FDA Panel Recommends First HIV-Prevention Drug

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
The Food and Drug Administration advisory panel is recommending that the FDA allow the prescription of the HIV drug Truvada as a preventative measure against acquiring HIV. If approved high risk individuals with a HIV infected partner and MSM could take this once daily pill as a means of preventing the infection. At nearly $900 a month the drug does come at a high price but hopefully insurance companies will help pick up the cost and make it more affordable.



In a series of votes, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel recommended approval of the daily pill Truvada for healthy people who are at high risk of contracting HIV, including gay and bisexual men and heterosexual couples with one HIV-positive partner.

An estimated 1.2 million Americans have HIV, which develops into AIDS unless treated with antiviral drugs. AIDS causes the body's immune system to breakdown, leading to infections which are eventually fatal. Gay and bisexual men account for the majority of cases nearly two-thirds.

www.npr.org...


Critics say that the expense of the drug deflects from other cheaper remedies that could be used for prevention but some doctors are already prescribing the drug as a prevention method and it does appear to work if taken faithfully every day. Truvada can reduce the infection by up to 75 percent in heterosexual couples and 42 percent in gay and bixsexual when used with condoms. The FDA generally accepts the proposals of it's advisory board so hopefully the fight against HIV will have a new weapon.


FDA Document on Truvada as a HIV prevention




posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Finally they found a way to get rich off of HIV .. a $900/mo prevention method.. basically akin to buying protection from the mob so they don't break your legs.

The drug industry infuriates me ..



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Wouldn't these




healthy people who are at high risk of contracting HIV


Just be better served by simply taking standard precautions rather than a 900 a month pill... These pills will never end up where they are really needed (places like africa) at a price like that.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
Wouldn't these




healthy people who are at high risk of contracting HIV


Just be better served by simply taking standard precautions rather than a 900 a month pill... These pills will never end up where they are really needed (places like africa) at a price like that.


The simple fact is, that if or when HIV is "cured" or a vaccine comes out.. there will be a new sexual revolution, I just know it .. it will be the 60s all over again..

=)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
This is why the pharmaceutical industry wants the US Govt to foot the medical bills and create a huge insurance scam funded by tax $.

Because they can convince all the kids to take stuff like this 900$ a month pill, but since no body can afford that, thankfully we have a government willing to use force to take that $$$ from the working class and subsidize the cost.

But why only 900$ I wonder? Since the govt will probably end up paying for it, they should charge something like 9,000 $. That would be more profitable.

*Just watch the price skyrocket by the time it hits the shelf*



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus


The simple fact is, that if or when HIV is "cured" or a vaccine comes out.. there will be a new sexual revolution, I just know it .. it will be the 60s all over again..

=)


What is a vaccine? It is a weakened version of the virus put into someone so their antibodies can learn how to fight it before it endangers them (supposedly).

Would you put a weakened version of HIV inside of you to "prevent contracting HIV"?

I am sorry but to me it sounds highly illogical and very dangerous. What if it didn't work?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by savannah
 


Or people could just stop being gay and not worry about it.....Just saying....

I am all for letting people do what they want, but with risks of HIV or AIDS that high, why not just go traditional??



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
How "brave" do you have to be to have sex with someone who's got HIV? I know that is somewhat cold, but you only have one life and that is way too much risk. Not everyone is me, though. I thought this was to keep people from getting AIDS at first, which apparently it is. Hmmm, I would agree this is a ploy by the pharmaceutical companies to make more money, especially since this is to be approved for use in healthy people. I would hope this isn't covered by Medicare, when prescribed for this use, as condoms cost a lot less and are probably as effective if not more than this pill. You would still need protection anyway. The scary thing is that of the few people I've been told to have contracted HIV, none were from sex. Needles and other means were why some nurses got the virus. Poor women.

What the FDA is doing in this case happens so often. Why do you think children are prescribed methamphetamine for ADD or ADHD? (A condition I think doesn't really exists.) I don't mean to say some kids don't have problems paying attention and such, but the causes are not disorders in the brain that require drugs. Watch the "Marketing of Madness." Drugs are often re-purposed for other uses, by FDA approval. This allows drug companies to market older drugs to new patients and severely increase the market for the drugs because more diseases would call for it's use in treatment. Look at psychiatric drugs being used on children. Anti-depressants have been cleared by the FDA for use in children, which drastically increased the market for pharmaceutical drugs causing unprecedented levels of prescription and profit. It's very common and this fits the pattern perfectly.
edit on 11-5-2012 by KillThePoor because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by miniatus


The simple fact is, that if or when HIV is "cured" or a vaccine comes out.. there will be a new sexual revolution, I just know it .. it will be the 60s all over again..

=)


What is a vaccine? It is a weakened version of the virus put into someone so their antibodies can learn how to fight it before it endangers them (supposedly).

Would you put a weakened version of HIV inside of you to "prevent contracting HIV"?

I am sorry but to me it sounds highly illogical and very dangerous. What if it didn't work?


It wouldn't work on the case of HIV ... there are too many versions of it and it constantly mutates... if it were a single strain then I absolutely would trust a vaccine.. currently a method is being tested that targets the one tiny bit of the virus that doesn't mutate... there's more than just this FDA recommended drug on the way.. but it's a good 2-5 years out..



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 


Oh WOW! A time traveler from the 1980s!

First, I'd like to welcome you to 2012!

Second, in the past 30+ years we have learned HIV/AIDS isn't just a "gay disease". I know this may come as a shock, but heterosexuals transmit this plague as well.

Best of luck adapting to our current timeline! You clearly have some catching up to do!

 


reply to post by miniatus

Agreed. There's far more profit in treatments and vaccines than in a cure; so this is bound to get approval.

edit on 5/11/12 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
What is a vaccine? It is a weakened version of the virus put into someone so their antibodies can learn how to fight it before it endangers them (supposedly).

Would you put a weakened version of HIV inside of you to "prevent contracting HIV"?

I am sorry but to me it sounds highly illogical and very dangerous. What if it didn't work?


Fun fact: None of HIV vaccines in development (or ones that have been sent to clinical trials in the past) actually use live attenuated virus - doing so would be far too dangerous with any retrovirus, largely because of the lifetime nature of infection.

Most of the vaccines in development/clinical trials are based on specific proteins found in HIV, but created recombinantly with absolutely ZERO chance of actually infecting someone with HIV.





top topics
 
1

log in

join