Study: AIDS pill helps gay men avoid HIV infection

[IrishLake]

I think it's just saying they are studying the effects on M-F partners and needle users, and don't have a conclusion yet. But they did the study on gay men first, and have a result. Could be the pill "may" work for needle users and M-F partners as well, they just can't say yet. Note it's not a miracle pill, but most effective when coupled with condoms, counseling, etc.

I think this is disturbing. "As a practical matter, price could limit use. The pills cost from $5,000 to $14,000 a year in the United States, but only 39 cents a day in some poor countries where they are sold in generic form."

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

I think it's just saying they are studying the effects on M-F partners and needle users, and don't have a conclusion yet. But they did the study on gay men first, and have a result. Could be the pill "may" work for needle users and M-F partners as well, they just can't say yet. Note it's not a miracle pill, but most effective when coupled with condoms, counseling, etc.

I think this is disturbing. "As a practical matter, price could limit use. The pills cost from $5,000 to $14,000 a year in the United States, but only 39 cents a day in some poor countries where they are sold in generic form."

Yea, I get that it's still being tested. I was just trying to wrap my mind around what the pill itself does. It goes without saying that it needs to be coupled with other protective measures, but I'm just trying to figure out what the pill is doing for it to work in gay/bisexual men but possibly not in M-F couples.

Ex. If it's attacking the virus, that shouldn't be exclusive to one orientation group (I know this isn't the case, since this is to be a preventative measure, but that's what my thought process is).

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Yea, I get that it's still being tested. I was just trying to wrap my mind around what the pill itself does. It goes without saying that it needs to be coupled with other protective measures, but I'm just trying to figure out what the pill is doing for it to work in gay/bisexual men but possibly not in M-F couples.

Ex. If it's attacking the virus, that shouldn't be exclusive to one orientation group (I know this isn't the case, since this is to be a preventative measure, but that's what my thought process is).

I think in general, preventative treatment stimulates the person's immune system in advance of infection. Then if the virus is actually introduced there's a chance that the body can actually fight it off before it gets a toehold. Although the same effects might occur in all people, it might not cause as great of a decrease in drug users or M-F couples due to the infection vector. So it might be equally effective but only cause a 15% reduction thus making it less desirable for M-F couples to take.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

So it might be equally effective but only cause a 15% reduction thus making it less desirable for M-F couples to take.

Yep - it's actually a "utility" thing, especially compared to expense.

As you noted earlier, the comparison w/ HPV becomes apt at exactly this point: dudes could get the vaccine, but most male HPV infections have very few severe effects, especially in comparison with cervical cancers etc.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Yep - it's actually a "utility" thing, especially compared to expense.

As you noted earlier, the comparison w/ HPV becomes apt at exactly this point: dudes could get the vaccine, but most male HPV infections have very few severe effects, especially in comparison with cervical cancers etc.

However, promoting it for men not only helps prevent penile cancer but also reduces the infection rate in women. Herd immunity at its finest. Also since it covers several of the strains that cause genital warts it isn't a bad idea to get the shot regardless of sex.

But while i'm still working on getting the HPV vaccine - insurance kicks in Dec 1st. Whoohoo! - I'm not going to start taking preventative HIV medication because the risks and likely the utility is just not the same.

I was cheered a bit to see an article state the rates of infection were slowing worldwide. Maybe some of the education is getting through.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

However, promoting it for men not only helps prevent penile cancer but also reduces the infection rate in women. Herd immunity at its finest. Also since it covers several of the strains that cause genital warts it isn't a bad idea to get the shot regardless of sex.

I totally agree with you here, in the abstract, but also see why men are a much lower priority (for once) - particularly w/re/to Herd Immunity.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I totally agree with you here, in the abstract, but also see why men are a much lower priority (for once) - particularly w/re/to Herd Immunity.

Yes, it was good that they studied women first, but now they're proceeding with the study for men and I suspect it will be improved for them as well. Since M-F sexual encounters are the most common it makes a lot of sense to innoculate the "carriers" (that is, men) as well as the women.

Similarly since gay men are still at the biggest risk - though not the fastest increasing risk - for HIV it makes sense that they were the target population here as well.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

I think it's just saying they are studying the effects on M-F partners and needle users, and don't have a conclusion yet. But they did the study on gay men first, and have a result. Could be the pill "may" work for needle users and M-F partners as well, they just can't say yet. Note it's not a miracle pill, but most effective when coupled with condoms, counseling, etc.

I think this is disturbing. "As a practical matter, price could limit use. The pills cost from $5,000 to $14,000 a year in the United States, but only 39 cents a day in some poor countries where they are sold in generic form."

I heard about it on NPR a little while ago, and they priced it at $30 a day. 39 cents versus $30? Wow.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

I heard about it on NPR a little while ago, and they priced it at $30 a day. 39 cents versus $30? Wow.

Name brand vs. generic

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Name brand vs. generic

I know...it just bothers me how much they can charge. Out of the three medications I take two have generics, and they cost me $30 together. The third does not yet and costs $70. And none of those are medications which prevent a life threatening illness.

Entirely different topic^, I just feel like ranting every time drug companies come up.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

I know...it just bothers me how much they can charge. Out of the three medications I take two have generics, and they cost me $30 together. The third does not yet and costs $70. And none of those are medications which prevent a life threatening illness.

Entirely different topic^, I just feel like ranting every time drug companies come up.

It is way overpriced. I only use generics.

I also have kind medical professionals who give me enough samples to last for a while. They know those prescriptions are overpriced even with health insurance.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

It is way overpriced. I only use generics.

I also have kind medical professionals who give me enough samples to last for a while. They know those prescriptions are overpriced even with health insurance.

I have no current alternative to the $70 medication, and I do need it. It's just frustrating to see the two others combined cost less than half of what that one does. (And this is all with good insurance as I'm on my parents' plan). The only times I get samples are when my doctor has them, and it's never a month's worth. I want to rant every time I go to the pharmacy.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Name brand vs. generic

Or, more specifically, "Patented vs. patent-expired" ... it sucks, but it's the cost of doing business as far as encouraging corporate-sponsored research. The deal with the devil, so to speak.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Or, more specifically, "Patented vs. patent-expired" ... it sucks, but it's the cost of doing business as far as encouraging corporate-sponsored research. The deal with the devil, so to speak.

Also companies may have deals with certain countries that provide anti-HIV or anti-malarial etc. drugs for far cheaper than they do elsewhere due to dire need. And over here, insurance companies subsidize it so the true cost is not always as apparent. $Cost is not the same as $AmountPaid.