Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 163 posts

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#31

Post by t-writescode »

gadders wrote: post #29
t-writescode wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some parts of the world, rape victims are a frequent recipient of HIV. I imagine their assailants don't feel obligated to wear a condom. Please recall the regions of the world where these shots are going to be the least expensive, etc, per the article.

I think this is a great initiative for poor areas of the world like sub-Saharan Africa. In the first world there are other options available.

In the United States, of the other available options, to my knowledge, only Truvada is cheap. Discovy is absurdly expensive and the shot is probably also very expensive.

And the daily medication has all the downsides of daily medication. To compare to another daily medication, "The Pill" is only 93% effective because people forget to take it.

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#32

Post by gadders »

t-writescode wrote: post #31
gadders wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a great initiative for poor areas of the world like sub-Saharan Africa. In the first world there are other options available.

In the United States, of the other available options, to my knowledge, only Truvada is cheap. Discovy is absurdly expensive and the shot is probably also very expensive. And the daily medication has all the downsides of daily medication. To compare to another daily medication, "The Pill" is only 93% effective because people forget to take it.

You'd think people would be more diligent if it was saving their life. I wonder what the effectiveness rate is for, say, heart medication?

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#33

Post by l5870uoo9y »

mort96 wrote: post #25
gadders wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

From USAID: > When used correctly and consistently, male condoms are estimated to be 90 percent effective in reducing HIV transmission. They work to a degree, but they're not perfect

They are however effective in preventing transmission of many other STDs that PREP doesn't prevent (and that PREP perhaps indirectly contribute to increasing transmission of including antibiotic resistant STDs).

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#34

Post by Pikamander2 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #11
t-writescode wrote: post #2

This is incredibly exciting! The main method available for PrEP, in the United States, at least, is a daily pill. I think (I don't know) there is a monthly shot, too. Daily pills take a lot of time investment; monthly shots are better; but once every 6 months is awesome! Especially in circumstances where it might be difficult to guarantee a daily pill or even a monthly shot.

> Daily pills take a lot of time investment; monthly shots are better That is a matter of opinion. How much time do you think it takes to swallow a pill?

What's not a matter of opinion is low adherence rates; doctors regularly struggle to get patients take their medication consistently and on time.

Having a shot like this be widely available will be an important stepping stone for eradicating HIV.

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#35

Post by t-writescode »

gadders wrote: post #32
t-writescode wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the United States, of the other available options, to my knowledge, only Truvada is cheap. Discovy is absurdly expensive and the shot is probably also very expensive. And the daily medication has all the downsides of daily medication. To compare to another daily medication, "The Pill" is only 93% effective because people forget to take it.

You'd think people would be more diligent if it was saving their life. I wonder what the effectiveness rate is for, say, heart medication?

Per https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/medication-adherence-th...

> Typically, adherence rates of 80% or more are needed for optimal therapeutic efficacy. However, it is estimated that adherence to chronic medications is around 50%.[3] Adherence rates can go down as time passes after the initial prescription is written, or as barriers emerge or multiply.

[3] 3. DiMatteo MR, Giordani PJ, Lepper HS, et al. Patient adherence and medical treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis. Med Care. 2002;40(9):794-811.

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#36

Post by Krssst »

mort96 wrote: post #24
thaumasiotes wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Daily pills take a lot of time investment; monthly shots are better That is a matter of opinion. How much time do you think it takes to swallow a pill?

I know from experience that I'm not able to take a vitamin D pill every day in the winter months to combat winter depression. It's actually kinda difficult to build habits like that, and I'd have to remember to bring it with me wherever I may go and stay for a couple of days.

I think I got monthly vitamin D supplements a while ago. Since the body stores it it was feasible to just take one large dose once a month. (however overdosing is still a possibility ; definitely never take a monthly pill daily).

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#38

Post by sausagefeet »

gadders wrote: post #32
t-writescode wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the United States, of the other available options, to my knowledge, only Truvada is cheap. Discovy is absurdly expensive and the shot is probably also very expensive. And the daily medication has all the downsides of daily medication. To compare to another daily medication, "The Pill" is only 93% effective because people forget to take it.

You'd think people would be more diligent if it was saving their life. I wonder what the effectiveness rate is for, say, heart medication?

Well, people are people, and nobody does anything with 100% accuracy. You, trying to put this on the people, is pretty despicable. Context matters a lot. Education matters a lot. Life gets in the way. It sucks. But when you have 8+ billion of people on the planet, expect some percentage of them to do things you think don't make sense to you. Accept it. Telling people to use condoms neither solves the problem, helps the person, or helps resolve future incidents.

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#39

Post by gadders »

sausagefeet wrote: post #38
gadders wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think people would be more diligent if it was saving their life. I wonder what the effectiveness rate is for, say, heart medication?

Well, people are people, and nobody does anything with 100% accuracy. You, trying to put this on the people, is pretty despicable. Context matters a lot. Education matters a lot. Life gets in the way. It sucks. But when you have 8+ billion of people on the planet, expect some percentage of them to do things you think don't make sense to you. Accept it. Telling people to use condoms neither solves the problem, helps t…

>>You, trying to put this on the people, is pretty despicable.

To be clear, I am talking about in first world countries where people have more agency and are expected to take responsibility for their own health.

Re: Twice-Yearly HIV Shot Shows 100% Effectiveness in Women

#40

Post by gadders »

t-writescode wrote: post #35
gadders wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think people would be more diligent if it was saving their life. I wonder what the effectiveness rate is for, say, heart medication?

Per https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/medication-adherence-th... > Typically, adherence rates of 80% or more are needed for optimal therapeutic efficacy. However, it is estimated that adherence to chronic medications is around 50%.[3] Adherence rates can go down as time passes after the initial prescription is written, or as barriers emerge or multiply. [3] 3. DiMatteo MR, Giordani PJ, Lepper HS, et al. Patient ad…

People are dumb.
Post reply on HN