MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

The HIV Morning-After Pill

NEWS: Introducing the best FDA-approved, commercially available lifesaver you've never heard of

May/June 2008 Issue


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


One winter night in 2000, Danny, who was 21 at the time, went home with a guy he met at a crowded bar in San Francisco. Random hookups weren't out of the ordinary for Danny, but this one ended badly: As he was buttoning up to go home, his new friend mentioned he was hiv positive. Usually conscientious about safe sex, Danny hadn't been, and he panicked. "I was in shock," he says. "I just couldn't believe it." He vaguely remembered reading about an emergency treatment that could prevent infection, so when he got home he called the California aids hotline. Memory served. A monthlong regimen known as post-exposure prophylaxis treatment (pep)—usually given to health care workers who have been stuck with needles—was available at local clinics and emergency rooms to people who had recently been exposed to hiv. The side effects of debilitating nausea and fatigue were a small price to pay for its potential benefits: A study of health care workers published in the New England Journal of Medicine linked the rapid administration of the drug to an 81 percent decrease in the risk of contracting the virus.

Danny went to a city clinic, where after a consultation, he was given a prescription for two antiretroviral drugs—the same kind that hiv-positive patients have taken since the '80s. As preventative medicine, the drugs work with a one-two punch: The first intercepts the virus' initial attachment to dna, and the second stops infected cells from spreading the virus.

Danny was lucky that California is one of the few states (along with New York, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Rhode Island) where policies ensure that the general public—not just hospital workers who have been exposed on the job—can access the drugs. Elsewhere, the decision is up to individual hospitals, clinics, and doctors. Surveying all 50 state health departments and more than 50 ERs nationwide, I encountered std clinicians and workers at aids hotlines and Planned Parenthoods who did not know pep could be prescribed to the public. An Alabama health department official told me, "It's not available." A nurse at a North Dakota clinic said he all but encouraged patients to fly to San Francisco.

Since the virus must be intercepted before it attaches to cells and reaches the lymph nodes, it is crucial that pep be administered immediately—each passing hour means decreased effectiveness.

"It needs to be treated like a gunshot wound or a stabbing," says Antonio Urbina, a medical director at St. Vincent Catholic Medical Center's hiv clinic in New York City. Yet of the largest hospitals in each state, only a quarter offer pep in their emergency rooms. In a 2005-06 cdc survey taken at gay pride parades around the country, less than 20 percent of hiv-negative respondents knew about pep. "When I tell people that I used it, they say they've never heard of it," says Danny. "You see signs about crystal meth or syphilis, but even in the gay publications, you never see ads for pep."

pep is fda approved, commercially available, and even often covered by insurance (though for the uninsured the drugs run upward of $1,000). In 2005, the cdc recommended that pep be administered to all patients on a case-by-case basis within 72 hours of a high-risk exposure, followed up by testing and counseling. But for reasons that are more political than scientific, there is no federal funding for the treatment. Some public health officials claim that public availability of pep will encourage risky behavior—the same argument used against RU-486, abortions, and condom distribution. Robert Janssen, director of the Division of hiv/aids Prevention at the cdc, explains, "Biomedical interventions raise concerns that people would feel, 'Oh, I have these pills, they will keep me from getting it.'"

Yet 73 percent of non-hospital-worker pep recipients in a San Francisco study decreased high-risk sex over the following year. And since pep drugs are so toxic, most doctors would be careful about overprescribing. "I'm concerned with two things," says Urbina. "Is the person that exposed them either hiv positive or at high risk for hiv, and is there potential contact with infectious body fluid? If both are yes, in my equation, you give pep." Peter Leone, medical director of North Carolina's hiv department, who hasn't received the necessary support to institute a public pep program in his state, believes the benefits of pep outweigh the risks. "Nationally, there is a 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy," he says. "We're okay to say it's a good idea, as long as we don't know about it and don't do anything to support it. We don't deny care to smokers or people who didn't buckle their seat belts. It says a lot about the political climate around sexuality and homophobia." For the 40,000 people infected with hiv in the United States each year, the knowledge of a lost opportunity for prevention is devastating. In Britain, an hiv-positive couple has filed suit against the government for withholding lifesaving information.

Two months after he finished his treatment, Danny tested negative for hiv—whether because he hadn't contracted the virus from the encounter or because the pep worked, he'll never know. Since a randomized clinical trial is unethical, researchers have to rely on observational and tangential research. "At least if you test positive after pep, you'll know you did everything you could," says Danny. He keeps his medication label as a token of how a little bottle may have saved his life.


Find out if HIV morning-after therapy is available in your state.

or



Illustration: Thom Sevalrud


 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

This is SO utterly typical of the Bush-Administration style of governing. Replace Free AIDS and HIV testing with Abstinence flyers. I hope that British couple wins their lawsuit, and people stand up and Demand their right to life-saving drugs and treatments.
Posted by:RaiMay 19, 2008 11:04:18 AMRespond ^
i agree
Posted by:GeorgeMay 19, 2008 11:32:22 AMRespond ^
A "month of debilitating nausea and fatigue" following each bout of risky sex are going to encourage *more* risk behavior!? Who's smoking what out there?
Posted by:OuchMay 19, 2008 11:38:53 AMRespond ^
As an American who had this happen to me in Britain I was surprised to find that the National heath Service in Britain offered this treatment immediately- They advertise its availability and encourage its use- It makes one feel more empowered to be able to fight when the unthinkable happens- Just another reason America will fail to be what we could be when politics not science rules the day
Posted by:Maurice MizrahiMay 19, 2008 11:50:46 AMRespond ^
Your article is fascinating, however, I noted that Washington DC is not on your list of states in the "Find out if HIV morning-after therapy is available in your state," policy chart. This is a significant oversight, because, as the Washington Post reported in 2005, the rate of HIV/AIDS is probably worse in DC than any other major U.S. city. Please don't forget the the under-represented souls living in the plantation colony of the District of Colombia. Is PEP available in the District?
Posted by:DC ResidentMay 19, 2008 12:00:17 PMRespond ^
"Some public health officials claim that public availability of pep will encourage risky behavior—the same argument used against RU-486, abortions, and condom distribution."

Jeebus. I guess it's lucky we didn't just discover the female orgasm. Or the male penis for that matter. Because, after all, THEY can lead to risky behavior too.
Posted by:A. Non.May 19, 2008 12:22:04 PMRespond ^
If this young man wasn't practicing deviant behaviour by allowing himself to be sodomized, this never would have happened. That's all there is to say about the situation.
Posted by:Phil in KentuckyMay 19, 2008 1:23:04 PMRespond ^
I am so astounded by this! On one hand I am overjoyed to discover this treatment exists. I mean, this is great for rape victims, not to mention "Oops" victims. I'm delighted and also horrified to know that it's not readily available- a standard treatment! The idea that any drug that causes a month of debilitating illness is going to encourage people to be less cautious is completely illogical.

Posted by:RobinMay 19, 2008 1:38:29 PMRespond ^
I can't help but think PEP is just another uptick for big pharma.

Danny, and millions of others, are still 'believing' other people's self diagnosis based on the last time they tested for HIV.

It is this 'poz & neg' terminology that pharma and MD/associates want everyone to follow instead of what is clearly logical by now, 25 years after the fact; you do not share body fluids with others.
Posted by:carlosMay 19, 2008 2:12:15 PMRespond ^
this is a problem:
"A study of health care workers published in the New England Journal of Medicine linked the rapid administration of the drug to an 81 percent decrease in the risk of contracting the virus."

there's no way for anyone to ascertain that fact, to determine if one tests negative because of the PEP or because one never contracted the virus in the first place. there's no way to validate the efficacy of PEP. is it just a money-maker? yes. is it just a security blanket? yes.

"Danny tested negative for hiv—whether because he hadn't contracted the virus from the encounter or because the pep
worked, he'll never know. "
Right.
the whole PEP thing simply reinforces the subconscious drive to get infected that is present in all negative men who have sex with men in response to all the constant admonitions not to. it permits another step closer to the flame - not in this way: "Some public health officials claim that public availability of PEP will encourage risky behavior." - but rather does so subconsciously.
this language is so dangerous: "It needs to be treated like a gunshot wound or a stabbing,"

and then the final sentences of the article made my skin crawl:
"At least if you test positive after pep, you'll know you did everything you could," says Danny.

"Yes Danny did, didn't he?" they'll all say, with earnest frowns. "poor kid."

He keeps his medication label as a token of how a little bottle may have saved his life.

Oh the precious reminder of his brush with death and bad behavior. well guess what, he'll slip up again. and again until he gets infected. and that reminder sits there, probably on his nightstand.

It's getting to the point where I'll be advocating getting infected to relieve the homos of this burden of fear so they can move on and their lives can be lived more fully, not paralysed by fear, even if it appears to be "shortened."
Posted by:olenMay 19, 2008 7:26:38 PMRespond ^
silly christian!
Posted by:olenMay 19, 2008 7:28:33 PMRespond ^
I am an American doing human rights and public health work in South Africa, where it is policy that all rape survivors have the right to access PEP within 72 hours of their sexual assault. I am surprised and saddened that your article does not mention the use of PEP for rape survivors. This is a policy that civil society struggled for and won here in South Africa. Why, in the U.S., are we not making the links between unwanted sexual intercourse and potential HIV infection? PEP should be offered to all rape survivors within 72 hours after their assault. I wonder whether the author can supply us with info as to where PEP is available to rape survivors following sexual assault?
Posted by:rachelMay 20, 2008 12:38:21 AMRespond ^
Really, Phil in Kentucky? That's ALL there is to say?
Thank god you're around to dictate the final word.

Posted by:deciderMay 20, 2008 3:25:48 AMRespond ^
Why is the acts of Christians you hear most about and the Christians you hear the most from are the least Christ-like?
People at risk of AIDS/HIV are people too.
Posted by:nakisMay 20, 2008 3:39:30 AMRespond ^
I had heard about something like this years ago on the tv show "ER". Not knowing whether it was fact or fiction, months later when I experienced a needle stick injury at my job as a healthcare professional, I asked the exposure nurse who was giving me emergency hepatitis vaccines and such if there was anything available like that. She said no. Now this was in Michigan, and she could have been uninformed, but as a hospital worker, I had heard of nurses where I worked getting this treatment. I was left unsure if the knowledge of the existence of PEP was restricted to healthcare workers further up the totem pole, (as I was not a nurse but still had to administer injections to sometimes very high-risk patients) or if it was determined on a case by case basis of the severity of the exposure. I was petrififed, and my exposure wasn't even all that bad, considering what it could have been. It ended up that the patient had been negative at the time of exposure, but I was traumatized and am still dealing with some residual PTSD over the ordeal. It makes me livid to know that there is a product out there that can help the spreading of such a deadly disease, and can potentially help to erase the stigma about this illness in some estimation, and if the argument for not making its existence widely known or available to the public is that it will encourage people to take part in more risky behavior, then that is just irrational, illogical, and sociopathic. People will engage in irresponsible behavior if the climate is right. Teenagers will have sex whether or not condom machines are allowed in schools. However, the most effective protection any of us ever have against the spread of infectious disease is prevention, and to have successful prevention, we need to have a combination of education and availability of risk-reducing devices at our disposal. The benefits of a drug treatment like this could alter the face of the HIV/AIDS crisis and contribute enormously to the perpetuation of a higher degree of public health and awareness, and it seems to me that in any case when political "reasoning" steps in and intercepts vital information from the public (and in this case the deception seems broad and far-reaching) then the questions that come to my mind are, who is making money off of this travesty of social welfare? What are the motivations behind such a heinous act? and also, How can we as a public work to remove ourselves from the all-encompassing net of disinformation effectively enough to reverse the tide of greed in the top economic echelon of our society that is intent on keeping us down in all ways possible? At this moment, the fact that this article was researched, written, and published is a hell of a start. Hooray for a publication that facilitates journalism with a spine. Our side of the fight for a healthier (in all ways) community as the populous of this country and others lay in re-establishing effective dissemination of accurate and germane information, treating each other as family, and as much as we can, removing ourselves from the corrupt power structure that has permeated our culture and society. Health is not a commodity; it is a fundmamental right.
Posted by:AnonymousMay 20, 2008 7:22:11 AMRespond ^
The spider web of manipulation, lies, deceit, stupidity, fear, ignorance. This is what we are as a species. People do not always learn from the beginning, sometimes we learn in the middle or closer to the end. Where ever knowledge/learning occurs is a huge benefit to society. WE need to get out information that is life saving. If it effects change, all the better. Giving clean needles to addicts does not invite addiction, it prevents disease. Giving profilactics or medication to people who participate in dangerous behavior will not encourage anymore than would happen otherwise. It will save lives and prevent the spread of disease.
Posted by:human indecencyMay 20, 2008 8:00:20 AMRespond ^
Really! Not to mention the fact that it's only 81% effective! That makes me wanna risk my health....let me tell you!
Posted by:ReneeMay 20, 2008 3:35:18 PMRespond ^
My initial response was to Ouch's posting. Also, the idea that this is a ploy by "big-pharma" is absurd. If that were the case, there would be clinics on every block in every city in every state offering PEP.
Posted by:ReneeMay 20, 2008 3:50:52 PMRespond ^
The New England Journal of Medicine study (Cardo et al) actually says "By univariate analysis, there was no significant difference between case patients and controls in the use of zidovudine after exposure (9 of 33 case patients, or 27 %, vs. 247 of 679 controls, or 36 %)", i.e. there was no benefit to Zidovudine/AZT usage. However, through highly unusual statistical manipulations (elimination of all the significant variables) they were able to tease out a positive benefit. It's also interesting to note that out of about one million total AIDS cases in the United States, two groups most likely to have an uncontrolled transmission of HIV, surgeons and paramedics, have no had a single case of occupational transmission, despite hundreds of thousands of estimate puncture wounds every year many of which, according to a Brazilian study of plastic surgeons, are unknown to the medical workers.
Posted by:David CroweMay 21, 2008 3:36:35 AMRespond ^
MJ- great article. Spreading the word about this is MANDATORY. I am not gay, but I will tell both gay and straight friends just in case.
Posted by:ErikaMay 21, 2008 6:18:13 PMRespond ^
I agree with Renee. If Big Pharma were making tons of money off of this, the advertising budget alone would be astronomical...maybe not on TV, but certainly in periodicals addressing the needs of men's and women's health.


It also astounds me that some über-moralistic "Christians" (as one who at least tries to follow the teachings of Christ, I cannot seriously consider Phil in Kentucky as one who would reach out to the dispossessed the way Jesus did) are more into the letter of the Law than the Spirit of God's love. I believe that if Jesus were on this earth right now, he would not deny the health and safety needs of the GLBT population. After all, he prevented the execution of a woman caught in the very act of adultery. One thing he did say comes to mind regarding this Biblical story: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."


Phil had better be completely without sin if he's going to make comments such as the one he posted here.
Posted by:Cynth The PoetMay 23, 2008 4:55:46 PMRespond ^

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com
















bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN


This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2008 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS