Truvada for HIV Prevention: Pros, Cons of Popping a Pill

[slimvictor]

AIDS advocates say a pill proven to protect against the HIV virus could promote unsafe sex by creating a false sense of security.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will meet Thursday to discuss whether Truvada, a drug already approved to manage HIV, should be approved to prevent the infection in high-risk patients, including men who have sex with other men, and heterosexuals with HIV-positive partners. But advocacy groups argue the drug would encourage risky behavior and undo decades of safe-sex advocacy.

"I think it will be a catastrophe for HIV prevention in this country," said Michael Weinstein, president of the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the largest provider of AIDS and HIV care in the U.S. "Men don't need more excuses to not use condoms."

(...)

When taken daily, Truvada has been shown to cut the risk of HIV by up to 44 percent in gay and bisexual men in conjunction with condom use and counseling, and up to 75 percent in heterosexuals with HIV-positive partners.



cont at
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellne...tion-pros-cons-popping-pill/story?id=16304884

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Having safer sex is a wiser idea.

 

[Crankinit]

It's a really tricky issue, I'm not sure whether I think it would be helpful or harmful.

 

[Newbierock]

Having safer sex is a wiser idea.

+ infinity my friend.

 

[nativenick]

i cant see this taking off from. what ive heard anti retro viral drugs used to treat hiv have awful side effects. not to mention people tend to have a "it will never happen to me attitude". If there's lots of people who will bareback knowing full well the potential risks i would think you'd be hard pressed to find people who'd put them selves through awful side effects of the drug just to lower the risk of contracting hiv. imo using condoms seems to be the most reliable and cost effective tool we have to curb the spread OF HIV

 

[Venrak]

I don't see how they group gay men in with people with HIV+ partners. Gay men wear condoms too, you know. We should anyway.

 

[The Network]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will meet Thursday to discuss whether Truvada, a drug already approved to manage HIV, should be approved to prevent the infection in high-risk patients, including men who have sex with other men,

Excuse me but fuck you ABC and the FDA. There's no real reason that being gay is any more likely to get you an STD, other than that gay men don't use condoms really as much unless one does have an STD for obvious reasons.

Just needed to say that.

I don't see how they group gay men in with people with HIV+ partners. Gay men wear condoms too, you know. We should anyway.

This.

 

[sekio]

Lets not use condoms, because those sometimes fail, and they obviously encourage risky behaviour. While we're at it we can criminalize birth control too, it obviously causes immoral sexual behaviour as well. And let's ban seatbelts, because they encourage people to drive recklessly.

Come on, people. I would have never thought that something as revolutionary as a pill to prevent HIV would be stonewalled because people might use it.

Excuse me but fuck you ABC and the FDA

I agree. I imagine there are frat boys out there who are totally heterosexual but redefine the whole concept of promiscuity. No reason to single out men who have sex with other men. (Plus what about consensual heterosexual anal sex, is that not equally as risky?)

 

[Dr. J]

Not the smartest idea in my opinion.... If the strain of HIV a person is trying to be shielded from is Truvada resistant, its effectiveness diminishes quickly. In addition, a person who takes an antiretroviral for pre-exposure may then lose that drug and its closest analogues as a line of treatment. Safer sex practices should be used from the outset and then, should there be a broken condom, he didn't pull out, whatever, post-exposure prophylaxis, when initiated within 24 hours can - as studies show - prevent infection from taking hold in nearly 80% of these cases. The risks and negatives to me are too great. But, as a gay man, I hate to see the government prevent doctors from providing any weapon it can in the fights against the virus.

 

[The Network]

Not the smartest idea in my opinion.... If the strain of HIV a person is trying to be shielded from is Truvada resistant, its effectiveness diminishes quickly. In addition, a person who takes an antiretroviral for pre-exposure may then lose that drug and its closest analogues as a line of treatment. Safer sex practices should be used from the outset and then, should there be a broken condom, he didn't pull out, whatever, post-exposure prophylaxis, when initiated within 24 hours can - as studies show - prevent infection from taking hold in nearly 80% of these cases. The risks and negatives to me are too great. But, as a gay man, I hate to see the government prevent doctors from providing any weapon it can in the fights against the virus.

Pulling out has nothing to do with it buddy.

 

[Dr. J]

Pulling out has nothing to do with what? Forgive me, but your comment on my post is a bit lost on me.

 

[The Network]

Pulling out has nothing to do with what? Forgive me, but your comment on my post is a bit lost on me.

I might have read it wrong because I was and still am tired, but if I read it correctly it would appear as though you're saying pulling out prevents STDs.

 

[rangrz]

Having safer sex is a wiser idea.

Doing both would be even safer. Then, in the rare chance that the condom does fail, your chances of contracting are significantly attenuated. If the benefit exceeds the risk of the drug, is of course a question for the Drs reviewing the drug.

 

[Dr. J]

I might have read it wrong because I was and still am tired, but if I read it correctly it would appear as though you're saying pulling out prevents STDs.

Ahhh... i can see where there might have been confusion. I was suggesting the post-prophylaxis treatment is often intitiated after the known contact occurs, not before. Typically these treatment regimens are used in hospital/medical settings where a nurse a lab worker may get a needle stick with HIV infected blood. While studies focused exclusively on non-occupational exposures (e.g. sex where the condom breaks or there was a true accident and the partner didn't pull out) have shown fairly high rates of preventing infection, the same data do not as strongly support the success of these types of exposures. Still, many HIV researchers suggest a 60-70 percent reduction in risk of actually acquiring the virus. The earlier the medication is started, obviously the better chance of success.

Still, even with strict adherence and nearly immediate initiation of therapy, infections do happen. So, if even given in the most ideal situation/circumstance infection is still possible, how much can consumers truly rely on a pill to help prevent HIV infection PRE-exposure? I'd much rather self serosort and use known/effective safe sex practices than rely on a pill with some nasty side effects that promises no where near the same level of protection as a condom.

Here is a link with a lot more technical info for those interested http://www.thebody.com/content/art2632.html