- cross-posted to:
- health@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- health@lemmy.world
A drug which stops HIV infecting the body has proved to be a highly effective “real-world” preventative treatment, a study has confirmed. The results of the research on 24,000 people taking it across England, have been described as “reassuring”.
Thousands of people are already taking PrEP through sexual health clinics.
HIV charity the Terrence Higgins Trust wants easier access to the drug, since many people, including women, do not know it exists.
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), which led the PrEP Impact Trial with the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, said it was the largest ever real-world study of its kind. Funded by NHS England, it was carried out at 157 sexual health clinics across England between October 2017 and July 2020.
The study found use of PrEP, also known as pre-exposure prophylaxis. reduced the chances of getting HIV by around 86% when used in everyday life - taking into account inconsistent or incorrect use. Clinical trials suggested the medication is 99% effective.
I have only heard of PrEP being taking by males. I didn’t know it was approved for use by females in the USA. Or as I have heard in their ad those assigned female at birth.
It’s pretty uncommon, but there are some use cases, namely women in relationships with HIV+ men.
Women of color actually have really high rates of HIV compared to the rest of the population. Working to de-stigmatize both the infection and prevention treatments is a really important part of reducing overall numbers of HIV.
Yeah there’s actually a real problem with hiv running rampant in some communities of straight people because of the assumption of it as a gay virus
Any woman having unprotected sex with men should be on prep.
That’s not entirely true. Receptive vaginal sex is much less likely to transmit the virus than anal sex (about 17x less). Insertive anal sex is more likely to transmit than vaginal sex, too, so the type of sex you have matters too.
Number of partners, and their sexual habits really matter, too. It’s important to help people really understand their STI risk if we want people to make healthier decisions regarding sex.
Please don’t share this misinformation,
because you’re anti-gay, or you’re under the impression that HIV is a gay thing.
By the numbers, more heterosexual people have HIV than homosexual people. Not by the percentage of the community, which is a right-wing nonsensical way to blame gay people.
It has nothing to do with the “STI risk,” as if it’s some kind of range. If a PERSON of ANY GENDER is having unprotected sex with people who have even a 1% chance of having sex with other people, then PREP is probably a good idea.
Let me count the number of married people who got HIV from their spouses! 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
I’m not anti gay, I was an STI nurse for a few years. Anal sex for ANYONE carries a higher risk per interaction, regardless of whether you are the receptive or insetive partner.
My point was not to label all people having unprotected sex as needing PrEP, or only gay people as needing PrEP. My point was to look at the types of sex you have, with the number and types of partners you have, and take a realistic look at what kinds of risks for STI transmission any of those have.
For instance, if you have lots of unprotected oral sex with strangers, you aren’t going to get HIV. You might get another STI, but HIV is virtually un-transmissable via oral sex. But someone reading the comment might get scared and think they need to take PrEP.
https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-conditions/sexual-and-reproductive-health/hiv-aids/causes/risk-of-exposure.html#:~:text=Therefore%2C unprotected sex with an,exposures)%20for%20receptive%20anal%20sex.
Being a “nurse” doesn’t meant you know anything. I’m married to a nurse and I’m shocked how dumb some of their friends are. You’re giving misleading medical advise, which is a violation. Stop.
I literally posted a link to an article from Stanford that shows what I’m talking about.
Risks for anal vs vaginal isn’t how a person decides on PREP. shame.
No, like my initial comment said, number and types of partners are important, as are your partners’ partners.
If you actually read my comment, you can see I’m trying to get people to look past the stigma and actually determine what kinds of risks they have and make safer sex decisions accordingly.
PrEP can have some uncomfortable side effects, and not everyone is able to tolerate it. There are very, very few things in healthcare that we can say “everyone” in a certain cohort should do, and PrEP is no exception.
Your response, which characterizes my post as misinformation, is inaccurate, as I have shown, but I do appreciate the chance to talk about sex and try to normalize it as part of the healthcare discussion 😊
It is estimated the risk of HIV transmission through receptive vaginal sex (receiving the penis in the vagina) to be 0.08%.
Stop rage baiting over basic science. It’s actually harmful to lgbt people to cry anti gay when someone is just stating what doctors are saying about different risks for different types sex.
https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-conditions/sexual-and-reproductive-health/hiv-aids/causes/risk-of-exposure.html
https://hivrisk.cdc.gov/about-the-data/
What is the point i’m trying to make? I want to know if I need to clarify because of poor comprehension.
And, if anyone is rage baiting it’s you—this thread was yesterday and I think it’s pretty played out by now.
There’s nothing “any gay” about pointing out the realities of vastly different risks of different types of sex.
You said, “even if only 1%,”
.08% is less than 1/0th of 1% so you just proved the point.
Let’s go with the doctors in this. They don’t recommend prep for women having receptive vaginal sex.
No one is being anti gay here. You saying they, when they are not, are is rage baiting and dilutes the sentiments of calling out anti gay statements elsewhere.
Thread is less than 24 hours old. On lemmy that is not old. And your idiotic comments are still being read unfortunately.
Get your awkward agenda out of basic medical advice. You should delete you original comment. Disinformation, and embarrassment.
Let’s all go on the internet and find links that back our data.
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/prep-can-prevent-hiv-infections-but-most-women-dont-know-they-can-take-it/ar-AA1kPTd6
“PrEP Is for Women” pamphlet from the CDC 
https://www.cdc.gov/stophivtogether/library/topics/prevention/brochures/cdc-lsht-prevention-brochure-prep-is-for-women-patient.pdf
Let’s just stop here. I’m not changing my mind on prep for women, and anyone else reading this now has a lot of data to use to make up their own mind.
Success!!!
Goodbye.
Descovy, a newer form of PrEP, only had male assigned at birth participants in the study (and the number of non-cis males was very, very low if I’m remembering correctly).
The original formulation has been approved for everyone for a while, but since the new formulation was only tested with a certain population, that’s all it’s approved for.
That must be what I have seen before. It was before RuPaul so I think there was a specific audience