Where is imbruvica made: Is Imbruvica made in... - CLL Support

CLL Support

16,138 members26,101 posts

Where is imbruvica made


Is Imbruvica made in China

43 Replies

my packages say base compound made in china. Tableted and packaged in usa


See this recent post asking the same question: healthunlocked.com/cllsuppo...

A few years ago I posted, "made in China". Same subject, a few years back.

bkoffmanCLL CURE Hero

Key ingredients made in China, but final assembly of the parts is in the USA. Helps prevent the Chinese from stealing the process and making it generic, not they would ever do anything like that.

newyork8 in reply to bkoffman

"Key" ingredient is the operative word. Really don't want my health in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party. They are not the most compassionate.

If they produce more cheaper version with the same effect. Wouldn’t be more affordable for all CLL patients ? That drug is very expensive and not affordable for people without any private insurance. Many countries refuse to give it free via public healthcare insurance to it’s citizens. Some countries require at least one time being treated with first line chemotherapies before giving Imbrutinib for free.

I would bet a LOT of our expensive medicines are "Made in China". Cheap to the corporation who sells them, not cheap to us. Much like iPhones made by very cheap labor in China, probably costs Apple $5 to make one but sells for over a thousand. I don't understand why all of our products aren't made here in the USA like they used to be.

I agree! However you gave the answer. Cheap labor ! They even do not want to pay extra money to Americans. Instead they are giving jobs to Chinese, saving time and money. I’m not American, nor the Chinese. I just want to be able get that drug for more affordable price. Drug companies are taking advantage of our need. They know that we desperately need those drugs, and they are the only option!

If drug companies can't make profit they will fail and go away. How does that help us? Only 1 in 20 drugs make it to market. It takes over 10 years and 1 billion dollars minimum to develop 1 successful drug. Who will invest if there is no gain to be had? Without the potential profit there won't be innovation. Stop demonizibg the drug industry. They are devoted people that want to help. If it's capitalism you don't like well please list the drugs that socialist economies created. The issue is insurance reform not "evil" drug companies. I thank God for Ibrutinib so this father can raise his children.

dear friend, i’m doctor and i do not really care about politics. i’m here for my mom’s cll journey and not for fighting with people. if you just google how much they make a profit each year on a single drug, you will understand. roughly, if they spend 1, they take 10. what I’m saying is they can take 3 or 4, instead of 10. putting 1 and taking 3 is a excellent profit! Wouldn’t also be good for us ? Just throw politics aside and put yourself in shoes of someone who desperately need that drug but can not afford it (btw, thanks to scientists and industry behind it!). there are drugs even more expensive, one single dose of one of the newest SMA drugs is around 2 million dollar. can you imagine ?

Well put!!!

It's not about politics....Insurance reform is needed. Who decides what profit is reasonable? Again, without the profit motive I would be dead. Are you suggesting we limit the profit of drug companies to X %? Well perhaps, but the drug companies need lots of capial to invest. They get that from shareholders who invest looking for profit. If we all had insurance that would solve the problem. Most drug companies have assistance for people who are very low income. At 65 Medicare steps in. Shall we limit the profit of doctors, hospitals? We don't want to stop drug innovation...that is the key.

thanks for kind reply. i do not know how but somehow rights of the both sides (drug industry and patients) should be fairly regulated and protected by governments of all countries. drug companies should be supported by government and they should be able to profit to some extent. patients should be able to get most crucial drugs for free or at least for affordable prices. this can be done by two options as far as i know.

1) Public insurance for all citizens (government charges certain amount of money each year like a tax and make almost all kind of treatment options for free or at least for affordable prices)

2) Regulations by the governments on the healthcare system and drug industry, let them profit to some extent, regulate profit amounts, and let all kind of treatments available to citizens for free or at least for affordable prices.

3) Combination of both options mentioned above.

Again, I do not care about politics. I personally, do not mind if CEO of one of the top drugs companies drives Ferrari or Lamborghini. Everybody should be able to live this life in the way of however they like to live. However, rights of lower and middle class should be protected. Not everyone can be rich, it is naturally not possible. We can not blame people for being poor. There are millions of homeless people all around the world. Somehow they should be recovered and rehabilitated. Hence, they can work and afford themselves. Economy will also prosper with those methods. Nobody will be dependent. This is what I think.

Good thoughts. The cost of drugs is exorbitant..Without insurance people are financially hurt often badly. I do think the system needs to reward good health behaviors. However, when you look at other systems the latest drugs are deemed too expensive so people don't get it when they need it. Ibrutinib $12k/month forever. Ozempic anti diabetes $1200/mo forever. Etc, etc. Take care.

Agree. I wish you best of luck with CLL!

I agree. In the USA usually after 10 yrs. (I think), a generic version of a new drug can be made, but due to the company's making a minor change to the drug it can stay non-generic for another few years and on and on. The generic version is always much cheaper, although sometimes, still not very "affordable". While I'm grateful for the new drugs for cancer, if people cannot afford them, people will still die and the company won't make any more money.

Smith123456 in reply to bluenet

the standard rules do NOT apply to 'orphan drugs' which our disease and these drugs are. Just a fact. There are relativly few of us to spread the costs over.

google total sales of Imbruvica in usa and worldwide and divide the billions by a years cost of imbruvica. Comes out to a surprisingly small number of patients.

As far as we know, at least 135.000 people are have treated with Imbruvica worldwide. I don’t know, how many people are actively using Imbruvica on daily basis. Let’s be optimistic and say 10.000 people are using it on daily basis and forever.

Yearly treatment cost is around 145.000 USD. 145.000 x 10.000 = 1.45 billion USD. This is only one drug. Those companies have multiple drugs like Imbruvica and each year they get billions from each. Huge money. It can be less. It can be more affordable.

135,000 people worldwide is an extremly small patient base. Do you think a company would have developed the drug if they only had 135,000 patients spread costs over and make a profit? This is not like blood pressure pills which have millions of users.

I will give you an answer-It would not have been developed at all.

When compared to hypertension drugs, less people use Imbruvica. no doubt. However, if you compare yearly costs of Imbruvica and the most expensive hypertension drug, you will see there is a huge difference. Despite of small patient base, they compensate with the high prices.

got the number from there;


they are classed as 'orphan drugs' for a reason. The orphan drug law was made for a reason. Your lecturing the wrong person

dear friend, i’m not lecturing you at all. what i’m trying to say is Imbruvica can be less expensive. not everyone can afford it. moreover, not all countries classify it as a “orphan drug”. i wish it would. good luck!

usa and EU classify orphan drugs. Since they are supporting most of the bills why shouldn't they.

perfect! they should. what I’m saying, it should be covered by all governments. it should be classified as a “orphan drug “ by other countries as well. because drug is too expensive to afford by patients.

Well than the issue is with your government-complain to them. They are the one's with universal health care systems. USA has a different system and we complain to ours.

Jm954Administrator in reply to Smith123456

Ibrutinib is now being recognised as useful in a variety of conditions not just CLL and not just haematological malignancies. A bit like Rituximab, they will make billions and billions of $.

bluenet in reply to Smith123456

Really? I wasn't aware that Imbruvica was an orphan drug.

Smith123456 in reply to bluenet

our disease is an orphan disease. Look it up

bluenet in reply to Smith123456

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I merely said I did not know it was an orphan drug. You seem upset that I stated what you already said!!

Smith123456 in reply to bluenet

i didn't take it as criticism. Just offering clarification

i’m not complaining. try to be relax and little kind.

sure you are. If all universal health care systems are superior to the USA's then that's our headache . Companies want incentives to develop 'orphan drugs'. Is that a good thing-no-but it is what it is.

Jm954Administrator in reply to cllmeonmycellphone

Well said cllmeonmycellphone , we should always try to be kind to each other here, as you have been.

You are a great person. Thanks!

I wish best of luck for all of you guys.

I hope one day everyone would easily and freely access to the best treatment options available. It may sound surreal but what I can do is just hope and raise awareness about it.

My mom is sick. She will need treatment soon. From scientific perspective, the best option for her is Imbruvica + Rituximab. Unfortunately, Turkish government does not afford it as a first line therapy. We should first try chemotherapy. If chemo fails, then we will get Imbruvica freely. At least Turkey tries to do something for its citizens. I appreciate. However, there are many undeveloped countries which can not afford expenses of novel and effective treatment options for its citizens.

Jm954Administrator in reply to cllmeonmycellphone

You're so right and you mom is lucky to have a few treatment options even if they are not ideal. In many countries there are none at all.

I hope the guidelines are useful to you in coming to a decision with your mom about how to go forward for her.

Take care


You’re right!

I will check guidelines. Thank you for helping!

Jm954Administrator in reply to Smith123456

You're actually only just correct. Here is the US definition of orphan disease - "In the United States, a rare disease is defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 people in the US. This definition was created by Congress in the Orphan Drug Act of 1983. Rare diseases became known as orphan diseases because drug companies were not interested in adopting them to develop treatments"

In 2017, there were an estimated 186,422 people living with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the United States. The annual rate of diagnosis is approx 21,000 or 1.2% of the population and the 5 year survival is 87%.

Source: SEER data.

The definition is different in Europe.

Smith123456 in reply to Jm954

thank you for 'only just' agreeing with me-lol

BSMI in reply to bluenet

By coincidence I raised exactly this question re: patent expirations last week & got an excellent explanation from lankisterguy here :



Ibrutinia costs so much less in india, 1250 dollars per month!! now i wanna know why?

AussieNeilAdministrator in reply to mkawass

Provided the Ibrutinib (or more correctly a BTK inhibitor) sourced from India is effective against CLL, there are these concerns:

1) Drug equivalence, confirmed with evidence from clinical trials. (Note that there are 10 BTKi drugs currently going through clinical trials healthunlocked.com/cllsuppo... to confirm that they are at least as effective as Ibrutinib, hopefully with less side and adverse effects. An additional BTKi drug dropped out of further trial phases after disappointing results. The Indian BTKi copy Ibrunat is not among them. Part of the difference in price would cover the clinical trial expenses.

2) Sudden loss of supply due to Intellectual Property agreements being defended

We know from member reports that those who stop taking Ibrutinib before they achieve uMRD risk having their CLL come roaring back, with some actually being diagnosed incorrectly with Richter's transformation (termed Pseudo Richter's Transformation) and even having treatment for this acute lymphoma, which disappears if Ibrutinib treatment is resumed.

Here are a couple of recent reports on the status of court challenges on low cost 'Ibrutinib' supply from India:




No one has mentioned the issue that COVID has highlighted that our drugs in the US and many other countries rely on at least part of the process of bringing the drug to market being in China. We need to get back to having control of drug manufacturing in our own countries or “partner nations”.

EXACTLY. I remember when everything was made in the USA, including sheets, towels, etc. made in the Carolinas mostly. Really nice heavier cotton, etc. but, I don't think those times will be coming back, sadly. But I would REALLY like to have my phamaceuticals made in this country.

You may also like...