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

Attachment to the cell surface?
80% reduction in risk sounds great, until you consider that without protection, your chance of getting infected after a one-night stand is less than 1 in 1000, so now maybe you cut that risk to 1 in 5000. The point is that either you or you're insurance company would be paying at least $1,000,000 for every case of HIV they prevent with these drugs, and in doing so, they've given 1000 extra people an increased risk of being resistant to the drugs if they ever do contract HIV. So, if you're that 1000th guy, this is great stuff, but for the vast majority, all you're paying for is the side effects. Now, if the guy he hooked with got infected in the past month or so, then there's a much higher risk, and PEP is probably worthwhile.
Of course, if not used in conjuction with condoms this will increase the spread of other STDs and increase the likelihood of them becoming more drug resistant. And what about the cost of the drugs and the side-effects? They believe that this will drive down the cost of the meds and help stop the spread of AIDS throughout the world. But, I believe that if there is more demand for the AIDS drugs, the drug companies will say that they need to increase the price to build new factories and to market the drugs. Also, with our government's abstinence-only policy, widespread use of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis, wouldn't be likely even if the price of the meds went down.
I'm all for other options, but I still believe that condoms and low-risk sexual activity are the most sensible and responsible options.
More than anything, this is just another way of remarketing and expanding the drug's target market and finding a way of holding on to the drug's patent.
I fear the day when I see a commercial on mainstream TV, telling me to "ask my doctor"
But it is interesting to know that the PEP treatment exists. I'd never heard of it.
AIDS drug resistance? So far there is no "super-virus", all strands can be treated with the medications currently available. And, was the man that Danny had sex with been on AIDS meds regularly and been tested as undetectable for 6 months or more? The chance of the virus being transmitted may be slight. Please checkout this link: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/health/ sexual%20health%20/2008/02/01/141510/AIDS-drugs.htm
I find it hard to believe that a doctor would refuse to prescribe PEP. For the most part, doctors are scared of getting sued. It seems like you ultimately made the choice to not get on the drugs.
Sorry, I don't believe giving PEP to everyone whom believes they may have been exposed to the virus is justified just because maybe one person will not get infected.
HIV is not a death sentence and you do not have to get on medication right away. Often people are infected for 10 or more years before they have any symptoms. All drugs have side-effects. Please keep in mind that if you have sex, you are more infectious by not being on these drugs. And, be compationate and responsible by protecting your partner by engaging in safer sex. I don't believe that you have a responsibility to inform your partner if they don't ask. A person whom has sex with someone whom hasn't asked if they have an STD, is taking that risk.
Best of Luck!
AIDS is not a Death Sentence! Although I suppose that you could say that we are ALL living under a Death Sentence, none of us gets out of here alive.
Kidney Failure? Maybe from Crixivan. Not sure where you are getting your information? The Internet is full of outdated information. For example, you can't get HIV from your Dentist if he is using proper precautionary measures. An unborn child does not get HIV until the mother goes into labor. And, you can't get HIV from someone spitting on you. Etc.
Please, realize that it is your responsibility to keep educated about current treatments, find a good doctor and find organizations to help out. Don't depend on "luck".