Gilead stockholders: Demand Gilead sell HIV prevention drug to those who need it

The pharmaceutical corporation must do more to ensure people have access to lenacapavir worldwide.

Meena Kumari, lay counsellor, in a conversation with a caregiver of a person living with HIV.  Guru Gobind Singh Hospital in Patna, Bihar.

Lay counselor Meena Kumari talks to a caregiver of a person living with HIV at Guru Gobind Singh Hospital in Patna, Bihar. | India 2025 © MSF

Updated May 7, 2026 

As Gilead Sciences reported Q1 financial earnings today of $6.96 billion, of which more than $5 billion derived from the sale of HIV products, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) called on the company’s shareholders to push the US pharmaceutical giant to sell the highly effective HIV prevention medication lenacapavir to MSF for use in its medical projects across the world.

 

Lenacapavir is a long-acting injectable form of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) administered just twice a year that is nearly 100 percent effective in preventing HIV transmission. It is especially valuable for people at heightened risk — including men who have sex with men, transgender individuals, and sex workers — who face stigma, discrimination, and criminalization that often block their access to health care. In humanitarian settings where health care is intermittent and people are often mobile, a single injection providing six months of protection is transformative.

For the past year, Gilead has refused requests from MSF to purchase even a limited supply. Negotiations have not stalled over price, but rather over whether Gilead will sell this medicine to MSF at all. Instead, the company has directed MSF to procure the medicine for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) through The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria — an institution facing significant funding shortfalls and unprecedented demands on its resources. Gilead made more on HIV last year than the Global Fund was able to spend on HIV over the last decade. 

Procuring lenacapavir only through the Global Fund is a pathway that Gilead knows excludes countries and communities that MSF is trying to reach. It’s also not adequately meeting the needs in places like Eswatini and Kenya, where the capped amounts they have been allocated are not enough to meet demand, and supplies are running short.

Gilead says it wants to end HIV "for everyone, everywhere." But in practice, the company isn’t just pricing lenacapavir out of reach — it’s refusing to sell it at all, even to ready buyers like MSF.

Melissa Barber, MSF USA global health advocacy and policy advisor

While Gilead has also made a deal with select generic manufacturers to make the medicine available at a lower price than it sells it for in wealthier countries like the US — $40 versus $28,000 a year per patient — these generics will not be available until 2027 at the earliest, and many countries, including countries like Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Peru that hosted the lenacapavir clinical trials, are excluded from that license. In fact, a quarter of new HIV infections are happening in countries excluded from this deal.

Melissa Barber, MSF USA global health advocacy and policy advisor, said today:

”From southern Africa to Central America, our medical teams are eager to provide lenacapavir to people most at risk of contracting the virus. Instead, they're empty-handed because Gilead is choosing not to sell this new HIV prevention medicine at the scale that’s needed.

“Gilead’s choice is a deadly one. Approximately 1.3 million people worldwide acquire HIV every year, but those rates could be rolled back if lenacapavir were more accessible for the people who need it most.

“Gilead says it wants to end HIV ‘for everyone, everywhere.’ But in practice, the company isn’t just pricing lenacapavir out of reach — it’s refusing to sell it at all, even to ready buyers like MSF.

“There are serious corporate governance questions when a company has a breakthrough drug and clear demand but still chooses not to sell. Gilead’s stockholders — including those with environmental, social, and governance commitments — should ask them today and reevaluate whether or not Gilead still meets their standards.”