The largest ever real-world study found PrEP to work extremely well as a preventative treatment.

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.

  • dumples@kbin.social
    101·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • mjsaber@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        101·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          5·
          1 year ago

          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

    • mjsaber@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      41·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • mjsaber@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        78·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
          86·
          1 year ago

          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! 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

          • mjsaber@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            62·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
              75·
              1 year ago

              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.

                • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
                  28·
                  1 year ago

                  Risks for anal vs vaginal isn’t how a person decides on PREP. shame.

                  • mjsaber@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    82·
                    1 year ago

                    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 😊

          • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
            24·
            1 year ago

            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/