Comments on: Once-a-Day Pill Reduces HIV Infections—Would People Actually Take It?

By: Duncan

Duncan — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:57:47 +0000

Often once we have a pill that’s effective it’s just a matter of time before somebody develops the same treatment in a slow release medication. I assume research is being conducted into making this into something that could be taken as a booster, perhaps once a year or so? If they manage that this could be rolled like a flu shot, and then you could have some real results. Criticize the drug companies if you like, but if you don’t come up with the inefficient method first you’ll never get to an efficient one.

By: Matt B.

Matt B. — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:16:20 +0000

How long would someone have to use the pill before and after sex to get the maximum effectiveness? If the before were zero days, it could be used as a sort of day-after pill and it might have wide application.

By: Jennifer Welsh

Jennifer Welsh — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:52:47 +0000

@Jill,

I wanted to broach this topic in the article, but didn’t have the space. The people who would be using these type of pill-based prophylaxis are a couple types: Men who might be getting raped in jail by other, possibly infected prison-mates, prostitutes who for whatever reason aren’t able to force their customers to wear condoms, and also people who may get high or intoxicated and unable to demand their partners use condoms.

The point is, there are specific cases where this kind of treatment COULD be useful, in addition to other, currently available and proven ways to prevent HIV infection, like condoms. I hope I at least made that point in the article.

Thanks for reading and commenting, all!

Jen

By: Anna Forbes

Anna Forbes — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:58:18 +0000

Thanks for raising these important cost issues. There are additional issues that should be of concern, particularly to women, as we consider the possibility of PrEP. For more on these, please see http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/11/23/pill-prevent-what-iprex-results-mean-women. Thanks.

Anna Forbes, MSS

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:12:37 +0000

@2, What about an AIDs avoidance kit?

By: Jockaira

Jockaira — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 05:05:49 +0000

The difference between $36 daily and 40¢ is simply the amount required for the drug company to recover its costs of development, testing, and profit. The government should buy or lease the rights from the manufacturer and make the drug available for its citizens. It would be an excellent investment in public health, and in the long term would save money in governmentally provided health insurance by reducing the total number of AIDS cases that in many instances devolve to the government for financial support.

I seriously doubt that anyone would pay $36 daily for prophylaxis that is only 90% effective, but 40¢ is another story. Better compliance with the daily regimen could be encouraged by including a dozen condoms (at near 100% effectiveness) with 30 days-worth of Truvada. Because of the economies of scale and volume, this type of packaging would be very cheap for the user, and having both in the same package would be a nice place to include literature about both and be a good reminder to the user of the value of both systems.

It’s pretty hard to imagine a more effective AIDS prevention kit!

By: Jill

Jill — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:11:40 +0000

What a ridiculous sum of money to use this as a prophylactic treatment, when ACTUAL PROPHYLACTICS are much more effective, not to mention cheaper! Those patients who are likely to be compliant with pills are also the most likely to be compliant with condoms. Nonetheless, I bet the drug company’s marketing department is pushing this one to the max.