The HIV Morning-After Pill
NEWS: Introducing the best FDA-approved, commercially available lifesaver you've never heard of
|
|
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

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.
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.
"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."
Thank god you're around to dictate the final word.
People at risk of AIDS/HIV are people too.
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.