Study: AIDS pill helps gay men avoid HIV infection

[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.

[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.

[DrPhil]

This is the most important part of the study:

Daily doses of Truvada cut the risk of infection by 44 percent when given with condoms, counseling and other prevention services.

In other words, don't follow the white rabbit down the hole and think there's now a pill that says it's okay to carelessly go raw dawg and drop loads in 'em. That goes for all anal couples (gay and hetero). Mmmmkay!? Thanks.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

AFAIK it's because it hasn't been tested on them.

Yep - we should all remember that you have to be REALLY careful publishing results, particularly before peer review. If it were only tested in a certain area, that's all we can say (even if it likely has effects in other areas).

We should also remember that peer review "reverses" a relatively large number of niche findings like this.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

This is the most important part of the study:

Daily doses of Truvada cut the risk of infection by 44 percent when given with condoms, counseling and other prevention services.

In other words, don't follow the white rabbit down the hole and think there's now a pill that says it's okay to carelessly go raw dawg and drop loads in 'em. That goes for all anal couples (gay and hetero). Mmmmkay!? Thanks.

Also important to keep in mind - causation/correlation and all that.

Viruses are still one of the greatest challenges to human health, even though we've made exponential improvements just in the last decade or so. It's really encouraging, though, that treatments are being proven effective and finding new (and equally vital) uses. Now, if the cost could come down, we'd be in business.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

This is the most important part of the study:

Daily doses of Truvada cut the risk of infection by 44 percent when given with condoms, counseling and other prevention services.

In other words, don't follow the white rabbit down the hole and think there's now a pill that says it's okay to carelessly go raw dawg and drop loads in 'em. That goes for all anal couples (gay and hetero). Mmmmkay!? Thanks.

I was wondering if somebody was actually gonna catch that.

Doesn't sound so wonderful.

[ThetaPrincess24]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

This is the most important part of the study:

Daily doses of Truvada cut the risk of infection by 44 percent when given with condoms, counseling and other prevention services.

In other words, don't follow the white rabbit down the hole and think there's now a pill that says it's okay to carelessly go raw dawg and drop loads in 'em. That goes for all anal couples (gay and hetero). Mmmmkay!? Thanks.

Yes!

[DrPhil]

I don't think a whole lot of people will use the pill, either because of lack of access or perceived lack of effectiveness.

Unfortunately, I do think that some people will take this to mean that there are "quick fix" preventive measures and perhaps even a "cure" down the road. That can lead to carelessness because humans tend to be careless when they believe something may become foolproof.

[AOII Angel]

If you read the actual study, the patients that actually took the medication as directed (didn't skip doses) and used condoms, decreased their risk by 99%. The 44% included "intent to treat" which means all the patients who signed up but didn't take the medications because they forgot, dropped out because of medication side effects, took medications intermittently, didn't use condoms, etc.

As for the disclaimer for IV drug abusers and M-F sex, since they have active studies looking at these groups, they can't comment on whether this drug is effective in these groups. Obviously gay males will be at higher risk than M-F patients with partners infected with HIV, but the risk of side effects for the drug itself makes the question different. IV drug abusers have a different infection model that doesn't apply to this study, and it would be irresponsible to assume that the results would be the same.