Daily pill can cut AIDS risk for gay men, study finds

[mbamike]

Just sharing the good news I read on MSN Men's Health:

Daily pill can cut AIDS risk for gay men, study finds

Daily doses of Truvada cut the risk of infection by 44 percent when given with condoms, counseling and other prevention services. Men who took their pills most faithfully had even more protection, up to 73 percent.

Condoms still 'first line of defense'
Because Truvada is already on the market, the CDC is rushing to develop guidelines for doctors using it for HIV prevention, and urged people to wait until those are ready.
"It's not time for gay and bisexual men to throw out their condoms," Fenton said. The pill "should never be seen as a first line of defense against HIV."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40333614/ns/health-mens_health/

 

[T-Rexx]

And for only $36/day ($13,140/year)!


http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...-hiv-infection-risk-significantly-for-a-price

 

[mbamike]

^but in generic form the cost is 39 cents a day.

 

[purina]

"Think before you link"

 

[T-Rexx]

^but in generic form the cost is 39 cents a day.

Not available in the USA until 2021.

(Drug made nearly $1 billion in sales during 2009 in USA alone).

 

[FanofFiction]

This is certainly good news. Although I would like to see more studies done. A privately funded research institute alone, just doesn't give me enough confidence. Still, this is great news!

 

[Nomenclature]

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but how exactly do these studies reach this number? Do they give these pills to men and then have them have sex with people who are already HIV positive? If not how do they know this pill can cut risk of infection at all? And if these men are taking the pill and then having sex with infected men, who on earth would volunteer for that test??

Again forgive me if this is a dumb question, it just bugged me earlier when I saw the story on the news.

From what I understand, they simply get so many thousands of gay men, and divide them into groups: one taking the real drug, and one taking a placebo (a sugar pill disguised as the real drug). They then track them over the course of their lives to see how many become positive, and how many don't.

 

[T-Rexx]

Prices aren't set in stone.

Assuming that the drug proves safe and effective for longterm use to prevent HIV infection, if the manufacturer is smart, they will see that they can make far more money by reducing the price so that a much larger population of users will use it. If just 5% of all sexually-active American men were to take the drug even if it cost only $3 a day? HUGE profits.

As logical as it may seem that a company could make more money by selling more of the drug for less, that never happens to drugs in the USA that are still on patent. Not ever. Drug sales in the USA are not subject to market forces, for a lot of reasons.

Drug companies will occasionally reduce the cost of a drug slightly to specific groups. For example, a manufacturer may cut a deal with Blue Cross Blue Shield to sell a drug to BCBS policy holders for 5% less than the general public. But that is not done because the company thinks the drug will sell better at the lower cost, and therefore make more money. It is because the alternative in this case is no sales at all to BCBS policy holders.

But drug companies never ever agree to discount a patented drug to less than 10% of the going rate, as you are suggesting.

Americans will have to wait until 2021, when generic versions of Truvada become available here. Then, a generic will probably become available fo 10% to 25% less than the cost of the branded product (in this case, $9855 to $11,826 per year, in 2010 dollars).

Or, you can just cross the border into Canada or Mexico, and buy it for $0.39 per pill ($142.35/year).

 

[JayHawk]

Use a condom....

 

[T-Rexx]

Use a condom....

Obviously, that's going to remain the only viable option in the USA (and the third world) for the next decade or so.

The Truvada data is interesting, but we have no ability in the USA to utilize these kinds of therapies. Our medical delivery system has no way to accommodate this.

That said, this remains hugely significant for the rest of the world. This will probably help prevent a lot of suffering in the remainder of the developed world, at least.

 

[gayguy_1]

There is also the issue of possible development of resistance by HIV to the drug. The history of antibiotics is filled with cases of antibiotics that were introduced as near-miracle drugs, only to turn out a few years later to be far less useful due to the germs the drugs were intended to treat having become resistant to the effects of the drugs.

That's the main thing that came to my mind once I discovered the article. We are not out of the woods yet. We have made tremendous progress in regards to getting to know this disease.

Just starting with quite a ways to go.

 

[quasar]

*places Devil's Advocate' hat on head*

Am I the only one thinking that money would be better spent on helping to develop drugs to prevent (or deal) with diseases that we have NO control over contracting ie. various cancers, influenza etc. Or even plough the money into further HIV awareness programs?

Certainly in the Western world, every single one of us in control over whether we contract the HIV virus or not.

 

[bike10]

Welcome news for advances in fight against AIDS. Wonder how the Religious Right will react to this event?

 

[DigitalFudge]

The only known side effect is a 98% chance we all turn into those things from "I am legend"!

 

[Kensei]

Any news on HIV/AIDS prevention is good news. This makes my day.

 

[CGHJ]

And what will happen is, HIV infection will increase because people will increase their risky behaviors thinking that it's safe. They'll forget to take it every day, the same was people forget to take their tuberculosis drugs which is how we ended up with super-tuberculosis. They'll fuck without condoms, because they think they're safe. Its a lovely thought and very well intentioned, and if someone had an Positive partner I'm sure they'd be very interested I how to get their hands on some. But in the end, what you will see is infection rates going up, not down.

 

[DigitalFudge]

^^^^ that

all of that

 

[CGHJ]

So are you for or against this therapy being pursued?

You're right. Some people will be irresponsible and get into trouble.
But is that reason enough to deprive the people who would be responsible from having access to the therapy?

Some people won't be able to hold their liquor. They'll drink and drive. They'll get into accidents. They'll destroy their livers. So we should bring back Prohibition ...

Ah see... It's stuff like this that makes the world such an interesting ace to live.

I am 100% a free market capitalist, so I think the drug companies can pursue whatever they want. And I am a total 100% libertarian, so i feel that people are free to do whatever they want, so long as they don't harm anyone else. So if drug companies want to make it, and people want to take it, there's not a damn thing I would do about it no matter what my opinion of it is.

I merely articulate the law of unintended consequences, this drug therapy to reduce HIV infections will actually increase them. Also, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. It is what it is.

 

[MMMonsterBoy]

So can straight people take the pill? Or is it only for gays?[/kidding]

Anyhow, good news! Though I hope (as someone posted) that more people don't assume this as a safety net. When used right this could really help

 

[DigitalFudge]

^^^

Well since only gay people get AIDS obviously only we can take it

Bisexual people get half a dosage