AIDS Activists Fight for Access to Experimental Drugs
ACT UP’s members argued that patients deserved access to experimental drugs, even if they were not yet FDA-approved and that during a national crisis, access to new therapies and innovative care must be everyone’s right.
“I would rather take my chances with the side effects of an experimental drug,” AIDS activist Vito Russo told the Ottawa Herald in October 1988. “The side effect of AIDS is death.”
ACT UP’s Treatment and Data Committee, otherwise known as the “Science Club,” studied the Food and Drug Administration’s operation inside and out, Schulman recounts. Eventually, they came to understand FDA processes, policies and systems. They analyzed experimental drugs, clinical trials and emerging treatments long before they came up for approval.
In 1988, ACT UP published an FDA Action Handbook, conducted a series of teach-ins and distributed news like Hollywood releases. By giving the media advanced information, reporters had information long before their stories were broadcast or printed, and coverage tended to be more supportive.
On October 11, 1988, an estimated 1,500 ACT UP protestors disrupted the FDA headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. Crowds blocked access to doors, walkways and roads; launched smoke bombs; diverted office workers; and chanted protest songs, including “Hey, hey, FDA, how many people have you killed today?” They issued a set of demands, including shortening the drug approval process, offering free access to drugs after Phase 1 trials, discontinuing double-blind placebo trials—including people from all backgrounds and with all stages of HIV infection in clinical trials—and making Medicaid and private insurance accountable for paying for experimental drugs.
One year later, the “parallel track,” which allowed the early release of drugs and treatments to terminal patients who had exhausted all other options, was finally accepted by both the FDA and National Institutes of Health. Soon, a second antiretroviral drug became available. Many patients felt hope for the first time since their diagnosis.
Once only seen on angry picket signs, “Drugs into Bodies” became public healthcare practice. ACT UP had forced a shift in the way clinical trials were managed in the United States. The group's pressure then focused and intensified on the pharmaceutical companies themselves.
The (Expensive) Debut of AZT
By the early 1990s, there was only one approved drug (azidothymidine/AZT), and its 25-month approval process was seen as impressively fast at the time. Many patients could not tolerate AZT, or the side effects it caused, yet no other viable option existed.
The pharmaceutical company Burroughs Wellcome had originally priced AZT at $10,000 per year (adjusted for inflation: $25,730.) Faced with a Congressional inquiry into price gouging, the company lowered the price to $8,000 per year, yet it remained the most expensive drug ever sold. Within two years, Burroughs Wellcome stock soared 40 percent. ACT UP and 15 other groups met with Burroughs, who would not budge. In response, ACT UP called for a nationwide boycott of all Burroughs products, which they labeled with “AIDS profiteer” stickers in stores.
Accelerating Research
ACT UP challenged every aspect of care design and delivery. Many NIH trials for AIDS drugs required that patients cease all other medications—including the medications that were keeping them alive. As a result, many trials did not advance to approval, resulting in a limited selection and supply of proven AIDS drugs. ACT UP’s members demanded change.
“Crucial studies of drugs for opportunistic infections that were proposed two or three years ago have not yet begun because of opposition from key executive committee members, while tens of thousands of people with AIDS have died of these same infections,” argued Richard Lynn of ACT UP in 1990.
The Science Club focused its efforts on accelerating the pace of research. They fought against lawsuits that blocked the production of lower-cost, generic drugs, called for Congressional hearings into drug pricing and protested the pharmaceutical industry’s influence on elected officials. By 1996, thanks to patient-centered care initiatives, combinations of new antiretroviral drugs had changed the prognosis for people living with HIV, making it possible for people with the virus to live long, relatively healthy lives.
The changes fought for by AIDS activists left a lasting impact in approaches to health care, according to Allan M. Brandt, a professor of the history of medicine at Harvard University. “When the history of the HIV epidemic is eventually written,” wrote Brandt in the June 6, 2013 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, “it will be important to recognize that without this epidemic there would be no global health movement as we know it today.”