Huge figures compared to traditional medicines, which raise questions of accessibility and discrimination<\/i><\/h4>\n
The high costs of Sovaldi, Gilead's anti-hepatitis C, technical name sofosbuvir, which in the USA amount to 80 thousand dollars for 12 weeks of treatment, are sparking economic and ethical controversies and debates in the world. And if anyone wonders why the fuss, here is the answer published in Health Affairs by\u00a0James Chambers<\/b>of Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts: specialist drugs are about to invade the market and in this case the game is worth the candle. These are drugs that in 2013 were less than the 1% of prescriptions, but about a quarter of pharmaceutical spending, a proportion that could rise to 63% in 2016, according to Express Scripts estimates. And while Gilead promises lower prices in developing countries, some say new drugs should cost hundreds of dollars, not tens of thousands. Another example is Johnson & Johnson's simeprevir: it costs about 66,000 dollars, and if combined with Sovaldi, as sometimes happens, it brings the anti-hepatitis cure to just under 150,000 dollars, about 100,000 euros, for a quarter of treatment. Huge figures compared to traditional medicines, which raise questions of accessibility and discrimination. Thus Chambers compared in 1999-2011 new and old drugs for costs and health gain expressed in Qaly, a parameter of economic evaluation of health interventions. The results? Compared to the usual medicines, those more recent increase the Qaly from 0.002 to 0.183 but also the additional costs: 12,238 against 784 dollars. Chambers concludes: "Specialist medicines do have higher costs than traditional ones, but they also tend to confer greater benefits and, therefore, can still offer good value for money". And in a commentary editorial,\u00a0Alan Weil<\/b>, director of Health Affairs, says: \u201cChambers and colleagues conclude that, overall, specialty drugs are not only comparable in cost-effectiveness to traditional drugs, but sometimes even greater. This suggests that their development and use is a benefit to society, but sadly fails to answer a question: who has to pay, and how much, to receive that benefit?<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/d2qq2w1ozyf295.cloudfront.net\/app\/media\/1278\")
more recent increase the Qaly from 0.002 to 0.183 but also the additional costs: 12,238 against 784 dollars. Chambers concludes: "Specialist medicines do have higher costs than traditional ones, but they also tend to confer greater benefits and, therefore, can still offer good value for money". And in a commentary editorial,\u00a0Alan Weil<\/b>, director of Health Affairs, says: \u201cChambers and colleagues conclude that, overall, specialty drugs are not only comparable in cost-effectiveness to traditional drugs, but sometimes even greater. This suggests that their development and use is a benefit to society, but sadly fails to answer a question: who has to pay, and how much, to receive that benefit?<\/p>\n![\"Aringhieri\"](\"http:\/\/images.wired.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/1413298815_Aringhieri-600x335.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n