5 Things to Know About the First Drug to Prevent HIV

[derspiess]

Oh, massa sir, please let me know how to get to the promised land. Please Unca Seedy?

Only if you sing for me, boy. When you was slaves, you sang like birds.  Go on, how 'bout a good ol' nigger work song?

Reply hazy, try again.

sing "The Camptown Ladies"   

"Gwine Run All Night" aka "De Camptown Races"

Take that up with Mel Brooks

[grumbler]

Take that up with Mel Brooks

Mel Brooks deliberately misnamed the song. 

[derspiess]

Take that up with Mel Brooks

Mel Brooks deliberately misnamed the song. 

That's nice.  Point?

[garbon]

None of this seems to be about HIV.

[crazy canuck]

None of this seems to be about HIV.

But we have established that Grumbles and Berkut make a nice couple.

[grumbler]

Take that up with Mel Brooks

Mel Brooks deliberately misnamed the song. 

That's nice.  Point?

No more point to my post than yours.

[CountDeMoney]

Fewer Americans suppressing HIV virus, study finds

Fewer Americans than previously thought are controlling their HIV infections and potentially putting the public at higher risk, according to a new study from Johns Hopkins University and University of Pennsylvania.

The researchers found that there are tens of thousands of people — particularly young adults, blacks, injection drug users and the uninsured — that are not consistently suppressing their viral loads. Mostly, they are not adhering to their drug regimens.

And when patients go on and off their medications, they can become resistant to therapy and put other people in greater danger of contracting the virus that causes AIDS.

"The drugs do work and are good at suppressing the virus," said Dr. Kelly Gebo, senior study investigator and infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins University. "What was surprising was at any one point in time people were doing well, but they weren't staying suppressed."

The researchers found that past studies were mostly only measuring one blood test. They looked at 100,000 tests from more than 30,000 patients over a decade in what's believed to be the longest such review. They found 72 percent were tightly controlling their viral loads, which was lower than the 87 percent found in past research.

Still, the numbers were up significantly from 2001, when only about 45 percent were tightly controlling their viral loads, noted Gebo, an associate professor in Hopkins' School of Medicine and the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

That's probably because many people can now take one daily, multi-drug pill. But when the patients become resistant to one drug in the mix they must take different medications in multiple pills. That can increase the odds of more slip ups, the researchers said.

They also can pass on a resistant strain of HIV, they said.

More needs to be done to ensure that those infected are taking their medications and being properly advised by their doctors, said Gebo and Dr. Baligh Yehia, a postdoctoral fellow in Pennsylvania's School of Medicine who trained as a medical resident at Johns Hopkins. They plan some more research on that front.

The current study results are expected to be published online July 25 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, to coincide with the XIX International AIDS Conference in Washington, which began Sunday.

There are almost 1.2 million people infected with HIV in the United States and 23,000 in Maryland. About 426,000 take antiretroviral drugs and are in routine medical care. The virus is considered suppressed when there are 400 or fewer viral copies per milliliter of blood.

"An individual who misses one day's worth of drugs is at risk of becoming resistant," Yehia said. "When you consider that over a large population, that's how people spread the virus. ... And they may be spreading the resistant kind. It's a dangerous spiral."

The researchers said they couldn't say for sure why some populations were worse at suppressing their loads, but suspected adherence problems. Other reasons would be side effects or drug interactions.

Adherence was cited recently by infectious disease experts as the reason why a drug recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for prevention of HIV may not be widely prescribed, in addition to its cost. This study may add some fuel to that argument, the researcher said.

"People who have the disease know they need to take the drugs and don't," Gebo said. "If you're trying to prevent HIV, that's a whole other ball of wax."

Added Yehia: "We've made progress, but being able to take a pill every day is a lot harder than previously thought."

What? People with HIV, left to their own devices, developing resistance to drug therapy and putting the public at higher risk?  Surely not in America!  FREEDOMISM ANDZ LIBERTYNESS

[merithyn]

The researchers found that there are tens of thousands of people — particularly young adults, blacks, injection drug users and the uninsured — that are not consistently suppressing their viral loads. Mostly, they are not adhering to their drug regimens.

What? People with HIV, left to their own devices, developing resistance to drug therapy and putting the public at higher risk?  Surely not in America!  FREEDOMISM ANDZ LIBERTYNESS

I would guess that a large chunk of those are the uninsured. Roughly 25% of the applications that I receive for the Federal insurance plan are HIV positive and have not had insurance for six months or longer (most longer than a year).

That being said, there's something to what Seedy says in this. Taking the test in a clinic and/or getting the results over the phone from a counselor means that options for insurance and programs to help pay for the necessary meds can be quickly and easily given.

[crazy canuck]

Fewer Americans suppressing HIV virus, study finds

Fewer Americans than previously thought are controlling their HIV infections and potentially putting the public at higher risk, according to a new study from Johns Hopkins University and University of Pennsylvania.

The researchers found that there are tens of thousands of people — particularly young adults, blacks, injection drug users and the uninsured — that are not consistently suppressing their viral loads. Mostly, they are not adhering to their drug regimens.

And when patients go on and off their medications, they can become resistant to therapy and put other people in greater danger of contracting the virus that causes AIDS.

"The drugs do work and are good at suppressing the virus," said Dr. Kelly Gebo, senior study investigator and infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins University. "What was surprising was at any one point in time people were doing well, but they weren't staying suppressed."

The researchers found that past studies were mostly only measuring one blood test. They looked at 100,000 tests from more than 30,000 patients over a decade in what's believed to be the longest such review. They found 72 percent were tightly controlling their viral loads, which was lower than the 87 percent found in past research.

Still, the numbers were up significantly from 2001, when only about 45 percent were tightly controlling their viral loads, noted Gebo, an associate professor in Hopkins' School of Medicine and the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

That's probably because many people can now take one daily, multi-drug pill. But when the patients become resistant to one drug in the mix they must take different medications in multiple pills. That can increase the odds of more slip ups, the researchers said.

They also can pass on a resistant strain of HIV, they said.

More needs to be done to ensure that those infected are taking their medications and being properly advised by their doctors, said Gebo and Dr. Baligh Yehia, a postdoctoral fellow in Pennsylvania's School of Medicine who trained as a medical resident at Johns Hopkins. They plan some more research on that front.

The current study results are expected to be published online July 25 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, to coincide with the XIX International AIDS Conference in Washington, which began Sunday.

There are almost 1.2 million people infected with HIV in the United States and 23,000 in Maryland. About 426,000 take antiretroviral drugs and are in routine medical care. The virus is considered suppressed when there are 400 or fewer viral copies per milliliter of blood.

"An individual who misses one day's worth of drugs is at risk of becoming resistant," Yehia said. "When you consider that over a large population, that's how people spread the virus. ... And they may be spreading the resistant kind. It's a dangerous spiral."

The researchers said they couldn't say for sure why some populations were worse at suppressing their loads, but suspected adherence problems. Other reasons would be side effects or drug interactions.

Adherence was cited recently by infectious disease experts as the reason why a drug recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for prevention of HIV may not be widely prescribed, in addition to its cost. This study may add some fuel to that argument, the researcher said.

"People who have the disease know they need to take the drugs and don't," Gebo said. "If you're trying to prevent HIV, that's a whole other ball of wax."

Added Yehia: "We've made progress, but being able to take a pill every day is a lot harder than previously thought."

What? People with HIV, left to their own devices, developing resistance to drug therapy and putting the public at higher risk?  Surely not in America!  FREEDOMISM ANDZ LIBERTYNESS

Commie, Man in his natural state would never do something this stupid.  We must have Liberty to avoid such misuse of drugs!

[Fate]

What is this debate even about?

[garbon]

That being said, there's something to what Seedy says in this. Taking the test in a clinic and/or getting the results over the phone from a counselor means that options for insurance and programs to help pay for the necessary meds can be quickly and easily given.

Because the uninsured are likely to be seeking out a $60 at home kit? Also, why would someone want to test themselves for HIV - if they didn't plan to do anything about it?

Different note, I like how the article obscures the fact that the number of individuals controlling their viral loads has increased since 2001.  Here's another article which seems to be a little more...forthcoming?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-07/jhmi-hsn071912.php

Among the study's specific findings was that the percentage of participants who tightly controlled their HIV disease was 72 percent in 2010, the last year for which viral load counts were analyzed. This represented a major increase from 45 percent in 2001, but was significantly less than the 77 percent to 87 percent figures widely cited in 2011 reports from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in studies by other leading Hopkins and Canadian researchers.

[Syt]

Fewer Americans suppressing HIV virus, study finds

I wonder what they think the "V" in HIV stands for.

[garbon]

What is this debate even about?

Seedy doesn't like the idea that people could have an at-home test for HIV because he thinks that they'll then not seek treatment / be able to emotionally cope.  Oddly, when confronted with the fact that at-home testing already existed (though slow which ensured more nail-biting while testers waited results) and that said tests are not really affordable for the poor (whom he posits are too ill-informed, ignorant etc to seek help if they tested themselves) - he then proceeds to rant about how no one in this country cares about the poor, healthcare, each other(?)

[Fate]

I'm sure it's something that the HIV epidemiologists are going to watch. I don't understand why people would be less likely to seek treatment if they learned they were positive at home. I have a feeling a lot of high risk populations like prostitutes will test themselves more frequently and know if they are positive sooner because it's so easy to do.

But there is no way to force a legally competent adult to take their medication. The most we can do is quarantine the individual when the public health risk is sufficiently great. HIV doesn't meet that standard because it is generally spread by intimate sexual contact. Multi-drug resistant tuberculosis does meet the criteria (because it is airborne) and we can quarantine you if you don't take your meds.

[Berkut]

Fewer Americans suppressing HIV virus, study finds

Fewer Americans than previously thought a
re controlling their HIV infections and potentially putting the public at higher risk, according to a new study from Johns Hopkins University and University of Pennsylvania.

The researchers found that there are tens of thousands of people — particularly young adults, blacks, injection drug users and the uninsured — that are not consistently suppressing their viral loads. Mostly, they are not adhering to their drug regimens.

And when patients go on and off their medications, they can become resistant to therapy and put other people in greater danger of contracting the virus that causes AIDS.

"The drugs do work and are good at suppressing the virus," said Dr. Kelly Gebo, senior study investigator and infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins University. "What was surprising was at any one point in time people were doing well, but they weren't staying suppressed."

The researchers found that past studies were mostly only measuring one blood test. They looked at 100,000 tests from more than 30,000 patients over a decade in what's believed to be the longest such review. They found 72 percent were tightly controlling their viral loads, which was lower than the 87 percent found in past research.

Still, the numbers were up significantly from 2001, when only about 45 percent were tightly controlling their viral loads, noted Gebo, an associate professor in Hopkins' School of Medicine and the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

That's probably because many people can now take one daily, multi-drug pill. But when the patients become resistant to one drug in the mix they must take different medications in multiple pills. That can increase the odds of more slip ups, the researchers said.

They also can pass on a resistant strain of HIV, they said.

More needs to be done to ensure that those infected are taking their medications and being properly advised by their doctors, said Gebo and Dr. Baligh Yehia, a postdoctoral fellow in Pennsylvania's School of Medicine who trained as a medical resident at Johns Hopkins. They plan some more research on that front.

The current study results are expected to be published online July 25 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, to coincide with the XIX International AIDS Conference in Washington, which began Sunday.

There are almost 1.2 million people infected with HIV in the United States and 23,000 in Maryland. About 426,000 take antiretroviral drugs and are in routine medical care. The virus is considered suppressed when there are 400 or fewer viral copies per milliliter of blood.

"An individual who misses one day's worth of drugs is at risk of becoming resistant," Yehia said. "When you consider that over a large population, that's how people spread the virus. ... And they may be spreading the resistant kind. It's a dangerous spiral."

The researchers said they couldn't say for sure why some populations were worse at suppressing their loads, but suspected adherence problems. Other reasons would be side effects or drug interactions.

Adherence was cited recently by infectious disease experts as the reason why a drug recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for prevention of HIV may not be widely prescribed, in addition to its cost. This study may add some fuel to that argument, the researcher said.

"People who have the disease know they need to take the drugs and don't," Gebo said. "If you're trying to prevent HIV, that's a whole other ball of wax."

Added Yehia: "We've made progress, but being able to take a pill every day is a lot harder than previously thought."

What? People with HIV, left to their own devices, developing resistance to drug therapy and putting the public at higher risk?  Surely not in America!  FREEDOMISM ANDZ LIBERTYNESS

Your article proves rather nicely that even with supervision, some people are stupid.

It exactly argues against your claim that by denying people the right to test themselves, we can control some minorities stupidity.