In July 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved Truvada, an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) treatment manufactured by Gilead Sciences as a daily pre-exposure prophylactic (PrEP) treatment to reduce the risk of contracting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in sexually active individuals. Recently, this HIV PrEP treatment and its patent have been thrust into the spotlight thanks to a commercial for Truvada that Gilead ran during the January 27 broadcast of Rent: Live on the Fox television network. While many were encouraged by the fact that a national TV network was raising awareness about PrEP treatment, the commercial sparked a return to a debate over the high price of Truvada. As of June 2018, news reports indicated that once-daily Truvada treatment cost about $1,500 per month, or around $18,000 per year. Although the cost of Truvada is often covered by health insurance, the treatment hasn’t been adopted as widely as was expected when the drug was approved. Between January 2012 and March 2014, a review of half of U.S. pharmacies by Gilead showed that only 3,253 had begun a PrEP regimen during that time, far less than the estimated 500,000 people who would make good candidates for Truvada. That number has expanded rapidly to 77,120 U.S. PrEP users in 2016 and an estimated 136,000 users by the end of 2017’s first quarter, but that’s still far short of the estimated 1.2 million American adults at high risk of HIV infection who could benefit from PrEP. “Based on feedback
Examining the Truvada #BreakThePatent Debate: Gilead Responds
No Comments
Business
- Patents on Transactions Using Cryptocurrency: Square versus PayPal
- Managing the Perils of Public IP Company Ownership
- IPO Top 300, 2020: Slight Decreases in Patent Grants Due to Budgets, Not COVID
- Pardon Me? Levandowski Case Highlights Need for Proactive Approach to Avoid Trade Secret Problems in Hiring
- How Patents Enable Mavericks and Challenge Incumbents
Recent Posts
- Why the Patent Classification System Needs an Update
- Solutions for Promoting Patent Practitioner Diversity at the USPTO in the Battle Against Systemic Racism
- NetSoc Appeals to SCOTUS, Claiming Improper Analysis of Social Network Patent Nixed Under 101
- The View from the Court’s 2 Live Crew: Examining the Thomas/Alito Dissent in Google v. Oracle
- Tillis, Michel and Iancu Back Ericsson in Heated International FRAND Dispute with Samsung