3 ms·
I can see it going full steam ahead, myself, for a few reasons: 1) Do both, for additional safety. 2) PrEP has changed formulations, and may change again. Th
by at_a_remove 6y ago
I can see it going full steam ahead, myself, for a few reasons:
1) Do both, for additional safety.
2) PrEP has changed formulations, and may change again. This implies that the previous formulations were not completely optimal.
3) From what I understand, PrEP can be expensive, although your insurance may cover it. You can also get it overseas for much less but many are not comfortable with that.
4) It's a lifetime expense, even with insurance and a lifetime of having to take a drug versus one or more shots.
5) Not having to undergo kidney function tests on the regular might be nice.
- dhnajsjdnd 6y agoThe problem with “do both”: if you give your control group PrEP, then you won’t be able to get data to support the vaccine’s efficacy. A trial requires enough infections in the control group to show the vaccine is better.
- at_a_remove 6y agoThat's only a problem for the studies. I'm talking about after the studies. I can see a lot of at-risk people saying "Yeah, I'll do both." I was joking to my doctor that when I get access to the COVID vaccines, I plan on Moderna in one arm and Pfizer in the other.
- tempestn 6y agoThe comment you replied to was specifically asking how the trial would work given PrEP though.
- sjg007 6y agoYou pick a high risk group that either doesn’t have access to prep
- heavyset_go 6y agoFor the HIV vaccine trials, all participants are educated about and are offered free PrEP. There will be participants who choose not to take the PrEP anyway, and there will be people who are not compliant with PrEP's dosing schedule, which will reduce its efficacy against HIV acquisition.
- bluGill 6y agoDrugs are controlled against the alternative treatment often enough. The study needs to be designed differently, but statistics can do this.