Push for HIV drug prevention
Australia’s peak HIV organisation says Australia should allow the use of a common HIV treatment drug in HIV-negative people to protect them from contracting the virus.
An advisory panel to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended the use of Truvada for people at a high risk of exposure to HIV. The FDA is expected to accept the advice this week.
It’s expected the drug would be used for the partners of HIV-positive people.
Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations (AFAO) executive officer Rob Lake has called on the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration to immediately start the drug’s licensing process and begin research trials in Australia.
“The approval of the use of Truvada for high-risk HIV-negative people is an extremely significant development in the prevention of HIV worldwide and provides a significant new tool to add to condom use and regular testing,” Lake said.
“Recent studies show Truvada reduces the risk of HIV infection in both gay men and the HIV-negative heterosexual partners of people who are HIV-positive by up to 73 percent.
“If, as expected, the expert recommendation leads to approval by the FDA in America, it could change the lives of people living with a high risk of HIV infection.”
Lake said the use of Truvada could decrease Australia’s HIV infection rate.
“Health authorities here should ensure that Australians do not miss out on the same opportunity to reduce infection risk,” he said.
The call comes as the National Association of People Living with HIV/AIDS (NAPWA) starts a national advertising campaign to encourage people living with HIV to speak to their doctor about starting treatment early.
The NAPWA campaign is backed by research and a recent change in US HIV treatment guidelines which now recommend treatment for all people with HIV to improve patients’ health as well as to drive down transmission rates.Truvada is currently used to treat HIV infection. Listed side effects include headaches, abnormal skin sensations and nausea.
Cairns Base Hospital director of sexual health Dr Darren Russell, however, told the Star Observer Truvada’s side effects are generally minimal.
“There are very few side effects. The only side effect that potentially could be an issue could be kidney problems, but even that is uncommon, so it’s a fairly safe and clean drug,” he said.
Russell said while the research has shown Truvada can help prevent HIV transmission, in practice there are still barriers to accessing the drug.
Without government subsidy, the preventative would cost up to $800 a month.
“I think we’re all still trying to figure out who would benefit from it and how they would pay for it,” Russell said.
“In Australia, only someone who has got HIV is able to access treatment on the PBS [Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme], so any move to use the drug as a prevention tool, the PBS doesn’t currently allow for that.”
i wonder how much fear and loathing of gay sex is rooted in the fear of diseases that can result from it? or are we still not allowed to say that?
Well, I didn’t say anything about public subsidisation. But there are weight-loss medications on the PBS. Which is another appetite that we expect people to control. I wonder how many of the objections expressed here relate to fear and loathing of gay sex?
there’s too many people waiting too long and in many cases in pain and/or dying because the over-extended public health system doesn’t have enough money for treatments, hospital beds or even enough nurses, in the first place.
if some gays want to – how did you put it Stephen, “want to try unprotected sex for a period of time” – let them do that, but why on earth should there be an expectation that the pharmaceuticals required for them to indulge that but stay HIV-negative be placed on the PBS? go for it, if you must, but fork out the $800 a month yourself.
pitiful, outrageous, embarrassing.
Gee Richard, thanks so much for the lecture. And such a constructive tone you’ve adopted here. Since you’ve already labelled me, and (I presume) anyone who disagrees with your ranting, as ‘truly delusional’, there’s probably no point in responding, but just to clarify:
It’s not me who has a problem with condoms, but a number of friends and acquaintances I have spoken with who find it difficult to maintain 100% condom use – something I guess you are familiar with if you are HIV positive. These guys might be open to taking something like this for a period of time. Some of them are in relationships with positive guys, some of them have become turned on by the idea of unprotected sex and curious. Even if they don’t want to make a lifestyle of it, they want to try unprotected sex, so that it stops bugging them as something that has become so fetishised. So what is the problem with them using Truvada for a period of time to do this? Why the hysteria?
It’s true the drugs have some side effects but their side effect profile is not severe and some people don’t experience any side effects at all from Truvada.
David, you’re just far too naive to get it. HIV medications should only be for the use of HIV+ people only. I hope to hell the government here doesn’t put these pills on the PBS. You want to take them, fine, pay full price and don’t expect the tax payers to go forking out for your choice to dally in unsafe sex practices.
As for your remark on “I think a medical degree distinguishes their advice from yours” I think you’ll find that there are many in the sexual health industry that are very cautious about this. Many, don’t support it at all. This is NOT a vaccine. It’s NOT a cure.
You want to practice safe sex? Use a condom, don’t want to use a condom? Don’t practice unsafe penetrative sex. It’s really as simple as that.
David much older studies show that use of condoms for fucking reduces the risk of HIV infection by up to 100%. That’s not a particularly marginal figure, either, don’t you agree?
“Recent studies show Truvada reduces the risk of HIV infection in both gay men and the HIV-negative heterosexual partners of people who are HIV-positive by up to 73 percent”
That is not a marginal figure.
As somebody who was involved in a trial of this drug, these pills did not make me “very very sick”- they produced no negative side effects whatsoever. As for the “marching brigade of morons in the health industry”- I think a medical degree distinguishes their advice from yours.
Stephen, you have no idea do you? These pills are toxic, extremely toxic. If you’re having trouble with condom use, then you should probably be abstaining from penetrative sex if you’re concerned about catching something.
HIV is the least of what you should be worried about. HPV can cause cancer in men and women. There’s no cure for that either.
But go ahead, put your head in the sand and pretend that those multi-billion dollar drug companies only have your own best interests at heart.
You’re truly delusional. As a positive man, I don’t want to go back onto these pills. I’d rather wait off for as long as humanly possible. They actually do make you very very sick. You’re not missing out on anything by not taking them. If you’re perfectly healthy, use common sense and try to keep yourself perfectly healthy. Don’t put yourself at risk, and don’t blindly listen to the marching brigade of morons in the health industry. In fact, I’d strongly suggest you read “Bad Science” by Ben Goldacre before you go talking about “clinical trials” and their effectiveness.
“who are having problems with condom use” ? give me a fucking break. the men you’re talking about don’t have opposable thumbs?
I think this drug, which has some degree of proven efficacy and whose safety has been tested in clinical trials, should definitely be made available in some circumstances to people who need it, who are having problems with condom use. The moralism of the responses so far really surprises me.
oh and Richard when you say “I have a theory that most of these organisations are run by people who are seriously in denial.” — I’ve lost count of the poz men i’ve met who work/have worked in the sector who’ve told me totally straight faced that “if you aren’t HIV positive, you aren’t doing sex properly”. In denial? In a Lewis Carroll novel, more like it.
i went on PEP once and i had to take a month off work and now, six months later, my doctor says that the reason my liver hurts and is functioning abnormally is the four weeks i had on those pills. guess what they were called …. TRUVADA!
And the band played on indeed. Use a condom, fuckwits! I could train a parrot to talk that back tome in under an hour.
It amazes me how quickly we’ve been sucked in on this, as if this is some sort of vaccine. The evidence on its effectiveness is terrible!
http://bipolarbear.co.nz/2012/05/12/there-is-no-vaccine-for-hiv/
Exactly Mark. This is the most ridiculous logic I’ve read in a long while. I have a theory that most of these organisations are run by people who are seriously in denial.
For starters, there is no way our government would ever approve the use of a $26000 a month drug that has high toxicity levels and marginal proof of “protection” to be used by average every day healthy people, regardless of how at risk these individuals are.
It’s surprising the amount of “AIDS” organisations going around blabbering at how “harmless” these pills are. They aren’t harmless and they will do collateral damage as they pass through your system.
Not only will you still have to practice safe sex with these pills by wearing a condom, you’ll also have to put up with some pretty horrendous side effects from the medications and take them every single day for the rest of your life.
I’m positive and I don’t even want to do it, who in their right mind who’s negative would want to put themselves through that? Not only that, but there is no telling at the long term effects that these pills actually do. They didn’t know the ‘d’ drugs caused peripheral neuropathy at first….now they do.
I’m truly honest disgusted that AFAO would even suggest such tripe!
panadol is the best pharmaceutical response here, to allay the migraine headaches that result from reading bullshit proposals like this which for some unknown reason ignore the fact that old fashioned safe sex (condoms for fucking) continues to be used quite happily and perfectly effectively by millions of negative men around the world, just as it has been for over a quarter of a century now.