Comments on: FDA Approves the First Drug for Reducing Risk of HIV Infection

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:38:53 +0000

1 – What about the risk for those that would have had ‘safer’ sex if they had not had access to the drug therapy? Wouldn’t that translate into a 25% (or 10% for gay men) ‘increase’ in risk?

2 – What about the risk of health effects of unnecessary chemo therapy on the body? Doesn’t the drug itself take a toll on the body?

3 – What about the risk of creating super duper super bugs that are immune to these therapies?

So, a 75% (90% for gay men) decrease in the risk of HIV transmission during a sexual event versus a 75% (90% for gay men) decrease in health risk are completely different concepts. This doesn’t even take into account the concept that the scheme may backfire and actually prolong an epidemic by creating an environment where people can further delude themselves that sex is risk free. That is, after all, how the virus thrives to begin with.

By: floodmouse

floodmouse — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:31:51 +0000

Where did you get the figure of 13k a year, and is that for the USA? One of the links says ‘In the developing world, the combination drug used in the trial is available for as little as $0.40 per day.” I browsed through the linked articles & didn’t see the 13k figure.

By: Nuno

Nuno — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:55:49 +0000

Kaviani, this is not an insult. People may get irresponsible if they think that this is some kind of miraculous drug that will make them invulnerable to HIV, but if the medicine is sold with proper information, people will be advertised about the risks (that, though lessened, are still big enough to be thoroughly considered) and take the same precautions they usually took before the medicine was available.

Perhaps what I said is unrealistic to the most part of the cases, but it’d be cruel not to allow responsible people to reduce even more the risk of being infected.

I completely agree with the selling of this drug, but Governments must make sure an accurate information about it’s efficiency and risks are learned by the population.

The main risk seems that the virus might get resistant to the drug if people misuse this drug :/

By: Eric T

Eric T — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 19:08:19 +0000

If “in one trial, Truvada reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 90% in gay men who took it religiously”, what happened to the secular gay men who didn’t pray?

By: Renee

Renee — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:18:46 +0000

Kaviani, decades of education have only barely started to reduce HIV incidence in many countries in Africa, and only in certain sub-populations. People know how to prevent infection, but knowing is simply not enough – there are other issues like stigma, gender power, and hopelessness that make prevention for these populations difficult (eg: asking to use a condom is tantamount to admitting you have HIV in many places, and particularly woman are reluctant to do this in case they are ostracized by their communities.) I agree that the price tag is prohibitive, but so were AARVs at first. Several countries are working towards or have a comprehensive free public medication program, and they may be able to at least work something out to provide the drug to those particularly at-risk and vulnerable (ie: young women). That’s better than nothing.

By: Kaviani

Kaviani — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:27:59 +0000

Keeping corporate coffers stocked is priorty one of our gov’t, so I’m not surprised ($13K/yr, this drug).

I am saddened, though. This is an insult to the decades of education efforts on the topic. Great, you *may* not get HIV, but you can get every other STD as well as compromised liver and kidney function. The only people I can see really benefitting are uninfected, affluent partners of people with HIV.