Replies to post #217112 on Biotech Values

[dangerM]

> not from an increasing number of HIV-infected patients

Well, you're right. This is correct for developed countries' markets which are driving product revenues and where patients can afford the higher quality (=more expensive) new regimens. This is also the reason why GILD is showing the conversion to Genvoya & Co. And in developed countries HIV + HCV are really the two diseases where prevention measures/screening/treatment did and do have an impressive epidemiological effect.

Actually, the sad thing is any new infected patient and the still ravaging epidemic elsewhere. Besides African countries it's somewhat distressing to actually read about prevalence and infection rates in countries you thought to be somewhat developed (Russia, China, Ukraine... even France and Portugal could improve).




* https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/pepfar-global-aids/global-hiv-aids-overview "An estimated 1.8 million individuals worldwide became newly infected with HIV in 2016 ... 1 million people died from AIDS-related illnesses in 2016)"

P.S.: from a more commercial standpoint the following is an interesting transcript (of course from the standpoint of GSK), but it helps to understand the pressure on GILD

https://www.gsk.com/media/4440/evercore-isi-transcript-30-nov-2017.pdf

[ciotera]

Re: GSK and HIV prophylaxis

How would GSK benefit from growth in HIV prophylaxis if the only approved regimen is Truvada?