Truvada Approved As HIV Preventive

[+ Lucky]

Would you pay $14000 a year to prevent yourself from getting HIV? That's the annual cost of Truvada, the antiviral drug for those who are HIV negative but at risk for seroconversion.

It was approved today by the FDA for such use. Already used by people with HIV, it is known to cause kidney damage, at the least.

 

Arguments have ensued as to whether people on Truvada would skip doses based upon their level of sexual activity. Skipping doses could lead to drug resistance. People on Truvada might also have a false sense of protection,thus foregoing the use of condoms, which could put them at risk for other sexually transmitted diseases.

 

But, all in all, it must be a good idea or the government would not have approved it, right? Now how do you get your insurance company to cover it? Do you have to tell them that you are sexually promiscuous with people who have HIV, thus at risk of getting HIV? The insurance company would find it cheaper to provide you Truvada than a lifetime of HIV care!

 

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/FDA-approves-first-pill-to-help-prevent-HIV-3710451.php

[maxwellissmart]

Would you pay $14000 a year to prevent yourself from getting HIV? That's the annual cost of Truvada, the antiviral drug for those who are HIV negative but at risk for seroconversion.

It was approved today by the FDA for such use. Already used by people with HIV, it is known to cause kidney damage, at the least.

 

Arguments have ensued as to whether people on Truvada would skip doses based upon their level of sexual activity. Skipping doses could lead to drug resistance. People on Truvada might also have a false sense of protection,thus foregoing the use of condoms, which could put them at risk for other sexually transmitted diseases.

 

But, all in all, it must be a good idea or the government would not have approved it, right? Now how do you get your insurance company to cover it? Do you have to tell them that you are sexually promiscuous with people who have HIV, thus at risk of getting HIV? The insurance company would find it cheaper to provide you Truvada than a lifetime of HIV care!

 

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/FDA-approves-first-pill-to-help-prevent-HIV-3710451.php

 

or in English: too lazy/stupid/irresponsible to use rubbers that are often available for free from public health clinics.

 

Truvada also has some unpleasant side effects as well (nausea, vomiting, dizziness, loss of appetite and diarrhea, liver and kidney toxicity and loss of bone density), so anyone who thinks this is a substitute for a condom or God's Holy Plan—abstinence—is going to have a rude awakening.

[doitb4ugo]

I am sympathetic to the argument that the science here as limited as it is speaks for itself. In trials it has apporx. a 42% sucess rate is preventing the transfer of HIV...They are recommending that it only be used in conjuction with a condom which in my mind negates the need for this very expensive semi-solution...I truly believe that the powers that be, including the FDA and CDC are desperate for some news and progress of the AIDS battle. I don;t see how this is it...If HIV were transferred from 6 out of the 10 guys I was with, what is the use of Truvada. But drug company will make a lot of money, eh.

 

I am on Truvada and as a medicine to treat my HIV it is wonderful. I can live with the side effects (maybe) because they are less damaging to my body than AIDS was....MY three medications for HIV cost over 24 thousand a year.

[jjkrkwood]

I'm sure there are many people that can Afford the cost, and WILL use it to compensate for and justify their high risk, irresponsible behavior....

 

And I truly hope the insurance companies DONT pay for it, and pass along its costs to the average insurance holders...

 

If its out of your pocket, and you so choose. USE it !

[maxwellissmart]

I am sympathetic to the argument that the science here as limited as it is speaks for itself. In trials it has apporx. a 42% sucess rate is preventing the transfer of HIV...They are recommending that it only be used in conjuction with a condom which in my mind negates the need for this very expensive semi-solution...I truly believe that the powers that be, including the FDA and CDC are desperate for some news and progress of the AIDS battle. I don;t see how this is it...If HIV were transferred from 6 out of the 10 guys I was with, what is the use of Truvada. But drug company will make a lot of money, eh.

 

I am on Truvada and as a medicine to treat my HIV it is wonderful. I can live with the side effects (maybe) because they are less damaging to my body than AIDS was....MY three medications for HIV cost over 24 thousand a year.

 

I would never suggest that Truvada isn't a miracle drug—for treating HIV/AIDS. But I agree with you that it's at best an expensive semi-solution—and what exactly is it a solution for? Having sex with an HIV-infected partner? There's plenty of ways to do that. Covering risky behaviors? How about some self-control. Spending $14K on a what could be leaky rubber (42 percent??!!) seems like a waste of time.

[+ Charlie]

But, all in all, it must be a good idea or the government would not have approved it, right? Now how do you get your insurance company to cover it? Do you have to tell them that you are sexually promiscuous with people who have HIV, thus at risk of getting HIV? The insurance company would find it cheaper to provide you Truvada than a lifetime of HIV care!

 

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/FDA-approves-first-pill-to-help-prevent-HIV-3710451.php

They would find it even cheaper to discover a reason to cancel your policy.

[uwsman2]

This sounds like a scam to make money for insurance companies.

[JT Brooklyn]

This sounds like a scam to make money for insurance companies.

 

Indubidably!

[Phil_musc]

so we are supposed to pay 14 grand a year for something that isn't even 50% effective? PT Barnum was right. I guess it's better than nothing, but not by enough to get me to throw away the trojans.

[jackboy48]

I was very confused when I first heard about this drug. I really didn't get the point, with all the risk of side effects and the expense, but then I thought that if you were in a relationship with someone who is HIV+, this might be very helpful. Would it also be helpful for a sex worker?

[gallahadesquire]

I was very confused when I first heard about this drug. I really didn't get the point, with all the risk of side effects and the expense, but then I thought that if you were in a relationship with someone who is HIV+, this might be very helpful. Would it also be helpful for a sex worker?

 

There is a drug [suggamadex, if you're interested] that would be used in surgery for emergencies, where the patient might otherwise die.

The FDA Advisory panel gave it a 100% approval.

The FDA refused to approve it.

 

My Trust in the FDA is limited, at best.