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.

Pharmaceutical markets in low resource settings are imperfect. Suppliers provide information on ‘suggested’ medicine prices, but actual purchase prices vary substantially across purchasers and these prices paid are typically unavailable. Public procurement databases now, however, provide timely market intelligence on prices for antiretroviral (ARV) medicines purchased with donor funds, allowing for careful examination of market trends. We used data posted by the World Health Organization to create a longitudinal database of 15 111 ARV procurements from 2002–2008. We noted dramatic price reductions for ARVs over this 6-year time period. Most generic ARVs were cheaper than branded counterparts, with the exception of protease inhibitors (PIs) in which some generic versions were more expensive than branded counterparts. Less price variation was noted for ARVs in low-income countries than middle-income countries where price variations of threefold or greater were noted in five of 28 (18 per cent) generic and 15 of 25 (60 per cent) brand dosage forms. In order to meet global goals of universal access to HIV/AIDS treatment, further price reductions are needed for abacavir, tenofovir and PIs. New approaches are needed to create incentives for generic manufacturers of these ARVs to enter the market and create price competition with these medicines.

BackgroundNumerous not-for-profit pharmacies have been created to improve access to medicines for the poor, but many have failed due to insufficient financial planning and management. These pharmacies are not well described in health services literature despite strong demand from policy makers, implementers, and researchers. Surveys reporting unaffordable medicine prices and high mark-ups have spurred efforts to reduce medicine prices, but price reduction goals are arbitrary in the absence of information on pharmacy costs, revenues, and profit structures. Health services research is needed to develop sustainable and "reasonable" medicine price goals and strategic initiatives to reach them.MethodsWe utilized cost accounting methods on inventory and financial information obtained from a not-for-profit rural pharmacy network in mountainous Kyrgyzstan to quantify costs, revenues, profits and medicine mark-ups during establishment and maintenance periods (October 2004-December 2007).ResultsTwelve pharmacies and one warehouse were established in remote Kyrgyzstan with < US $25,000 due to governmental resource-sharing. The network operated at break-even profit, leaving little room to lower medicine prices and mark-ups. Medicine mark-ups needed for sustainability were greater than originally envisioned by network administration. In 2005, 55%, 35%, and 10% of the network's top 50 products revealed mark-ups of < 50%, 50-99% and > 100%, respectively. Annual mark-ups increased dramatically each year to cover increasing recurrent costs, and by 2007, only 19% and 46% of products revealed mark-ups of < 50% and 50-99%, respectively; while 35% of products revealed mark-ups > 100%. 2007 medicine mark-ups varied substantially across these products, ranging from 32% to 244%. Mark-ups needed to sustain private pharmacies would be even higher in the absence of government subsidies.ConclusionPharmacy networks can be established in hard-to-reach regions with little funding using public-private partnership, resource-sharing models. Medicine prices and mark-ups must be interpreted with consideration for regional costs of business. Mark-ups vary dramatically across medicines. Some mark-ups appear "excessive" but are likely necessary for pharmacy viability. Pharmacy financial data is available in remote settings and can be used towards determination of "reasonable" medicine price goals. Health systems researchers must document the positive and negative financial experiences of pharmacy initiatives to inform future projects and advance access to medicines goals.