FDA approves Truvada, first pill to prevent HIV infections

[surfsatwerk]

You're probably right. I wouldn't be surprised if some studios start making their actors go on this medication.

For $13k a year? lol

 

[lxskllr]

That's not what it means. The 75% reduction means, (making up numbers here) that if originally 40 out of 100 people would acquire HIV through protected sex with condoms that with the drug, it's now 75% less = 10 out of 100. It could be 4 out of 100 reduced to 1 out of 100. But it doesn't mean 100 out of 100 reduced to 25 out of 100.

It would be nice if they made the study available, so actual numbers can be seen. I couldn't find it with a quick look, but it may be out there somewhere.

 

[SMOGZINN]

This should be given to doctors and nurses free of charge since they deal with bodily fluids day in and day out...

This is what I was going to say in response to those asking who the target audience is. There are a lot of medical professionals that work in with large numbers of HIV or AIDs patience who could benefit from this drug.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Who was dumb enough to be part of this testing. Hey I don't have HIV but I'll test it and see if I get it with your drug and maybe I'll be the lucky one to be placed on the placebo.

Hold on, so you read that and actually thought researchers deliberately exposed participants to HIV?

 

[SMOGZINN]

The people who voluntarily participate in these studies already engage in high risk behavior as is, they're just offered a drug or placebo to help facilitate testing. They don't seek out people who arent already doing this.

AFAIK it is currently considered unethical to give placebos to people in this sort of trial. Instead they use a statistical population control group.

 

[Nintendesert]

This should be given to doctors and nurses free of charge since they deal with bodily fluids day in and day out...

Now that you say that, this is the only group that could be counted on to take the medication and to actually have the means to pay for it and it would actually serve some good.

:thumbsup:

 

[BladeVenom]

Yes because a test to say you have it is the same as 42% less people getting infected...

An affordable test that can tell you with 99.7% accuracy if a potential partner is infected is more effective than an unaffordable preventative with only a 75% chance of preventing the virus.

People in countries hardest hit by AIDS won't be able to afford $13,900 medication. Even in this country the majority of people most at risk won't be able to afford it.

 

[shortylickens]

We already have a method to prevent HIV and it still spreads.
What does that tell you?

 

[Whisper]

An affordable test that can tell you with 99.7% accuracy if a potential partner is infected is more effective than an unaffordable preventative with only a 75% chance of preventing the virus.

People in countries hardest hit by AIDS won't be able to afford $13,900 medication. Even in this country the majority of people most at risk won't be able to afford it.

Many individuals on HAART (which is in the same price range) currently technically can't afford it, either, but (if they qualify) receive fully-funded or heavily-subsidized care via state/federal money and private donations. My guess is that this new medication will receive the same subsidization in those who qualify for such care, with adherence to HAART by the affected partner possibly being a contingency.

At the same time, I could also see the gay marriage debate coming up in some capacity (e.g., if they limit coverage to spouses of affected individuals).

Edit: Also, I think many people would be surprised by the number of individuals who still don't fully understand/appreciate how HIV is spread.

Ultimately, people are still contracting HIV in the US and other developed nations. The cost of putting an individual on this medication could very well end up being cheaper than the cost of caring for that same individual if they contract HIV.