BackgroundIndian manufacturers of generic antiretroviral (ARV) medicines facilitated the rapid scale up of HIV/AIDS treatment in developing countries though provision of low-priced, quality-assured medicines. The legal framework in India that facilitated such production, however, is changing with implementation of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, and intellectual property measures being discussed in regional and bilateral free trade agreement negotiations. Reliable quantitative estimates of the Indian role in generic global ARV supply are needed to understand potential impacts of such measures on HIV/AIDS treatment in developing countries.MethodsWe utilized transactional data containing 17,646 donor-funded purchases of ARV tablets made by 115 low- and middle-income countries from 2003 to 2008 to measure market share, purchase trends and prices of Indian-produced generic ARVs compared with those of non-Indian generic and brand ARVs.ResultsIndian generic manufacturers dominate the ARV market, accounting for more than 80% of annual purchase volumes. Among paediatric ARV and adult nucleoside and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor markets, Indian-produced generics accounted for 91% and 89% of 2008 global purchase volumes, respectively. From 2003 to 2008, the number of Indian generic manufactures supplying ARVs increased from four to 10 while the number of Indian-manufactured generic products increased from 14 to 53. Ninety-six of 100 countries purchased Indian generic ARVs in 2008, including high HIV-burden sub-Saharan African countries. Indian-produced generic ARVs used in first-line regimens were consistently and considerably less expensive than non-Indian generic and innovator ARVs. Key ARVs newly recommended by the World Health Organization are three to four times more expensive than older regimens.ConclusionsIndian generic producers supply the majority of ARVs in developing countries. Future scale up using newly recommended ARVs will likely be hampered until Indian generic producers can provide the dramatic price reductions and improved formulations observed in the past. Rather than agreeing to inappropriate intellectual property obligations through free trade agreements, India and its trade partners - plus international organizations, donors, civil society and pharmaceutical manufacturers - should ensure that there is sufficient policy space for Indian pharmaceutical manufacturers to continue their central role in supplying developing countries with low-priced, quality-assured generic medicines.

BackgroundUniversal access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) in low- and middle-income countries faces numerous challenges: increasing numbers of people needing ART, new guidelines recommending more expensive antiretroviral (ARV) medicines, limited financing, and few fixed-dose combination (FDC) products. Global initiatives aim to promote efficient global ARV markets, yet little is known about market dynamics and the impact of global policy interventions.MethodsWe utilize several data sources, including 12,958 donor-funded, adult first-line ARV purchase transactions, to describe the market from 2002-2008. We examine relationships between market trends and: World Health Organization (WHO) HIV/AIDS treatment guidelines; WHO Prequalification Programme (WHO Prequal) and United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals; and procurement policies of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (GFATM), US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and UNITAID.ResultsWHO recommended 7, 4, 24, and 6 first-line regimens in 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2009 guidelines, respectively. 2009 guidelines replaced a stavudine-based regimen ($88/person/year) with more expensive zidovudine- ($154-260/person/year) or tenofovir-based ($244-465/person/year) regimens. Purchase volumes for ARVs newly-recommended in 2006 (emtricitabine, tenofovir) increased >15-fold from 2006 to 2008. Twenty-four generic FDCs were quality-approved for older regimens but only four for newer regimens. Generic FDCs were available to GFATM recipients in 2004 but to PEPFAR recipients only after FDA approval in 2006. Price trends for single-component generic medicines mirrored generic FDC prices. Two large-scale purchasers, PEPFAR and UNITAID, together accounted for 53%, 84%, and 77% of market volume for abacavir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir, respectively, in 2008. PEPFAR and UNITAID purchases were often split across two manufacturers.ConclusionsGlobal initiatives facilitated the creation of fairly efficient markets for older ARVs, but markets for newer ARVs are less competitive and slower to evolve. WHO guidelines shape demand, and their complexity may help or hinder achievement of economies of scale in pharmaceutical manufacturing. Certification programs assure ARV quality but can delay uptake of new formulations. Large-scale procurement policies may decrease the numbers of buyers and sellers, rendering the market less competitive in the longer-term. Global policies must be developed with consideration for their short- and long-term impact on market dynamics.

BackgroundImportant advances in the development and production of quality-certified pediatric antiretroviral (ARV) formulations have recently been made despite significant market disincentives for manufacturers. This progress resulted from lobbying and innovative interventions from HIV/AIDS activists, civil society organizations, and international organizations. Research on uptake and dispersion of these improved products across countries and international organizations has not been conducted but is needed to inform next steps towards improving child health.MethodsWe used information from the World Health Organization Prequalification Programme and the United States Food and Drug Administration to describe trends in quality-certification of pediatric formulations and used 7,989 donor-funded, pediatric ARV purchase transactions from 2002-2009 to measure uptake and dispersion of new pediatric ARV formulations across countries and programs. Prices for new pediatric ARV formulations were compared to alternative dosage forms.ResultsFewer ARV options exist for HIV/AIDS treatment in children than adults. Before 2005, most pediatric ARVs were produced by innovator companies in single-component solid and liquid forms. Five 2-in1 and four 3-in-1 generic pediatric fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in solid and dispersible forms have been quality-certified since 2005. Most (67%) of these were produced by one quality-certified manufacturer. Uptake of new pediatric FDCs outside of UNITAID is low. UNITAID accounted for 97-100% of 2008-2009 market volume. In total, 33 and 34 countries reported solid or dispersible FDC purchases in 2008 and 2009, respectively, but most purchases were made through UNITAID. Only three Global Fund country recipients reported purchase of these FDCs in 2008. Prices for pediatric FDCs were considerably lower than liquids but typically higher than half of an adult FDC.ConclusionPediatric ARV markets are more fragile than adult markets. Ensuring a long-term supply of quality, well-adapted ARVs for children requires ongoing monitoring and improved understanding of global pediatric markets, including country-based research to explain and address low uptake of new, improved formulations. Continued innovation in pediatric ARV development may be threatened by outdated procurement practices failing to connect clinicians making prescribing decisions, supply chain staff dealing with logistics, donors, international organizations, and pharmaceutical manufacturers. Perceptions of global demand must be better informed by accurate estimates of actual country-level demand.