backtop


Print 21 comment(s) - last by wordsworm.. on Jul 20 at 7:58 PM


  (Source: thehealthybear.com)
According to the FDA, Truvada treatment will cost nearly $14,000 annually

A drug used to prevent HIV infection has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today.
 
The drug is called Truvada, and it was developed by Gilead Sciences in California. The pill is to be used as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) along with regular HIV testing and safe sex. 
 
According to trial results, Truvada successfully reduced the risk of HIV infection by 42 percent in HIV-negative volunteers that had sex with several partners -- including those who were HIV-positive. In heterosexual partners where one person was infected, but used condoms during each sexual encounter, Truvada cut the risk of infection by 75 percent. 
 
"Today's approval marks an important milestone in our fight against HIV," said Dr. Margaret Hamburg, FDA Commissioner. "Every year, about 50,000 U.S. adults and adolescents are diagnosed with HIV infection, despite the availability of prevention methods and strategies to educate, test and care for people living with the disease."
 
Previously, Truvada was approved to be used with other antiretroviral drugs. Today's approval allows the drug to be used alone, except with non-drug related combinations like safe sex.
 
Some side effects experienced by those using Truvada were nausea, diarrhea, headache, weight loss, kidney problems, abdominal pain and bone toxicity. 
 
According to the FDA, Truvada treatment will cost nearly $14,000 annually. 
 
Earlier this month, the FDA approved a HIV home test quick called OraQuick, which was created by a company called OraSure. The test can be taken at home, and provides results in about 30 minutes. The test is meant for those who do not have access to a doctor. 

Source: Google



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Who in their right mind?
By Captain Orgazmo on 7/16/2012 11:11:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
HIV-negative volunteers that had sex with several partners -- including those who were HIV-positive


Umm, how exactly was this study conducted... As in who would willingly do this, or was the drug just given to street hookers, and it was assumed that they had HIV-positive tricks?




RE: Who in their right mind?
By espaghetti on 7/16/2012 11:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
This article reads like a train wreck.


RE: Who in their right mind?
By Adonlude on 7/17/2012 6:17:28 PM , Rating: 1
This $14,000 pill, when combined with absitnance, protects from HIV. Side effects include dizzyness, nausea, and AIDS.


RE: Who in their right mind?
By Samus on 7/18/2012 1:03:14 AM , Rating: 2
A gay college buddy of mine lives in SF and was on the trial for this. The test groups aren't intentionally subjected to danger, as many people take care of that aspect themselves.

Case in point, he had a scare once after having unprotected sex with a fling after the guy called him up a few weeks later to tell him he tested positive for HIV. My friend freaked out and went in to get tested 6 times over a 4 month period. He was on a drug like this because he was part of a 5-year-long study group, and to date, hasn't been diagnosed with HIV.

He didn't have unprotected sex because he was on this drug, since he almost always uses a condom, but for whatever reason he didn't this one time, I don't know why, he didn't tell me, but being in this study group probably saved his life.


RE: Who in their right mind?
By Lord 666 on 7/16/2012 11:58:29 PM , Rating: 1
To me, more concerning is the 25% chance of contracting HIV while using a condom. Assuming that figure is a composite for both male and females.


RE: Who in their right mind?
By Daneel_ on 7/17/2012 12:55:17 AM , Rating: 2
Not quite - it reduced the rate of infection by 75%, so if the chance beforehand was 10%, while on the drug it would be 2.5%.

However, based on the list of side effects I still wouldn't purchase it.


RE: Who in their right mind?
By V-Money on 7/17/2012 1:12:01 AM , Rating: 1
You made it to the side effects? I read the
quote:
According to the FDA, Truvada treatment will cost nearly $14,000 annually
and thought "well, this drug isn't for me". Granted I don't regularly have sex with HIV positive partners, you still have to deal with the reality that others do.

I think I want to create an instant STD test kit that includes a Penicillin injection. It will display 3 results, a thumbs up for "clean", a syringe for "have at it but keep the penicillin shot handy", and a sad clown face for "you better double wrap it tonight".


RE: Who in their right mind?
By invidious on 7/17/2012 10:14:02 AM , Rating: 2
It's seems like it is clearly meant for people whose spouse has HIV, not for people having random hookups. Even a 0.1% chance of contracting HIV is pretty high if you are having sex with an HIV positive person multiple times per week. Considering the cost of HIV treatment $14,000 annually wouldn't be that bad if insurance would cover it.


RE: Who in their right mind?
By geddarkstorm on 7/17/2012 11:21:09 AM , Rating: 2
Problem is, it doesn't eliminate the chance of infection, just only lowers it (which is still a good thing). So the problem of getting HIV from such a spouse is not gone, at all. And it might falsely embolden people.


RE: Who in their right mind?
By Aloonatic on 7/17/2012 2:00:08 PM , Rating: 3
The average wedding in the usa costs about $26,000.

Just get married, then the sex will dry up any way and within a couples of years (2 $14,000 = £28,000) you'll be in profit and safe from infection too :)


RE: Who in their right mind?
By Lord 666 on 7/17/2012 7:54:04 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure why I was rated down, but my first post was re: sex with a condom and not using this new drug.

If 25% infection rate when using a condom with an HIV positive person WHILE using the drug is true.... Then either people were not being honest about how they had sex or the infection rate with sex/condom/no drug is higher.

Reason I am saying this is 10% is the percentage chance for a male NOT using a condom and contracting HIV. 100% chance for a female. This is due to the surface area difference.


RE: Who in their right mind?
By Oakley516 on 7/18/2012 1:04:18 AM , Rating: 2
The article never says there is a 25% infection rate when using a condom and this pill. It says it reduces the risk by 75%. That is not the same as saying there is 25% risk.

If the risk without this pill is 10% as you say, then reducing that by 75% would mean you still have a 2.5% risk using this pill.


RE: Who in their right mind?
By corduroygt on 7/17/2012 8:07:22 AM , Rating: 3
They could advertise the weight loss side effect and many people would pay $14K a year to be on it even if they're asexual.


RE: Who in their right mind?
By KITH on 7/17/2012 1:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
More likely, if the group not taking the drug had 4 infections out of who knows how many people in the group, the group taking the drug had one infection.

I believe they call that relative risk and it is relatively meaningless.

It is how they get those big numbers for every little stupid study that gets in the news with the headline such and such food increases chances of cancer 200%. Out of ten thousand people those who didn't eat pizza got cancer 2 times and those that did got cancer 4 times. So they get cancer twice as much by eating pizza.


RE: Who in their right mind?
By Solandri on 7/17/2012 1:25:31 AM , Rating: 2
They're not ordered to go have sex with HIV-positive partners. People engage in risky behavior which could lead to HIV infection all the time. i.e. some people end up having sex with HIV-positive partners regardless of whether or not this study is being conducted.

So what you do is divide your volunteers into two random groups. One you give the drug, the other you give a placebo. Then after a while you check the HIV rate of the two groups against each other. The presumption is that with enough test subjects and sex partners, both groups will have about the same exposure to HIV-positive partners. And any difference in the HIV acquisition rate can be attributed to the drug.


RE: Who in their right mind?
By jeffkro on 7/17/2012 1:23:32 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, great news for the secret service.


Cure.. How about PORN!!!
By rippleyaliens on 7/17/2012 7:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
I read the article, as well as other posts pertaining to this drug. They tested it in Thailand. With a MONSTER opportunity to get HIV.. I dont support the testing procedures, yet the results could prove interesting.

$14,000 for 1 PILL you have got to be kidding me.. $14,000 BUYS 1 hell of a computer, to have a BUNCH of PORN on it.. My question is.. IF they can figure this out.. Why cant they figure a cure for like M.S, or Something really hard like the common cold??




RE: Cure.. How about PORN!!!
By wordsworm on 7/20/2012 7:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be more interested in a pill that's a cure for aging. If they could make a pill that cost a million a year to use, they'd still be selling them.


Side effects...
By Ramtech on 7/17/2012 5:46:02 AM , Rating: 3
Bone marrow toxicity has same effect on your health like HIV it negatively affects your immunity

So if you're not sick now sooner or later you will be




Great
By bug77 on 7/17/2012 5:14:01 AM , Rating: 2
So, for $14k a year, using a condom each time, you can still get infected. Who wouldn't jump all over this deal?




'Pill', not a 'Vaccine'.
By rbuszka on 7/17/2012 4:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
Note that Truvada is a 'pill', so you need to be "on" it continuously, and it doesn't even provide an acceptable level of safety (cutting risk by only 75%, so flip two quarters and see if both come up heads, and that's how much safer you are). It is not a 'vaccine', since a true vaccine against HIV would reduce an otherwise very lucrative revenue string for drug companies. The drug companies don't care to 'cure' HIV - they would rather string you along on this $14,000-a-year drug prior to catching HIV (since you'll take this if you're in a high risk group), or other antiretrovirals after you've already caught it (since you were in a high risk group and didn't GTFO). What a scam.




"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki