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

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.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Related Articles













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