 2021’s pharmaceutical ad spending dedicated to HIV and AIDS.[4] For example, GSK spent all its 2021 Q4 advertising budget buying spots on ABC, A&E, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC, and the USA network, which was 75% of what the company spent on television ads that year.[4]

ViiV Healthcare, which is majority-owned by GSK, with Pfizer Inc. and Shionogi & Co. Limited (Shionogi) as shareholders, has had a recognizable presence in television ads since 2017. In 2017, one of its first significant television campaigns was for Triumeq.[5] In 2022, ViiV spent $8.3 million in June alone, on television ads for Dovato. Advertisements for HIV-related drugs on television, in print ads, and digital forms are potentially not just beneficial for drug companies’ bottom lines.[6]

Photo Source: Trend Radars

Antiretroviral drug ads are educational in informing patients of drug options. The science behind treatment for HIV/AIDS is moving at a rapid pace, and many are not aware of all the treatment options available. Advertisements can empower HIV/AIDS patients to have discussions about treatment modalities their doctors may not have presented to them. Additionally, antiretroviral drug campaigns are a kind of social engineering. There are still negative perceptions and public stigma surrounding HIV despite scientific knowledge supporting the concept of undetectable viral load translating into a lack of risk of transmission, or “U=U undetectable = untransmittable.”[6] Many television ads depict subjects who are actual users of the antiretroviral medications, publicly revealing their status. This can add humanity to a disease that remains cloaked in stereotypes and misinformation for many.

Whether in a magazine, a television commercial, a print ad, a YouTube video, or a digital mobile pop-up, pharmaceutical advertisements in the United States are here to stay. There are valid pros and cons. The only way to ensure that the pros outweigh the cons is to monitor and regulate intentionally. Difficulties in the logistics of enforcing governmental regulations can mean slow adoption of and even violation of rules. Optimistically, the efforts of consumers, advocates, and medical professionals can facilitate acceptable and effective pharmaceutical advertisement utilization and execution.

[1] Faria, J. (2023, September 22). U.S. pharmaceutical preparations ad spend 2021-2022. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/470460/pharmaceutical-preparations-industry-ad-spend-usa/#:~:text=In%20a%20survey%20of%20representatives,billion%20U.S.%20dollars%20on%20advertising.

[2] FDA. (2023, November 21). Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements: Presentation of the Major Statement in a Clear, Conspicuous, and Neutral Manner in Advertisements in Television and Radio Format. Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/21/2023-25428/direct-to-consumer-prescription-drug-advertisements-presentation-of-the-major-statement-in-a-clear

[3] Keller, J., Hauschild, J. (2024, January 10). FDA Issues Final Rule and FAQ Regarding Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising. Retrieved fromhttps://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2024/1/fda-issues-final-rule-and-faq-regarding-direct-to-consumer-drug-advertising

[4] Media Radar. (2022, May3). HIV/AIDS Prescription Drug Advertising: Looking Toward the Future. Retrieved from https://mediaradar.com/blog/hiv-aids-prescription-drug-advertising/

[5] Bulik, B. (2017, December 4). ViiV starts 'Moving Forward' into first branded TV ads for HIV treatment. Retrieved from https://www.fiercepharma.com/marketing/viiv-s-first-branded-hiv-tv-ad-stars-real-patients-and-their-stories

[6] Adams, B. (2022, July 11). ViiV wants HIV patients to 'detect this' as it launches new Dovato TV ad. Retrieved from https://www.fiercepharma.com/marketing/viiv-wants-hiv-patients-detect-it-launches-new-dovato-tv-ad

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.  

CROI 2024 Highlights: Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections

By: Ranier Simons, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor

The fight against HIV and other viruses like HCV and SARS-CoV-2 is a worldwide team effort. That is why the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) convened from March 3rd through March 6th, 2024 in Denver, Colorado. Since 1993, CROI has brought together scientists, clinical scientists, and epidemiologists to present original groundbreaking research and collaborate to advance the treatment and prevention of HIV and other viral infections and opportunistic diseases.[8] CROI is one the first places research showing the effectiveness of triple-drug therapy for HIV was shared. It was also one of the first places where the results of the SMART study were shared, which proved that early treatment of HIV provides the best outcomes.[8] This year, 4,000 attendees gathered at CROI. Participants presented a multitude of novel and emerging therapies and studies. What follows are just a few notable highlights.

Photo Source: CROI

Long-Acting Injectables Blaze Forward

GSK’s long-acting injectable, cabotegravir, has already shifted the antiretroviral therapy (ART) paradigm. Coupled with rilpivirine, it is one-half of Cabenuva, the first complete ART injectable approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Cabenuva allows people who live with HIV (PLWH) to change from taking daily pills to the Cabenuva injection monthly or every two months. Studies have proven it is effective for those who have medication adherence challenges. It also presents an option for PLWH who wish to make medication management a less intrusive part of their lives.

ViiV Healthcare, the HIV-focused subsidiary of GSK, presented data from a clinical trial for a revolutionary new ultra-long-acting cabotegravir at CROI.[7] The new formulation has a higher concentration and double the half-life, potentially allowing it to be dosed every four months instead of every two.[7] Further clinical trials will be conducted to explore the use of the new formulation of cabotegravir as PrEP and as a treatment for PLWH. GSK’s goal is to have the first long-acting injectable for HIV prevention on the market by 2026 and for HIV treatment by 2027. The company also aims for an annual long-acting injectable by the first part of the 2030s.

DoxyPEP for STIs

DoxyPEP stands for doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis. It is the practice of taking 200mg of oral doxycycline within 24 to 72 hours of condomless sex. Clinical trials have shown that DoxyPEP is effective in reducing the incidence of bacterial STIs such as syphilis and chlamydia. Results of Doxy PEP clinical studies of reducing STIs have been so promising that the CDC proposed guidelines for DoxyPEP usage in October 2022. However, those guidelines are not finalized.[1] 

Infectious disease professionals at CROI presented new data regarding DoxyPEP usage out in the real world among populations of people, mainly cisgender MSM and transgender women. Previous data was from clinical trials in contrast with new data that examined the results of DoxyPEP uptake in over 3,700 clients of sexual health clinics across San Francisco. Usage resulted in a 58% reduction in bacterial STI cases overall, a 67% reduction in chlamydia, and a 78% reduction in syphilis cases.[2] The real-world data indicated that when offered, there was a demand for DoxyPEP, and people consistently integrated it into their sexual health routine. As the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) finalizes formal guidelines, DoxyPEP may potentially be solidified as another viable form of population wide STI prophylaxis.

Weekly Oral Antiretroviral Therapy

Long-acting injectable HIV therapy is not an optimal treatment modality for everyone. Nevertheless, other options for medication adherence that do not involve a daily regimen are needed for optimal health outcomes. At CROI, Gilead Sciences and Merck presented data from a clinical trial for a possible weekly oral antiretroviral therapy (ART) solution.

The solution is a weekly dosage of Gilead’s Sunlenca (lenacapavir), and an experimental drug named islatravir from Merck. [3,4] The phase 2 trial compared 104 patients taking daily Biktarvy (bictegravir 50mg/emtricitabine 200mg/tenofovir alafenamide 25mg tablets) with a group taking the weekly oral lenacapavir with islatravir. Data indicated that 94.2% of subjects taking the lenacapavir/islatravir combination maintained their viral suppression compared to 92.3% of the Biktarvy group.[3,4] The study will continue for another 48 weeks as open-label. This means that the study is no longer randomized. Both the medical professionals and the subjects know precisely what they are being given. There is no placebo. Studies move forward to open-label from randomized controlled studies once a high level of efficacy is proven and high benchmarks of defined endpoints are reached. 

Protecting Pregnant Women from HIV Infection

Research has shown there are physiological changes in the female body that cause a threefold increase in the risk of contracting HIV while pregnant.[5] This is especially troubling for countries where HIV is at an endemic level. Medications for HIV treatment and prevention are powerful, and it is crucial to find safe pharmaceuticals that will not harm the mother or the developing fetus.

At CROI, data from a multi-country (South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe) clinical study presented safe options. A monthly flexible vaginal ring containing dapivirine as well as oral daily tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine PrEP (Truvada) were shown to be safe for use for pregnant women. The dapivirine vaginal ring is established in some African countries to be used as HIV prevention for cisgender women who are not pregnant. Truvada has already been proven to be safe for pregnant HIV-positive mothers to use.

The study was a randomized trial where pregnant women aged 18-40 used the dapivirine ring or received the oral PrEP up until delivery or for 41 weeks and six days, depending on which came first.[6] Only 1% experienced stillbirth or miscarriage, 95% of the women’s pregnancies went to term, and 4% of the births were premature.[6] Most importantly, none of the women contracted HIV. The results indicate that both the ring and Truvada are safe for pregnant mothers and their unborn fetuses to protect them from infection.

CROI continues to be a catalyst for pushing HIV and other infectious disease research forward. Scientific communities meet there, spurring the most qualified and passionate minds to collaborate and innovate. Whenever a cure for HIV is found, it would not be surprising if someone at a future session of CROI first presents it.

[1] DiMarco DE, Urban MA, Fine SM, et al. Doxycycline Post-Exposure Prophylaxis to Prevent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infections [Internet]. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University; 2023 Sep. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK597440/

[2] Carstens, A. (2024, March 6). DoxyPEP aces first real-world test. Retrieved from https://www.thebodypro.com/article/croi-2024-doxypep-real-world-clinical-data

[3] Clinical Trials Arena. (2024, March 7). Gilead-Merck’s combination therapy maintains HIV suppression in trial. Retrieved from https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/gilead-merck-hiv-trial/?cf-view

[4] Taylor, P. (2024, March 7). Gilead and MSD say weekly oral therapy controls HIV. Retrieved from https://pharmaphorum.com/news/gilead-and-msd-say-weekly-oral-therapy-controls-hiv

[5] Salzman, S. (2018, March 9).New study shows women's HIV risk triples during pregnancy, quadruples postpartum. Retrieved from https://www.thebodypro.com/article/new-study-shows-womens-hiv-risk-triples-during-pre

[6] HIV.gov. (2024, March 5). Vaginal ring and oral Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis found safe for HIV prevention throughout pregnancy. Retrieved from https://www.hiv.gov/blog/vaginal-ring-and-oral-pre-exposure-prophylaxis-found-safe-for-hiv-prevention-throughout-pregnancy

[7] Reuters. (2024, March 5). GSK's new HIV drug formula could support longer dosing intervals. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/gsks-new-hiv-drug-formula-could-support-longer-dosing-intervals-2024-03-04/

[8] CROI Foundation. (2024). General information about CROI. Retrieved from https://www.croiconference.org/about/

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates. 

Evidence Suggest Long-Acting Injectables Game Changer for Adherence

By: Ranier Simons, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor

Adherence to medication is one of the most important tenets of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for people living with HIV (PLWH). Adherence is taking the appropriate medications in the proper dosages on the correct schedule. Reaching an undetectable viral load requires strict adherence, with which many PLWH have difficulty for various reasons. The recent innovation of long-acting injectables (LAI) is an attempt to strengthen adherence for PLWH who have difficulty with pill regimens. In January 2021, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approved Cabenuva, the first injectable drug combination for HIV.[2,5] GSK recently released results from clinical trial data indicating Cabenuva works better than daily pills for patients with adherence challenges.[1,4,5,6]

Photo Source: Pharmalive

Cabenuva is a two-injection regimen of cabotegravir and rilpivirine administered either once a month or once every two months.[7] This month, GSK released data from the LATITUDE (Long-Acting Therapy to Improve Treatment Success in Daily Life) study comparing the efficacy of Cabenuva in contrast with daily pill regimens regarding adherence.[1] The screened participants were verified as having challenges with ART adherence. They were initially given a three-drug oral ART regimen, receiving comprehensive and incentivized adherence support.[1] Once they were virally suppressed, they were randomly selected to receive Cabenuva injections every four weeks or continue with daily pill therapy.[1] The strong evidence of superior efficacy of Cabenuva over daily pill therapy led the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Advancing Clinical Therapeutics Globally for HIV/AIDS and Other Infections (ACTG) to recommend removal of the randomization and offer all participants the option to take Cabenuva.[1]

This new development is an optimistic win in the fight against HIV. Joey Wynn, activist and chair of the ADAP Long-Acting Injectables Patient Advisory Committee, states, “Although definitely not for everyone, this is the next phase of evolution in HIV therapy. Injections allow us to get on with our lives and not be weighed down with the daily burden of taking pills.” 

There are many reasons daily pill therapy adherence is a challenge for some. Psychologically, taking daily pills is a reminder of disease that is too much for some to handle. There are people with developmental challenges who can't keep up a daily regimen. Stigma and privacy are adherence challenges for PLWH in living situations that are not safe or supportive, where the discovery of medication bottles is not ideal or dangerous.[2,3]

Photo Source: NIAID

As Riley Johnson, project manager for ADAP Advocacy's Long-Acting Injectables Project, points out, “LAIs can mean consistent medication instead of having meds lost or stolen and having to navigate bureaucratic hoops to pursue replacement.”

While very promising, Cabenuva does have hurdles to its implementation. Presently, there are three main criteria to be eligible for Cabenuva. It is only approved for PLWH who are virally suppressed, have documented absence of resistance to either cabotegravir or rilpivirine, and have no prior antiretroviral treatment failures.[2] Viral suppression requires adherence to oral medication, which is the challenge LAIs were created to remedy. In 2019, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) estimated that only 56.8% of PLWH were virally suppressed or undetectable.[2] This means that less than half of PLWH in the U.S. would qualify for Cabenuva. 

Just as with pill regimens, cost is also a hurdle for widespread adoption. The wholesale acquisition cost of the initial/loading dose is $5,940, and monthly/maintenance injections are $3,960.[5] Insurance companies must approve Cabenuva before patients can begin therapy. This is an access issue for those who do not have medical insurance. It is also an access issue for those with insurance because some insurance companies do not have an official classification of Cabenuva as a pharmaceutical or healthcare benefit. Thus, even though ViiV Healthcare has a payment assistance program for those who have commercial insurance, the lack of clarity of benefit status means ambiguity in which costs will be billed to patients and which to insurance companies.[2]

Studies have shown that multiple social determinants of health affect many patients' ability to maintain adherence regarding pill regimens. The same challenges apply to Cabenuva. Cabenuva must be administered in a healthcare setting by a health professional. Even though the visits would only be monthly or bi-monthly, that still poses a challenge for PLWH who lack reliable and affordable transportation. While pill forms of the medications are available for emergency doses if a patient misses an injection, on-time injections of Cabenuva are imperative to ensure resistance to either of the components does not occur.[2] Shipping doses of emergency medication is not viable for people with unstable housing or living situations where receiving medication is not optimal.

Photo Source: HIV.gov

Widespread adoption of Cabenuva also requires providers to adopt changes. Currently, with HIV healthcare, patients on established therapy only see their infectious disease doctors once or twice a year, and the responsibility of pill treatment adherence is on the patient. With Cabenuva injections, the facility's operational flow is disrupted since the injections require more frequent visits. Additionally, responsibility is added to the medical practices by ensuring patients do not miss their injection appointments and following up with them when they do. Moreover, practitioners must be trained in the z-track injection technique required for the intramuscular injection and have proper refrigeration equipment to store the Cabenuva between 2°C and 8°C.[8]

The recent data from the Cabenuva trial is a promising step in the right direction, though not without its challenges. Joey Wynn adds, “Understandably, there are issues of access for those on private insurance, clinic flow issues, and limited distribution shortages, meaning advocates need to demand improved pipeline delivery from the manufacturer so people can get what they need/want/require with less difficulties.” Riley Johnson adds, “no degree of adherence is possible if the medication is not available or accessible.” To ensure the success of the LAI landscape, policy and holistic community support will be required to keep up with the advances of science.

[1] GSK. (2024, February 21). Press release: LATITUDE phase III interim trial data indicates ViiV Healthcare’s long-acting injectable HIV treatment Cabenuva (cabotegravir + rilpivirine) has superior efficacy compared to daily therapy in individuals living with HIV who have adherence challenges. Retrieved from https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/media/press-releases/latitude-phase-iii-interim-trial-data-indicates-cabenuva-has-superior-efficacy-compared-to-daily-therapy/

[2] Pinto, R. M., Hall, E., & Tomlin, R. (2023). Injectable Long-Acting Cabotegravir-Rilpivirine Therapy for People Living With HIV/AIDS: Addressing Implementation Barriers From the Start. The Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care: JANAC, 34(2), 216–220. https://doi.org/10.1097/JNC.0000000000000386

[3] Simoni, J. M., Tapia, K., Lee, S. J., Graham, S. M., Beima-Sofie, K., Mohamed, Z. H., Christodoulou, J., Ho, R., & Collier, A. C. (2020). A Conjoint Analysis of the Acceptability of Targeted Long-Acting Injectable Antiretroviral Therapy Among Persons Living with HIV in the U.S. AIDS and Behavior, 24(4), 1226–1236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-019-02701-7

[4] Hart, R. (2024, February 21). First long-acting injectable HIV treatment works better than daily pills for some patients, GSK says. Retrieved from https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/first-long-acting-injectable-hiv-treatment-works-better-than-daily-pills-for-some-patients-gsk-says/ar-BB1iDCzR?ocid=socialshare

[5] Bernstein, L. (2021, January 22). FDA approves breakthrough injectable HIV medication. Retrieved from FDA approves breakthrough injectable HIV medication

[6] Liu, A. (2024, February 21).GSK’s long-acting HIV med Cabenuva beats daily therapy in patients who've faced adherence hurdles. Retrieved from https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/cabenuva-trial-modified-gsks-long-acting-hiv-med-beat-daily-therapy-patients-adherence

[7] VIIV Healthcare. (2024, January). Cabenuva. Retrieved from https://www.cabenuva.com/  

[8] De Vito, A., Botta, A., Berruti, M., Castelli, V., Lai, V., Cassol, C., Lanari, A., Stella, G., Shallvari, A., Bezenchek, A., & Di Biagio, A. (2022). Could Long-Acting Cabotegravir-Rilpivirine Be the Future for All People Living with HIV? Response Based on Genotype Resistance Test from a Multicenter Italian Cohort. Journal of personalized medicine, 12(2), 188. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12020188

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates. 

FDA Failure: Why Agency's Approval of Floridian Drug Importation Plan Fails Patients on Both Sides of the Border

By: Ranier Simons, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has started the year off in the news cycle under controversy. The beleaguered federal agency announced on January 5th its authorization of Florida’s flawed drug importation program.[1] Under section 804 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), the FDA created a pathway for states to import certain prescription medications from Canada.[2] A state must submit a section 804 importation program proposal (SIP) to the FDA, which fulfills all requirements specified by the FD&C Act and FDA regulations delineated under the Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 Part 251 (21 C.F.R. part 251).[3] Drug prices in Canada are significantly lower than those in the United States, but rooted in a myriad of reasons. The goal, in theory, is to lower the costs of drugs for the consumer by purchasing them at lower prices from Canada. However, Florida’s SIP does not provide lower costs for consumers, threatens the safety of the United States' drug supply, and could cause harm to Canadians. Moreover, in its current approved iteration, Florida’s plan is an acute threat to people living with HIV (PLWH) since many of the proposed drugs for import are HIV treatments. For that reason, ADAP Advocacy was the very first patient advocacy organization to question the FDA's decision after it was made public.

All of the FDA and FD&C Act rules for the importation of prescription drugs from Canada exist to support one central overarching tenet: to significantly reduce the cost of drugs to the American consumer without imposing additional risk to public health and safety. Florida’s plan does not fulfill that tenet. According to Florida’s SIP, the drugs purchased are for those receiving care through the Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration and its Medicaid managed care plans, Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD), Department of Children and Families (DCF) mental health treatment facilities, Department of Corrections (DOC), and the Department of Health (DOH) county health departments.[4] Those served by these entities are a small subset of the overall Floridan population. Additionally, those receiving prescription drugs through these programs already have access to them at very deep discounts and, in some cases, for free. Any resulting cost savings would benefit state drug spending expenditures, not Floridian consumers.

Cost savings or cost containment is also a challenge due to the logistics required to properly execute the importation program. The section 804 importation program rules require many steps to help ensure the safety of imported medications. One of these critical steps is testing. Testing of every batch of imported medicines is required to verify authenticity, degradation inquiry, and purity to rule out contamination and more.[2,3,5] Testing is expensive and requires the usage of FDA-acceptable testing laboratories. Florida plans to use two testing facilities, one mainly functioning as a backup. One is in Detroit, Michigan, and the other is in Fairfield, New Jersey.[4] There is only one FDA-approved U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)port of entry for eligible imported drugs, which is in Detroit.[4] Thus, there are costs associated with temperature-controlled transport of medications to testing facilities.

Photo Source: US Times Mirror

The costs are just a fraction of the multitude of costly logistical details on both sides of the Canadian border required to implement Florida’s importation plan. The state has a $38 million contract with a logistics company for the administration and operation of the program.[6] This cost is in addition to paying for the drugs purchased under the program. Not only are most Floridians not receiving any consumer relief from prescription drug costs, but as taxpayers, their money is paying for the program. Research by Dr. Kristina M.L. Acri revealed that costs associated with conducting proper testing of imported drugs cancel out any potential savings.[7]

The logistics of implementing the program is also part of why it has the potential to add risk to public health and safety. Section 804 and the FDA regulations stipulate extensive and detailed requirements such as reporting on the origin of medications and their manufacturing, the documentation of the controlled chain of custody of drug batches, verifying that all Canadian suppliers receive drugs from FDA-approved manufacturers, and even requiring a detailed system for notification and retrieving drugs that have been recalled. Proper execution requires many moving parts and geographical locations, providing multiple points of possible compromise. The massive implementation will also result in subcontracting for various aspects, posing another potentially disastrous failure that can result in counterfeit medications, lowered efficacy of drugs due to improper storage or transport, or even adulterated or tampered medications. Moreover, Canada does not have a track and trace system like the United States; thus, there is no solid way to verify true transparency back to a non-US manufacturer.[8]

On the other side of harm is the damage Florida’s drug importation program could potentially be due to the Canadian system. Lyne Fortin, B.Pharm, MBA, who serves on ADAP Advocacy's board of directors, offered her insights from the Canadian perspective: "In recent years, 1 in 5 approved prescription drugs in Canada have been in out-of-stock situations, creating already enormous pressure on the public Canadian Healthcare which continues to introduce regulatory safeguards against US drug importation initiatives. The recent FDA decision, however, paving the way for such a program in Florida dangerously compounds the risks and severity of potential drug shortages for Canadians. Florida alone represents half of the entire Canadian population. HIV being a chronic, life-threatening infectious condition where U=U, the importance of secured supply and drug integrity are even more heightened. When patients on both sides of the border bear all the risks against the pursuit of unvalidated economic benefits, flags should be raised to balance short-sighted wishful thinking policies."

Photo Source: AARP

On January 8th, Health Canada, Canada's version of the FDA, released a statement in response to the FDA decision. “Regulations have been implemented under the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit certain drugs intended for the Canadian market from being sold for consumption outside of Canada if that sale could cause, or worsen, a drug shortage in Canada. This includes all drugs that are eligible for bulk importation to the United States, including those identified in Florida's bulk importation plan or any other state's future importation programs.”[9] Canada is effectively legislatively blocking the bulk exportation of drugs. Essentially, no wholesaler in their legitimate supply chain can ship to the United States, and FDA regulations do not allow imported drugs outside of the legitimate supply chain. Additionally, manufacturers that sell their patented medications in both United States. and Canadian markets will not sell extra supplies to Canada just to potentially buffer increased demand due to exportation. Thus, if any exportation occurred, it would be from the supply meant explicitly for Canada, directly shorting their coffers. Canadians, in general, aren't too happy with the news either!

In addition to the aforementioned problems associated with the Florida bulk importation program, it poses a targeted threat to PLWH. Of the fourteen initial drugs listed for procurement in the Florida SIP, ten are HIV treatment medications. In recent years, there have been issues with counterfeit HIV medications. Gilead Sciences was the victim of a notable scheme. Over a two-year period, criminals sold over $250 million of counterfeit bottles of their HIV drugs including Descovy, Genvoya and Biktarvy.[10] Anything that can threaten the already fragile supply chain of HIV medication, such as drug importation, is a detriment to both U.S. and Canadian public health.

The FDA’s approval of Florida’s SIP is just the first step and one hill the state must climb to actually see any medicine in hand from this program, much less any savings. Additionally, given that Canada is not supportive of the venture, Florida does not have a Canadian supply to tap. Ultimately, the more significant issue is that importation does not solve the United States problem of high prescription drug prices.

[1] FDA. (2024, January 5). News Release: FDA Authorizes Florida's Drug Importation Program. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-authorizes-floridas-drug-importation-program

[2] FDA. (2024, January 5). Importation program under section 804 of the FD&C Act. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/reports/importation-program-under-section-804-fdc-act

[3] National Archives and Records Administration. (2024, January 10). Code of Federal Regulations: Part 251 - Section 804 Importation Program. Retrieved from https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-251

[4] State of Florida. (2023, October 20). The State of Florida’s Section 804 Importation Program (SIP) Proposal for the Importation of Prescription Drugs from Canada. Retrieved from https://www.safemedicines.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/01-Florida-SIP-Proposal-Oct-2023.pdf

[5] FDA. (2024, January 5). Letter of Authorization for Florida’s Section 804 Importation Program. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/media/175237/download?attachment

[6] State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration. (December 29, 2020) Standard Contract. Retrieved from https://www.safemedicines.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CN-680000-ME214.pdf

[7] Lybecker, K. M. (2020). State pharmaceutical importation programmes: an analysis of the cost‐effectiveness. Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, 11(2), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/jphs.12349

[8] The Partnership for Safe Medicines. (2023). Canada doesn't have Track and Trace. Retrieved from https://www.safemedicines.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Track-and-Trace-final.docx.pdf

[9] Health Canada. (2024, January 8). Statement from Health Canada on FDA decision on Florida bulk drug importation plan. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2024/01/statement-from-health-canada-on-fda-decision-on-florida-bulk-drug-importation-plan.html

[10] Reuters. (2022, September 28). Gilead widens battle against alleged counterfeit HIV drug ring. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/gilead-widens-battle-against-alleged-counterfeit-hiv-drug-ring-2022-09-29/

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.