Showing posts with label Prep. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prep. Show all posts

May 21, 2020

A PREP Injection Every Other Month Offers More Protection Than Pills




              image
 

Injecting people with a new, experimental drug every eight weeks provides better protection against HIV than daily pills that have revolutionized the fight against AIDS, US government researchers reported Monday.

The National Institutes of Health released the preliminary results of a major clinical trial involving a drug called cabotegravir. The testing began more than three years ago in seven countries -- including the United States, Brazil, Thailand and South Africa -- and looked at men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women, most of them under age 30.

Those are the two groups at highest risk of contracting the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes AIDS. Another clinical trial focusing on women is under way. 

For now, the only medication approved for HIV prevention is a drug cocktail called PrEP, which stands for pre-exposure prophylaxis. In the US, it has been marketed under the brand names Truvada and Descovy.

HIV-free people who take PrEP daily see their risk of infection from unprotected sex reduced by 99 percent, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But the fact that these pills must be taken every day is seen as an obstacle, so researchers are looking for less unwieldy alternatives. 

The results released Monday stem from a trial involving more than 4,500 people. Half were injected with cabotegravir and took PrEP placebos, while the other half received a placebo injection and real PrEP pills. So everybody taking part in the trial was treated with either cabotegravir or PrEP.

Fifty contracted the AIDS virus, but the breakdown was lopsided: only 12 among those who received shots of cabotegravir and 38 among those who took Truvada became infected.

This means the injections were 69 percent more effective than the Truvada pills, which are already at the heart of the US strategy to end the HIV epidemic. In the US, at least 200,000 at-risk people take Truvada, according to the drug's maker Gilead.

Since the injection test results were so good, the people running the clinical trial halted the blind phase prematurely to allow all participants to benefit from the injections.

“We are thrilled with the results not only because of the high efficacy of cabotegravir but also because we have demonstrated high efficacy in a study that adequately represents some of the populations most disproportionately impacted by HIV," said Kimberly Smith, head of research and development at ViiV Healthcare, a unit of the GSK group.

These population groups are black men having sex with men in the US, young MSM globally and transgender women, she said

France24

December 27, 2019

Finally Facebook Removes Those False Ads That Suggest Negative Health Effects From PREP







Facebook should remove "factually inaccurate" ads that "suggest negative health effects" of the HIV-prevention medication Truvada, more than 50 LGBTQ, HIV, and public health groups say in an open letter to the company.
The ads are from law firms seeking to recruit gay and bisexual men for a class-action lawsuit against Truvada maker Gilead Sciences, NBC News reported Wednesday. The groups say the ads are misleading because they warn against side effects that mainly occur with long-term treatment for people who already have HIV. The class-action lawsuit claims that certain side effects among some patients taking Truvada could have been prevented if Gilead had not delayed the release of a safer version of the original drug, which was shelved in 2004.
"The advertisements are targeting LGBTQ Facebook and Instagram users, and are causing significant harm to ," the letter states. "The ' advertisements are scaring away at-risk HIV-negative people from the leading drug that blocks HIV infections."
In a statement sent to NBC News, a spokesperson for Facebook said the company values its "work with LGBTQ groups" and both welcome and seeks out their input. "While these ads do not violate our ad policies nor have they been rated false by third-party fact-checkers, we're always examining ways to improve and help these key groups better understand how we apply our policies," the spokesperson said.

 Extensive evidence from HIV prevention research studies has firmly established that "Undetectable Equals Untransmittable," or U=U. This means that people living with HIV who achieve and maintain an undetectable viral load—the amount of virus in their blood—by taking antiretroviral therapy (ART) as prescribed do not sexually transmit HIV to others. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates this strategy is 100% effective against the sexual transmission of HIV. 
Now, a new study of nearly 112,000 men who have sex with men in the United States has found increasing acceptance of the U=U message in this population. Overall, 54% of HIV-negative participants and 84% of participants with HIV correctly identified U=U as accurate. The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health. Study results were published online today in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.
"U=U has been validated repeatedly by  as a safe and effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV," said Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., NIAID Director. "The increased understanding and acceptance of U=U is encouraging because HIV treatment as prevention is a foundation of efforts to end the epidemic in the United States and around the world. This public health message has the power to reduce stigma, protect the health of people living with HIV and prevent sexual transmission of HIV to others."
Researchers led by H. Jonathon Rendina, Ph.D., M.P.H., at Hunter College of the City University of New York, collected data from secure online surveys promoted on social media and mobile dating apps from November 2017 through September 2018. By analyzing the responses of self-identified sexual minority men, researchers found that approximately 55% of participants responded "completely accurate" or "somewhat accurate" to the question: "With regard to HIV-positive individuals transmitting HIV through sexual contact, how accurate do you believe the slogan Undetectable = Untransmittable is?"
Acceptance of U=U was far stronger among participants who self-reported to be living with HIV (84%) compared to HIV-negative participants (54%) and those who did not know their HIV status (39%). Researchers found U=U acceptance had increased over time by comparing the data to findings from a similar study by the same group that analyzed data collected in 2016 and early 2017. Among the 12,200 sexual minority men surveyed at that time, only 30% of HIV-negative participants and 64% of participants living with HIV agreed that U=U was completely or somewhat accurate. 
In the current study, HIV-negative participants who reported seeking HIV testing and prevention services, as well as those taking daily pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), were more likely to believe U=U was accurate. These findings suggest that U=U acceptance correlates to more frequent interactions with HIV prevention services. Among respondents with HIV, those who reported excellent adherence to ART were more likely to agree that U=U is accurate compared to those who reported "less than excellent" adherence or not being on ART at all.
The online survey also asked respondents to use a graduated scale from 0% ("no risk") to 100% ("complete risk") to rate the risk of a man whose HIV was undetectable transmitting the virus to his HIV-negative partner through either insertive or receptive anal sex without a condom. While studies confirm that a person whose HIV is suppressed does not transmit the virus through sexual activity, only 10% of all respondents rated the transmission risk as zero when the insertive partner has an undetectable virus. Similarly, only 14% of respondents rated transmission risk as zero when HIV in the receptive partner is undetectable.
Among those who agreed that U=U was "completely accurate," only 31% and 39% believed transmission risk is zero when the insertive or receptive partner, respectively, has an undetectable virus. However, acceptance of U=U was associated with the lower perceived risk of HIV transmission through any form of condom-less anal sex.
"A growing number of sexual minority men believe that U=U is accurate, but our data suggest that most still overestimate the risk of HIV transmission from an undetectable partner, which may be because people have trouble understanding the concept of risk," said Dr. Rendina, the lead author on the study. "All published studies point to undetectable viral load as being the most effective method to date of preventing sexual HIV transmission, but most of our messaging has focused on the level of risk being zero rather than describing it in terms of effectiveness, which is the way we usually talk about condoms and PrEP."
All data collected in the online survey was confidential and self-reported. Study participants represented all U.S. states and were of various races and ethnicities, including 14% Black and 24% Latino. Participants ranged in age from 13 to 88 years old with a median age of 32. About 79% identified as gay, 18% as bisexual, and 3% as queer. Approximately 1% of respondents identified as transgender.
Earlier this year, Dr. Fauci and his colleagues wrote about the strength of scientific validation for the HIV treatment as a prevention strategy and U=U in a JAMA commentary. The efficacy of treatment as prevention was first verified on a large scale by the NIH-funded HPTN 052 clinical trial, which showed that no linked HIV transmissions occurred among zero different heterosexual couples when the partner living with HIV had a durably suppressed viral load. Subsequently, the PARTNER 1 and 2 and Opposites Attract studies confirmed these findings and extended them to male-male couples. As described by authors of the current study, the independent non-profit organization Prevention Access Campaign launched the U=U slogan in 2016 to promote awareness of these scientific findings.
Importantly, U=U refers only to the prevention of sexually transmitted HIV; condoms are still needed to prevent the transmission of other sexually transmitted infections.


December 16, 2019

In-spite Facebook and Ambulance Chaser Lawyers PREP Helps The Anxiety and Protects U from HIV


 "The More You read the more you know, the better the chances to fight any untruth which will put you on the wrong track to an accident or death" (AG)


By Tim Fitzsimons
When HIV first tore into America’s gay male community in the early 1980s, quotidian questions of sex, love, lust, and trust transformed into weighty decisions with potential life-or-death consequences.
The decision to stop using condoms with a serious partner? Only as reliable an HIV-prevention method as your partner’s fidelity. A single instance of cheating? An indiscretion that carries the risk of an incurable and deadly disease. A random hookup? A nagging sense that, perhaps, this time was the time.
Todd Faircloth, 52, remembers those days well. In 1987, when gay men were still dying from AIDS in large numbers, Faircloth moved to New York City from North Carolina to start his big, gay life. He was just 17.
“I didn’t know anyone that lived past the age of 30, I didn’t anticipate anyone was going to live that long,” Faircloth, who now lives in Georgia with his husband, said. “It got to the point where people just assumed they all had a death sentence over their heads.” 
Image: Truvada
 He said he endured “hundreds” of AIDS funerals with a lot of dark humor, but still, “it was really scary to be out there.”
Amidst all the death, the human immunodeficiency virus caused understandable fear and anxiety among gay men, and Faircloth said this even influenced the relationships people entered into. “If you meet someone, you got with them, you were more likely to want to stay with them, not because you wanted to be with them, but because you're scared to go back out,” he said.
Today, more than three decades after Faircloth moved to New York, HIV is controllable with medication and need not lead to death. In addition to condoms, first approved to stop HIV in 1987, people at risk of acquiring HIV today can take medications like Truvada to prevent the virus’ transmission, namely pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), which are taken before and after sex, respectively, to prevent HIV transmission. And for those who already have the virus, treatment as prevention, or TasP, makes it impossible to transmit the virus in sex when taken regularly, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
One unintended benefit of this new array of pharmaceutical prevention options, according to a new study, is a reduction in “HIV anxiety.” Anxiety about HIV transmission, which the study’s authors describe as a “common” experience of gay and bisexual men — especially those who, like Faircloth, lived through the darkest days of the AIDS epidemic — can compromise their “emotional well-being and create barriers to HIV testing.”
For years, Lenti avoided taking an HIV test because of his fear that it would return positive. To this day, Lenti said, it is hard for him to take an HIV test and to trust potential partners because of his fears from the epidemic’s early days. 
“It was a foregone conclusion that I would become infected,” Lenti said of his thinking at the time. Yet despite all that worrying, he remains negative. “I think the biggest fear that I had about HIV was not the fear of being sick. It was always the fear of dying alone,” Lenti said. “It’s just very hard for me to trust people, and I think you could argue that a lot of that stems from my fear of becoming infected, even though now there are so many different ways to combat that.” ‘I don’t think it just changes overnight’  because he suffered from its rare gastrointestinal side effects, he said he counsels many of his friends to take the daily medication. 
“If you can take a pill that has a 99 percent effective rate, why wouldn't you do that?” he said.
 However, most at-risk Americans aren’t taking PrEP for a variety of other reasons — its high cost (a 30-day supply could cost $2,000), privacy fears and worries that the drug is dangerous (a misconception fueled in part by online ads widely criticized as deceptive). According to the CDC, PrEP is only reaching 18 percent of the 1.2 million Americans recommended to take it, and so HIV anxiety persists to this day for hundreds of thousands of gay men. 
Levi, a 19-year-old college student in Ohio, is among the nearly 1 million Americans recommended to take, but not taking, PrEP. Because he’s a man who has sex with other men and is 28 or younger, he’s considered at high risk of contracting HIV, according to the CDC risk assessment worksheet for doctors (the worksheet is based on a point system and uses a variety of risk factors). 
Levi is no stranger to HIV anxiety. He recalled a recent incident after he performed oral sex where he began to worry, “Do I need to get a test?” “I spent the night basically in a hypochondriac fit running around looking if there are any sort of symptoms I should be looking for,” he said, telling an all-too-common tale. However, he needn’t have worried, as there is “little to no risk” of acquiring HIV through oral sex, according to the CDC. 
Levi, who asked not to have his full name printed because he is still on his parents’ insurance and worries they would object to PrEP, said he’s just starting to think about taking the HIV prevention pill. He said the man he is dating is HIV-negative, and even though they plan to be monogamous, he doesn’t know if he can fully trust him, because the stakes are so high. “Is there anything that I could even ask for?”
 Levi wondered. “Could you show me a paper or something? And could I even believe that?” Levi’s struggle to answer this question is as old as the virus, Halkitis said. 
“You have two sets of problems: a generation that has no clue and hasn’t seen death,” he said, “and a generation that is older that is completely bombarded.” 
“I think there's a whole negotiation morphing period going on right now as we get embedded in these technologies more and more,” Halkitis continued, referring to HIV prevention medications. “I don't think it just changes overnight.”
  

November 9, 2019

Because Gilead Has No Money and Have Not Made Enough on HIV It Doesn't Want To Release The PREP Patent




                                                Image result for gilead and prep


The Department of Health and Human Services is suing Gilead Sciences over the patent rights to Truvada, Gilead’s HIV prevention drug better known as PrEP, or pre-exposure prophylaxis.
PrEP is a pill taken once daily that is 99 percent effective at preventing HIV transmission, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Delware, alleges that CDC researchers began studying the preventive use of HIV treatment drugs — like tenofovir, or TDF, and emtricitabine, FTC, the two compounds in a Truvada tablet — as early as 1998, before Gilead sought a patent.
Crucially, the lawsuit alleges that the government owns the PrEP patent for both Truvada and Descovy, Gilead’s next generation PrEP approved last month, setting up the possibility that both HIV prevention drugs could see drastic price reductions. 
“HHS recognizes Gilead’s role in selling Truvada and Descovy to patients for prevention of HIV. Communities have put these drugs to use in saving lives and reducing the spread of HIV,” HHS Secretary Alex M. Azar II said in a statement. “However, Gilead must respect the U.S. patent system, the groundbreaking work by CDC researchers, and the substantial taxpayer contributions to the development of these drugs. The complaint filed today seeks to ensure that they do.”
In response, Gilead said the government’s patent claims were “invalid.”
“We are surprised that the government has requested that a district court judge and jury look at the same issues of patent validity that the Patent Office will be deciding,” Gilead said in a statement Thursday. “We will be asking the district court to stay the litigation until the Patent Office has an opportunity to undertake the review that we already have requested.”

AN AUSPICIOUS PHONE CALL

The PrEP4All Collaboration was formed in summer 2018 to advocatethat the U.S. government “break the patent” by exercising its “march-in rights” and requisition Truvada for emergency public health purposes.
James Krellenstein, another member of the collaboration, said that shortly afterward the group’s founding he received a phone call from one of the doctors who discovered PrEP.
“He gave me a ring and said, ‘You should know that in addition to the government having march-in rights on the patents that protect Truvada, the federal government actually owns independent patents that protect the use of Truvada and Descovy as PrEP.” That led Krellenstein and others to research the various patents that apply to the compounds, formulations and uses of these drugs for prevention purposes. “He was advocating very, very strongly because he was appalled about the price gouging that Gilead was doing with his invention and the massive barriers that caused for uptake,” Krellenstein said of the doctor who called him.
Christopher J. Morten, an NYU researcher and a lawyer for the PrEP4All Collaboration, said, “Gilead knew at least from 2008 that it was at risk of liability of patent infringement if it sold Truvada or Descovy as PrEP.”
The lawsuit lays out a timeline that alleges Gilead contributed nothing more than donated Truvada tablets to multimillion-dollar human trials that were funded by the U.S. government and philanthropic donors.

DISCOVERING PREP

On Aug. 2, 2004, Gilead Sciences received FDA approval for Truvada as a drug to treat, not prevent, HIV. At the time, Truvada was considered one of the least toxic combination HIV-treatment tablets. But in 2004, research was already underway on whether the drugs contained within Truvada tablets could also be an effective way to prevent transmission of HIV.
That is because, “in the mid-1990’s, high doses of subcutaneous tenofovir alone had been shown to have prophylactic activity in macaques exposed intravenously to simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), a virus similar to HIV,” the lawsuit states.
A report published in 2004 by the AIDS Partnership California and Center for HIV Prevention and Treatment Services shows that in the same year that Gilead’s Truvada received FDA approval for use in treating HIV, five separate human trials were planned in countries around the world to test the efficacy of tenofovir alone as PrEP. According to that report, the studies were sponsored by the CDC, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. But those studies failed to show that tenofovir, or TDF, alone could protect against sexual transmission; protests in Cambodia led the government to shut down the trials
“While two-drug regimens would generally be considered more toxic, the CDC researchers hypothesized that the inclusion of FTC — as an effective antiretroviral drug with relatively low toxicity — could add more protection than seen with TDF alone. The CDC researchers were the first group to take the innovative FTC/tenofovir prodrug combination path in PrEP preclinical or clinical studies,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit also states that CDC researchers discovered the proper dosage, used proprietary animal modeling techniques, and painstakingly recreated the environment of sexual transmission in macaques.
2008 report on the results of a CDC primate trial by government-funded researchers showed that a combination of the two drugs found in Truvada worked better than TDF alone. That study states that the authors have a competing interest: They “are named in a U.S. Government patent application related to methods for HIV prophylaxis.” That study said that the promising results of the macaque trial “support PrEP trials for HIV prevention in humans and identified promising PrEP modalities.” According to the lawsuit, those patent applications were filed in 2006 and 2007 and approved in 2015.
After the 2008 study showed that a dual drug regime worked better than a single drug, ongoing human trials were modified to include TDF and FTC, instead of TDF alone. The 2010 results of one of those modified trials, the iPrEX study, effectively proved that Truvada worked as PrEP in men who have sex with men and transgender women.
According to a 2017 AVAC report, these human trials received commercial funding from Gilead of up to $2 million per year — largely the cost of donating the drug — while combined public and philanthropic funding was $29 million to $62 million per year. 
“While Gilead’s public statements emphasize the amount of money it has spent to ‘support the clinical trials that led to the approval of Truvada for PrEP,’ that claim is disingenuous,” HHS wrote in a press release. “Its support of early clinical trials was typically limited to only the donation of study drugs. Only after the commercial success of Truvada for PrEP did Gilead increase its funding of PrEP clinical trials, and in particular, trials related to Descovy for PrEP.”
Following the successful results of the iPrEX and other studies, in July 2012 the FDA approved a second use for Truvada: as a HIV prevention pill for high-risk populations like gay men and injection drug users. Gilead did not advertise Truvada for prevention because it was still controversial. Prescribing guidelines for clinical providers were not published until 2014. Television ads only began in May 2018. In the meantime, Gilead earned billions from sales of Truvada — $3 billion in 2018 alone.

ROYALTIES OWED

The HHS press release states that the Patent and Trademark Office granted four patents to HHS for PrEP. “These patents entitle HHS to license CDC’s PrEP regimens and receive a reasonable royalty for their use. Two other companies that manufacture generic equivalents of Truvada for PrEP in foreign countries have agreed to licenses with HHS.”
Krellenstein said the PrEP4All Collaboration’s next task is ensuring that whatever royalties the U.S. government may obtain from its lawsuit against Gilead — which could be in the billions — are spent on ensuring the drug gets to the estimated 900,000 at-risk people who are still not taking it.
“The government must ask to both simultaneously increase access to the drug” by lowering the price, allowing an earlier generic, or providing the drug for free to clinics, Krellenstein said, and use any royalties obtained “to fund a national prevention program that guarantees anyone in the country who wants it can get it.” 

November 1, 2019

Preventing A Person From Becoming HIV Should Be Free and This is Why




                    



Hot take, but PrEP—that is, preexposure prophylaxis, a once-daily FDA-approved drug sold under the brand name Truvada that reduces the risk of HIV transmission among HIV-negative individuals by 99% when taken daily—should be as readily available as condoms at a gay bar. Just pour a bunch of those little blue babies into a fishbowl—or, better yet, put ‘em in one of those big, round, bubble-shaped gumball machines they have at supermarkets and the Chinese takeout place down the street from my apartment, except that instead of having to put in a quarter to get a week’s worth of pills, you don’t put in any money because it’s free. 
No one likes Mike & Ikes anyway, those goddamn candy queer baiters. PrEP for breakfast! Gay utopia now! Or at least make it available over the counter…for free…and coupled with a complimentary seltzer, while we’re at it. Definitely don’t make it $2,000 out of pocket, which Truvada manufacturer Gilead has the absolute, unnerving gall to charge. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that Black and Latino men who have sex with men are significantly less likely to be aware of PrEP, to have discussed PrEP with their health care providers, or to have taken PrEP in the last year compared to their white counterparts. 
You might think that these stats have something to do with insurance coverage or health care access, but the researchers say that neither of those two variables was a factor. Apparently, it has more to do with how Black and Latino men who have sex with men—a clinical term that includes, but isn’t limited to, gay, bisexual, and queer men and sometimes trans people assigned male at birth (I reached out to the CDC for clarification on that last one, and I’ll update if I hear back)—are less likely to discuss PrEP with their providers in the first place, perhaps due to stigma or maybe thanks to structural racism within health care and how it might influence their providers’ decision to bring it up in the first place.
Again, it feels disingenuous to talk about who does or doesn’t know about PrEP without repeating that Gilead charges upwards of $2,000 out of pocket for a one month supply of Truvada. A lot of private insurance companies and even Medicaid, in some states, cover that cost, but still—that’s astronomical! Black and Latino men who have sex with men are already at disproportionately high risk for HIV transmission; more than 40 percent of all people diagnosed with HIV in 2017 were Black, while just over a quarter of them were Latinx. So, why not remove some of the barriers by... literally removing some of the barriers, such as cost? Abolish the entire profit-driven health care system we’ve got going on in the U.S. and replace it with, I don’t know, everything’s free fishbowl at the gay bar idea has to be better than what we currently have, right? 

March 9, 2019

PREP Use Among Men in Risk for HIV is Up 35% But Still Too Low




                                                   


By Tim Fitzsimons
Thirty-five percent of gay and bisexual men at high risk of HIV infection were using PrEP, or pre-exposure prophylaxis, the daily pill that prevents HIV infection, in 2017, according to data released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2014, just 6 percent of these men used PrEP.
However, despite the nearly 500 percent jump in PrEP use among men who have sex with men, the CDC notes “PrEP use remains too low, especially among gay and bisexual men of color.”
The study was presented Thursday in Seattle at the 2019 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, a major annual HIV/AIDS conference, and was based on more than 8,000 interviews in 20 American cities. 
The data showed varying use among racial and ethnic groups. More than 40 percent of white gay and bisexual men at high risk of HIV used PrEP in 2017, while only 30 percent of their Latino counterparts and 26 percent of their African-American counterparts did so. The updated data highlights the fact that minorities access PrEP at lower rates than whites, despite being at higher risk of HIV infection.
The data also found high awareness of PrEP, which is also known by its brand name, Truvada, among all gay and bi men: Eighty-six percent of African-Americans know about it, as do 87 percent of Latinos and 95 percent of whites.
“The study’s findings suggest that efforts to increase PrEP awareness and use among populations at risk is working, but it remains underutilized,” according to a press memo distributed by the CDC. The CDC notes that the federal government’s “Ending the HIV Epidemic: A Plan for America,” which aims to reduce new infections by 90 percent by 2030, will rely heavily on ramping up PrEP use. Many people struggle to access PrEP because of its high cost — roughly $2,000 per month list price — and complex insurance procedures.
“Of the estimated one million Americans at substantial risk for HIV and who could benefit from PrEP, fewer than 10 percent are actually using this medication,” the CDC noted, referring to low uptake overall among heterosexual and injection-drug-using populations that are also at high risk of HIV infection.
The CDC said it is funding government and private health organizations’ efforts to spread awareness of PrEP, and “developing new ways to connect gay and bisexual men of color and transgender people to PrEP."

November 21, 2018

Every Person in Danger of HIV Should Have Available The Prevention Pill }}Medical Panel Says


  It's Not a long-term vaccine but it will do the same job...keep you from HIV even if your partner has it!
 One PILL will Keep HIV Away, So Why Would You become HIV by not taking Pill???? YOunger guys are mostly taking it but people that should know better are not!
A Truvada pill. The drug, used to treat people with HIV, also helps prevent the virus from infecting healthy people

An influential panel of medical experts recommended for the first time Tuesday that physicians offer preventive medication to anyone at high risk of acquiring HIV.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force estimated that 1.2 million people are eligible for the daily drug regimen, which is very effective at preventing HIV infection, but only 78,360 took the medication in 2016. About 40,000 people were newly diagnosed with HIV that year.
John Epling, a member of the task force and a professor of community medicine at the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine and the Carilion Clinic, said routine discussion of the medication has not permeated primary care. He said he suspects that some doctors are not having conversations with patients who should be considered high risk.
“It’s just one of those things that haven’t diffused all the way through primary care yet,” Epling said in an interview. “The more familiar territory is in using condoms and avoiding multiple sexual partners.” The task force’s draft recommendations are aimed at persuading more doctors to bring up the subject of preventive drugs with their patients, he said. [Is HIV prevention pill right for you? CDC outlines how to tell whether you should be on the medication]
Pre-exposure prophylaxis, known as PrEP, is a combination of two drugs — tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emitricitabine — made by Gilead Sciences and marketed as Truvada. Taken daily in a single pill, the FDA-approved medication greatly reduces the chance of acquiring HIV, according to research cited by the task force. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that PrEP cuts the risk of contracting HIV through sex by more than 90 percent and reduces the risk by more than 70 percent for intravenous drug users.
Side effects — mainly nausea and mild, reversible kidney problems — are minor, but patient adherence to the drug program varied between 30 percent and 100 percent in research considered by the task force, an independent panel of experts on preventive medicine. 
The drug also is very expensive, at nearly $1,676 for a 30-day supply, according to Gilead. Most insurance covers the drugs, but critics have cited out-of-pocket costs as perhaps the biggest obstacle to staying on the medication.
In a statement, a Gilead spokesman disagreed, adding that “the CDC estimates that less than one percent of people who are indicated for Truvada for PrEP have an unmet need for financial assistance . . . Beginning September 1 of this year, we increased our patient support programs by raising the annual co-pay assistance from $4,800 to $7,200 and doubling patient eligibility for the Medication Assistance Program from six months to 12 months.”
Growth in the use of PrEP has been rapid, according to a 2018 study led by epidemiologists at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory Universityin Atlanta. Its use rose from 3.3 people per 100,000 population in 2012 to 36.7 people in 2017. 
But use of the medication is more than twice as frequent in the Northeast than it is in the South, the researchers found, even though a disproportionate number of new HIV diagnoses occur in Southern states.
The development of effective therapies and better prevention have changed HIV from a death sentence to a manageable disease that people can live with for decades. The CDC estimates that 1.1 million people in the United States are infected with HIV, including an estimated 15 percent who don’t know they have it, the task force reported.
According to the CDC, new HIV diagnoses are disproportionately concentrated among injection drug users and black and Latino men who have sex with other men.
The task force singled out four groups of people it considers to be at high risk for HIV:
* Men who have sex with other men and have a partner with HIV, a recent sexually transmitted infection or inconsistently use condoms; * Heterosexuals who have a partner with HIV, a recent sexually transmitted infection or inconsistent condom use with a partner whose HIV status is unknown and is at high risk for contracting the virus;
* Injection drug users who share needles or are at risk of acquiring HIV through sexual activity.
* Sex workers or people trafficked for sex.
As it did in 2013, the task force also recommended that all people ages 15 to 65 and all pregnant women be screened for HIV.
The proposed recommendations are open for public comment until Dec. 26.
 Washington Post

September 14, 2018

We Have A Chemical HIV Cure (PREP) For Not Getting The Virus Yet Only 4% of Gay and Bi Men Are Using It








The Williams Institute—Only 4% of sexually active gay and bisexual men in the U.S. use Truvada as pre-exposure prophylaxis ( PrEP ) and 25% of young sexually active gay and bisexual men have never been tested for HIV.

The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law finds that only 4% of sexually active gay and bisexual men in the United States use Truvada as pre-exposure prophylaxis ( PrEP ), which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regards as a highly effective tool to prevent the transmission of HIV.

In addition, researchers found that most sexually active gay and bisexual men aged 18-25 are not tested for HIV annually, as recommended by the CDC, and 25% of young men have never been tested.

"Our findings suggest that health education efforts are not adequately reaching sizable groups of men at risk for HIV infection," said the study's principal investigator Ilan H. Meyer, Distinguished Senior Public Policy Scholar at the Williams Institute. "It is alarming that high-risk populations of men who are sexually active with same-sex partners are not being tested or taking advantage of treatment advances to prevent the spread of HIV."

This is the first study to report on estimates of HIV testing and use of PrEP among gay and bisexual men using a national probability sample in the United States. In the study, researchers examined gay and bisexual men in three age groups: young ( 18-25 ), middle ( 34-41 ) and older ( 52-59 ).

Key findings
PrEP Use 
Only 4% of sexually active gay/bisexual men of all age groups use PrEP.
Visiting an LGBT health clinic and searching online for LGBT resources were associated with greater likelihood of PrEP use.

Slightly more than half ( 52% ) of young sexually active gay and bisexual men were familiar with PrEP as HIV prevention, compared with 79% of men aged 34-41.
Bisexual and non-urban men were less familiar with PrEP compared with gay-identified and urban men.
Most ( 68% ) men who were familiar with PrEP as HIV prevention had a positive attitude toward PrEP use—despite the low level of usage.

HIV Testing 
One quarter ( 25% ) of young gay and bisexual men had never tested for HIV in their lives, compared to approximately 8% of the middle and older groups of men.
45% of young sexually active gay and bisexual men had tested for HIV at least annually, compared with 59% of men aged 34-41 and 36% of those aged 52-59.

Black gay/bisexual men were more likely than White men to meet recommendations for HIV testing, which may be due to recent efforts to target Black men for HIV testing.
Visiting an LGBT health clinic and being out as gay or bisexual to health care providers were associated with greater likelihood of HIV testing.

"The extremely low rate of PrEP use, while not surprising given barriers to access in various parts of the country, is disappointing," said lead author Phillip L. Hammack, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "I worry especially about younger men who didn't grow up with the concerns of HIV that men of older generations did. The low rate of HIV testing probably reflects a degree of complacency and cultural amnesia about AIDS."

"In the early days of the AIDS epidemic, gay and bisexual men had to rely on LGBT community sources to receive information about HIV prevention," said Meyer. "Our findings suggest that contact with LGBT community resources—health clinics and online information—still serves an important role in HIV prevention."

Truvada is currently the only FDA-approved form of PrEP.

The report, "HIV Testing and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis ( PrEP ) Use, Familiarity, and Attitudes among Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States: A National Probability Sample of Three Birth Cohorts" appears in PLOS ONE and is co-authored by Phillip L. Hammack, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, Ilan H. Meyer, Ph.D., Distinguished Senior Public Policy Scholar at the Williams Institute, Evan A. Krueger, MPH, Research Coordinator at the Williams Institute, Marguerita Lightfoot, Ph.D., Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and David M. Frost, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer at University College London.

Research reported in this article is part of the Generations Study, supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development ( NICHD ) of the National Institutes of Health, under award number R01HD078526. 
The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a think tank on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, is dedicated to conducting rigorous, independent research with real-world relevance.
—From a press release

August 6, 2018

Instead of keeping it Like A Secret Let's Celebrate Gay Men Can Have Sex Without Fear

Have you heard of the anti-AIDS drug PrEP? Most straight people are unaware of it. In 2015, the World Health Organization said “the efficacy of oral PrEP has been shown in four randomized control trials and is high when the drug is used as directed.” 
PrEP (Pre-exposure Prophylaxis) is a drug that allows you to have as much sex as you want, without a condom, and remain HIV-negative. If you use it, you probably won’t catch HIV. POZ magazine says that it has “100 per cent efficacy for those who stick to the treatment.”
Doctors recommend everyone use condoms, because although PrEP is very effective as a protection against HIV, it does not guard against the transmission of other sexually transmitted diseases.
Recently, Patrick William Kelly — a gay academic from Northwestern University who is writing a “global history of AIDS” — sounded the alarm about PrEP. For many straight people, Kelly’s discussion of PrEP may be the first they have heard of this revolutionary drug. 
Kelly’s concern is that the popularity of PrEP will cause gay men to stop using condoms. He worries:
“An entire generation of gay men has no memory or interest in the devastation [AIDS] wrought. AIDS catalyzed a culture of sexual health that has begun to disintegrate before our eyes. What is there to be done to bring it back?…The nonchalant dismissal of the condom today flies in the face of the very culture of sexual health that gay men and lesbians constructed in the 1980s.”

Doctors still recommend that everyone use condoms because although PrEP is effective as protection against HIV, it does not guard against the transmission of other sexually transmitted diseases. (Shutterstock)

There is one sentiment that is missing from Kelly’s article. Why doesn’t he celebrate the fact that gay men — and everyone else — can now have sex without fear of death? PrEP makes sex safer for everyone. It is just one new tool in the “safe sex arsenal.” Why not be happy about the fact that PrEP will undoubtedly save many lives?

Not a lethal illness anymore

Some might ask — isn’t AIDS still a lethal illness? Not so much. 
The gold standard in HIV treatment” (highly active antiretroviral therapy or HAART) was first introduced at the 1996 Vancouver International AIDS Society (IAS) Conference. According to Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, “this was a pivotal moment, when HIV infection became a chronic manageable condition.” 
In 2014, The Globe and Mail reported that worldwide deaths from AIDS were massively decreasing
“In 2013, 1.5 million people died from AIDS-related causes worldwide, compared with 2.4 million in 2005, a 35 per cent decrease.” 
This state of affairs seems particularly significant when one considers hysterical early predictions concerning the effects of the disease. In 1987, Oprah Winfrey stated confidently that “research studies now project that one in five — listen to me, hard to believe — one in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three years.” 
This never happened.

In this 1989 photo, protesters lie on the street in front of the New York Stock Exchange in a demonstration against the high cost of the AIDS treatment drug AZT. The protest was organized by ACT UP, a gay rights activist group. (AP Photo/Tim Clary)

It’s absolutely true that AIDS affects different demographics, ethnicities and geographies differently, and that gay men are not the only population to be affected by it worldwide. But the improvement in the lives of HIV-positive people everywhere is only in part due to the tireless efforts of doctors, researchers and health-care workers. 
It is also due to the tireless efforts of gay men everywhere — many of whom became safe-sex activists during the last 35 years, distributing pamphlets, marching and just generally spreading the news. 
So why would a gay professor characterize PrEP as a bad thing? Why is he worried that gay men — en masse — will suddenly start practising unsafe sex?
Kelly is the victim of another kind of infection — the notion that gay men are criminals whose desires must be controlled. 
This criminalization of homosexuals goes back as far as the notion of sodomy. 

Viewing homosexuality as criminal

In the England of Henry VIII, the punishment for sodomy was deathIndia today is still struggling to legalize same-sex encounters. 
In 1972, gay liberation theorist Guy Hocquenghem flatly stated in his book Homosexual Desire: “Homosexuality is first of all a criminal category.” 
Hocquenghem went on to suggest that even though the late 19th century brought a tendency to view homosexuality through the more “tolerant” lens of illness, the human need to view homosexuality as criminal is persistent.
“Certainly as we shall see later, psychiatry tends to replace legal repression with the internalization of guilt. But the passage of sexual repression from the penal to the psychiatric stage has never actually brought about the disappearance of the penal aspect.” 
Both the sexuality of gay men and the sexuality of women are a threat to the primacy of patriarchal male heterosexual desire. Heterosexist culture believes this threat must be controlled. The LaBouchere Amendment in England (1885) was used to incarcerate Oscar Wilde for his homosexuality as a crime of “gross indecency.”
But Labouchere was an amendment to legislation designed to control female prostitution  — a law that angered many 19th-century trailblazing feminists. 
When AIDS appeared in the early 1980s, some heterosexuals saw it as primarily a gay disease (AIDS was first called GRID — gay-related immune deficiency). They worried that gay men might infect straight people, especially children. 
In his influential book of essays, Is The Rectum A Grave?, Leo Bersani suggests that when small-town Americans wanted to ban HIV-positive hemophiliac children in schools, what they actually feared was the spectre of “killer gay men” acting too much like women:
Women and gay men spread their legs with an unquenchable appetite for destruction. This is an image with extraordinary power; and if the good citizens of Arcadia, Florida could chase from their midst a very law-abiding family it is, I would suggest, because in looking at three hemophiliac children they may have seen — that is unconsciously represented — the infinitely more seductive and intolerable image of a grown man, legs high in the air, unable to refuse the suicidal ecstasy of being a woman. 

A doctor holds Truvada pills, shown to help prevent HIV infection. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

AIDS was not the first thing to make straight people think gay men had to be controlled. It simply fit like a glove on a fear of homosexuality that was already culturally endemic. 
Our society seems addicted to the notion that homosexuality is something uncontrollable and potentially lethal. So when AIDS came along, as the long-time AIDS worker Simon Watney wrote, it was “effectively being used as a pretext throughout the West to justify calls for increased legislation and regulation of those who are considered to be socially unacceptable.”
The concern over gay male imagined libidinal insanity is a throwback to an old trope. Gay men don’t need to be controlled; at least not any more than anyone else. And if you think otherwise? Well, it’s based on prejudice. Not fact.
This page was published on Aug 1, 2018 on The Conversation by,


Featured Posts

More Than 100 Members of Congress Ask Trump To Stop His Harmful Stands Against LGBTQ

By Tim Fitzsimons NBC More than 100 members of Congress sent  a letter  to President Donald Trump on Thursday th...