Did Someone Just Cure HIV for $200,000?

Editor's note: A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to HIV as AIDS in some instances. This has been revised in the headline and body of the article. The Fool regrets the error.

Is this the HIV cure we've been waiting for?

According to multiple reports, Harvard researchers Timothy Henrich and Daniel Kuritzkes have recently noted a surprising side-effect to cancer treatments performed on two separate patients who also happen to be HIV-positive.

After undergoing bone marrow transplants to treat cancers of the blood, both men were later discovered to have no trace of HIV left in their system.

Encouraged by the results, the patients have since stopped taking anti-HIV drug treatments. Seven weeks later (for one patient), and 15 weeks later (for the other), the virus has not returned. And while the researchers are hesitant to pronounce the men "cured" -- warning that there's still a risk the virus can resurface even months after initially disappearing -- they do cautiously concede that the patients are "doing very well."

First, do no harm
The doctors' caution is understandable for many reasons -- first and foremost is the fear of raising hopes that a cure may have been found for one of the world's most intractable diseases, only to have to dash that hope later.

Experts also warn that bone marrow transplant is a truly unpleasant experience -- and in many cases not a practical solution to HIV because of the cost and complexity of the procedure.

All that being said, the hope for a cure to HIV springs eternal, and in this case at least, even the fantastic cost of a bone marrow transplant operation may turn out to be a bargain relative to the cost of treating the disease over a lifetime.

When the treatment is worse than the cure
Consider: According to the National Institutes of Health, what this translates into for a patient living out the projected life expectancy of 24.2 years post-infection is a lifetime cost of up to $618,900 per adult.

That's the "good" news. The bad news is that other sources put the cost of treating an HIV infection at as much as $5,000 a month, with the bulk of the charges going to pay for drugs.

Should a patient beat the odds, and survive to live out a 50-year lifespan post-infection, that could add up to as much as $3 million in treatment costs. But what if we could cut that figure down by a factor of 15?

That's the far-off potential suggested by the Harvard transplant results. According to the American Cancer Society, an allogeneic bone marrow transplant from a donor can cost as much as $200,000. That's hardly cheap, but it's much cheaper than $3 million.

What does it mean to investors?
One industry for which "cheaper" does not necessarily mean "better," however, is big pharma, which makes big money under the current system of treating HIV until death.

This is money -- revenue streams -- that could be put at risk if an actual cure for the disease is (or has already been) discovered.

Major pharma names Bristol-Myers Squibb  (NYSE: BMY  )  and Merck  (NYSE: MRK  ) , for example, each generated in excess of $1 billion from HIV-drug sales in 2010. Indeed, two Bristol-Myers drugs -- Reyataz and Sustiva, combined to produce $2.85 billion that year.

Gilead Sciences  (NASDAQ: GILD  ) , reportedly holding a 40% market share in the HIV-drugs market, recorded $3.2 billion in sales of Atripla alone in 2011. HIV is also a multimillion-dollar market for heavyweights Johnson & Johnson  (NYSE: JNJ  )  and Pfizer  (NYSE: PFE  ) .

With doctors still insisting that "transplantation is not a viable option for people with HIV on a broad scale because of its costs and complexity," these revenue streams look safe for the time being. That said, the cases of the two patients, still HIV-free weeks after their transplants, promise a day perhaps not too far off, when this treatable disease does in fact become curable.

As Kevin Robert Frost, chief executive of The Foundation of AIDS Research, opines: "These new cases could lead us to new approaches to treating, and ultimately even eradicating, HIV."

Leaked: This coming blockbuster will make every biotech jealous
The best biotech investors consistently reap gigantic profits by recognizing true potential earlier and more accurately than anyone else. Let me cut right to the chase. There is a product in development that will revolutionize not just how we treat a common chronic illness, but potentially the entire health industry. Analysts are already licking their chops at the sales potential. In order to outsmart Wall Street and realize multi-bagger returns you will need The Motley Fool’s new free report on the dream-team responsible for this game-changing blockbuster. CLICK HERE NOW.


Read/Post Comments (3) | Recommend This Article (8)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On July 22, 2013, at 11:15 AM, meowmacao wrote:

    Good effort, but let me help you with a few things.

    First, there is an important distinction to be made when talking about human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). HIV is the name of the infection. An HIV-infected patient is considered to have AIDS if his/her immune system (CD4 cell count) declines below a certain level, or if he/she develops tuberculosis or another AIDS-defining condition.

    Secondly, there are around 34 million people living with HIV. The overwhelming majority live in low- or middle-income countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. Only a small fraction live in North America and other regions where bone marrow transplants could even be dreamt of.

    Thirdly, people with HIV are living much longer, healthier lives than they were even a few years ago. There are two main reasons: Earlier recommended timing of when to begin taking antiretroviral drugs, and better antiretroviral drugs (e.g. GILD's Atripla, Viread, Stribild and other combinations containing tenofovir).

    Until 2010, patients didn't begin therapy until their CD4 counts declined to <200 cells, which usually meant they were already quite sick. From 2010-2013 the recommendation was CD4 <350. Patients could begin therapy much earlier, when they felt pretty well. The recommendation is now CD4 <500. In rich countries, many patients begin therapy immediately upon diagnosis, regardless of CD4 count.

    GILD's tenofovir-containing antiretroviral combos, recommended by the World Health Organization in first-line therapy, have been a major breakthrough in keeping HIV-infected patients alive. HIV/AIDS is no longer a death sentence. The estimate of 24.2 "years to live" is no longer valid. A 2013 analysis found that in patients with well-controlled HIV infection (through good adherence to their medications), there was no evidence of increased mortality compared to the general population.

    Disclosure: I own 160 shares of GILD.

    Reference: Rodger AJ, Lodwick R, Schechter M, Deeks S, Amin J, Gilson R, Paredes R,

    Bakowska E, Engsig FN, Phillips A; INSIGHT SMART, ESPRIT Study Groups. Mortality

    in well controlled HIV in the continuous antiretroviral therapy arms of the SMART

    and ESPRIT trials compared with the general population. AIDS. 2013 Mar

    27;27(6):973-9.

  • Report this Comment On July 22, 2013, at 1:01 PM, luckyagain wrote:

    ' One industry for which "cheaper" does not necessarily mean "better," however, is Big Pharma, which makes big money under the current system of "treating" AIDS until death. '

    Prevention is much better than any treatment or even a cure. The search for vaccine continues to this day. Hopefully even a cure for HIV will not stop the research for a vaccine. A bone-marrow transplant is not a minor procedure.

  • Report this Comment On July 22, 2013, at 1:54 PM, DrGoldin wrote:

    Is this why GILD is off over 1% today? If people think a bone-marrow transplant is going to be a viable alternative to tenofovir, they're out of their mind.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2547400, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/20/2014 2:24:54 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement