seth@PacBell.COM (Seth Miller) (08/31/89)
I would like to hear from any asymptomatic HIV + people who have been taking AZT. I would specifically like to know: How has it affected you? What kind of side effects have you experienced? Have you experienced any drastic mood swings? How has it affected your appetite? If you were going to a gym before, how has it affected your workout? How has it affected your sex life? Anything else you might want to tell me. All replies will be kept strictly confidential!!! [note that e-mail cannot be guaranteed to be strictly confidential along the route between you and Seth - jpm] This is for my doctor. He has a practice where most of his patients are HIV + and with the new FDA guidlines he is seeing more and more asymptomatics asking for AZT. When I mentioned sci.med.aids to him he asked me to post this. All replies will be stripped of header information and then given to him. All he wants is the info. He doesn't care about names. Thanks in advance for any replies. Seth "The Original Seth" Miller
Rob.Carr@f81.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Rob Carr) (11/19/89)
I keep hearing criticisms of the drug companies regarding the cost of AZT,
Pentamidine, or even some of the newer heart medicines. Now my understanding
of the whole business is that the initial price is high because the drug
companies are attempting to recoup the cost of development and getting FDA
approval. If this were not done, then we'd never see a new drug because no one
can afford it.
A buddy of mine, a nice guy in my opinion, invented a medical device. His
accountant just gave him an estimate of the price this thing will go for. He
was horrified. Now he can't afford to spend all the money for the trials and
etc. out of his own pocket, but he doesn't think the thing has a decent market
potential at the cost he would need to charge just to break even over the life
of the patent. So this rather nifty gadget (that I would like to have in my
ambulance) may never see the light of day. Who's fault is that? My friend's,
because he's not independantly wealthy, the FDA because they want to protect us
from crap that doesn't work, or who's?
Is this truly the way it works with AZT, or is the company adding on?
65/7 103/501
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!129!81!Rob.Carr
Internet: Rob.Carr@f81.n129.z1.fidonet.orgWounded.Bird@f38.n135.z1.fidonet.org (Wounded Bird) (11/21/89)
> I keep hearing criticisms of the drug companies regarding the cost of AZT, >Pentamidine, or even some of the newer heart medicines. Now my understanding >of the whole business is that the initial price is high because the drug >companies are attempting to recoup the cost of development and getting FDA >approval. If this were not done, then we'd never see a new drug because no >one can afford it. That is a general cause for high pricing however AZT along with some other drugs like DDI were developed by the NIH or NICH some years ago under taxpayer funded cancer research. They did not work for the treatment of cancer and were "shelved". Obviously, there is little justification for huge development costs in these cases. The NIH has subsequently placed "reasonable selling price" clauses in it's contracts awarded for sole manufacturing rights which were not present in the agreement with Burroughs Wellcome. The price of pentamadine is roughly $26 in England and europe and $99.40 here in the U.S. The criticism is directed to the disparity in pricing when a company is given sole rights to produce it here. It all boils down to competitive vs. monopolistic marketing. The thought being it is better to allow gouging and _have_ the drug available than low prices and no incentive to produce. The other side of the story are the _people_ who cannot obtain the drugs due to lack of personal funds, the insurance companies who use any contract loophole to avoid paying the high cost of these treatments and the states who run out of alloted medicaid funds. The people afflicted with the diseases pay the ultimate price of these policies. A PWA with NO current opportunistic infections will probably incurr the following monthly costs: AZT (500 mg daily).................... $263. Acyclovir (1000 mg daily).............. 92. Aerosol Pentamidine................... 285. Monthly blood work....................+- 75. Doctors (1 monthly visit).............. 55. ------- Total ................................ $770. That figure goes up dramatically if infections are present. The relative expense of AZT has dropped due to the efficacy trials. The known effective dosage used to be 1200mg per day rather than 500mg above. 135/38 933 151/1003 265/7 103/501 -- Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!135!38!Wounded.Bird Internet: Wounded.Bird@f38.n135.z1.fidonet.org
rhc@PacBell.COM (Robert Cohen) (11/21/89)
In article <29322@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Rob.Carr@f81.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Rob Carr) writes:
->I keep hearing criticisms of the drug companies regarding the cost of AZT,
->Pentamidine, or even some of the newer heart medicines. Now my understanding
->of the whole business is that the initial price is high because the drug
->companies are attempting to recoup the cost of development and getting FDA
->approval. If this were not done, then we'd never see a new drug because no
->one can afford it.
... stuff deleted ...
->
->Is this truly the way it works with AZT, or is the company adding on?
I believe both Burroughs Welcome (AZT) and Lyphomed (pentamidine) have been
asked to make public their development costs. Neither has done so.
AZT was suddenly reduced in price by 20% as a result of pressure.
What do you think is the answer to this question?
--
Robert Cohen San Francisco, California rhc@PacBell.COM
{att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!rhc
work: 415-542-5517 home: 553-4033chris@hp-lsd.cos.hp.com (Chris E. Jones) (11/23/89)
>The relative expense of AZT has dropped due to the efficacy trials. The known >effective dosage used to be 1200mg per day rather than 500mg above. I'm still on 1200mg per day. Is it *known* that 500mg per day is just as effective?
Wounded.Bird@f38.n135.z1.fidonet.org (Wounded Bird) (12/05/89)
>I'm still on 1200mg per day. Is it *known* that 500mg per day is just as >effective? The recent release of the AZT clinical studies indicated that deaths and opportunistic infections were 16 times greater for those on a placebo than those using AZT. The group on AZT were divided into 2 groups to test the efficacy. One group was given 500mg and the other 1500mg daily. The group on 1500mg actually had 3 more incidinces of infection than those on 500mg. The conclusion was that 500mg is just as effective as 1500. There are no tests available to my knowledge but most of the people I know are taking 200mg of acyclovir 4-5 times daily along with AZT. Apparently these two anti-virals in concert work better than AZT alone. My doctor said there was good reason to take acyclovir but he did not elaborate. Maybe he has stock in Burroughs Wellcome <grin>. -- Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!135!38!Wounded.Bird Internet: Wounded.Bird@f38.n135.z1.fidonet.org