Skip to main content

Ensuring the Safety of HIV/AIDS Generics

Carol Adelman

I fully agree with Kevin Frost’s concern that much of the generics market-place operates outside rigorous governmental or agency review and that people with HIV, whether they live in developed or developing countries, have a fundamental right to know that the drugs they are taking are safe and effective (Apr 9, p 1290). Frost cites my article Deadly medicine from the Wall Street Journal Europe as contesting the value of generics in treating AIDS patients. I have always approved of generic drugs. The problem with many of the drugs Frost discusses is that they are not generics. They are copy drugs that have not been tested against reference products and, in some cases, there is no reference product against which to test them.

I am completely in favour of the generic drug just approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). But Frost, like many, continues to misunderstand the issue. The FDA-approved AIDS drug is not the same drug that he cites. The FDA-approved drug is not by regulatory definition a triple antiretroviral regimen or a triple combination therapy. The drug is a co-packaged product, with a combined tablet containing zidovudine plus lamivudine and a separate single tablet of nevirapine. The co-packaging allows physicians to administer nevirapine when clinically indicated, or remove it when not. This FDA-approved drug is a true generic since it is based on a reference product, Combivir.

The main drug recommended by WHO in its 3 by 5 plan is a triple combination drug from India, combining in one tablet lamivudine, stavudine, and nevirapinea combination that has never been adequately tested for safety and efficacy. Since many countries do not require drug regulatory authority approval for drugs they export, we have no way of knowing, other than by testing them on poor patients, whether they work and whether they are safe.

It is important that we understand the nomenclature of the antiretroviral drugs under discussion. If we fail to differentiate regimens clearly, then it is difficult to see how we can help those less familiar with regulatory issues. We should all be grateful to President Bush’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The directors of this US$15 billion AIDS effort are upholding the highest standards in AIDS treatment. They are by no means wasting money. Many of the proven safe and efficacious AIDS drugs they purchase are cheaper than the unproven copy drugs. PEPFAR has been steadfast to the principle of informed consent for all patients as well. It has sustained this policy despite the pressure by WHO and other activist groups to purchase the untested triple dose combination drug containing nevirapinea drug known to have toxic side-effects.

Related Articles

The Race to the Bottom in China's Smartphone Market

John Lee

At a convention in Barcelona over the weekend, Samsung unveiled its much anticipated Galaxy S6 smartphone, due for release in around 20 countries, inc...

Continue Reading

A New Iron Curtain

Bryan Schwartz

Over the last five years, the Russian Federation has been criticized by international NGOs over the administration of elections, the national ban on ...

Continue Reading

One Giant Leap … Down

Seth Cropsey

Responding to mild U.S. sanctions on Russia, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin announced on May 13 that U.S. astronauts would no longer be welcome ...

Continue Reading