
The world's only twice-a-year shot to prevent HIV could stop transmission -- if people can get it
While a vaccine to prevent HIV still is needed, some experts say the shot made by Gilead Sciences — a drug called lenacapavir — could be the next best thing. It nearly eliminated new infections in two groundbreaking studies of people at high risk, better than daily preventive pills they can forget to take.
'This really has the possibility of ending HIV transmission,' said Greg Millett, public policy director at amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research.
Condoms help guard against HIV infection if used properly but what's called PrEP — regularly using preventive medicines such as the daily pills or a different shot given every two months — is increasingly important. Lenacapavir's six-month protection makes it the longest-lasting type, an option that could attract people wary of more frequent doctor visits or stigma from daily pills.
But upheaval in U.S. healthcare — including cuts to public health agencies and Medicaid — and slashing of American foreign aid to fight HIV are clouding the prospects.
Millett said 'gaping holes in the system" in the U.S. and globally "are going to make it difficult for us to make sure we not only get lenacapavir into people's bodies but make sure they come back' twice a year to keep up their protection.
Gilead's drug already is sold to treat HIV under the brand name Sunlenca. The prevention dose will be sold under a different name, Yeztugo. It's given as two injections under the skin of the abdomen, leaving a small 'depot' of medication to slowly absorb into the body. People must test negative for HIV before getting their twice-a-year dose, Gilead warned. It only prevents HIV transmission — it doesn't block other sexually transmitted diseases. Some researchers who helped test the shot advise cold packs to counter injection-site pain.
Global efforts at ending the HIV pandemic by 2030 have stalled. There still are more than 30,000 new infections in the U.S. each year and about 1.3 million worldwide.
Only about 400,000 Americans already use some form of PrEP, a fraction of those estimated to benefit. A recent study found states with high use of PrEP saw a decrease in HIV infections, while rates continued rising elsewhere.
About half of new infections are in women, who often need protection they can use without a partner's knowledge or consent. One rigorous study in South Africa and Uganda compared more than 5,300 sexually active young women and teen girls given twice-yearly lenacapavir or the daily pills. There were no HIV infections in those receiving the shot while about 2% in the comparison group caught HIV from infected sex partners.
A second study found the twice-yearly shot nearly as effective in gay men and gender-nonconforming people in the U.S. and in several other countries hard-hit by HIV.
Ian Haddock of Houston had tried PrEP off and on since 2015 but he jumped at the chance to participate in the lenacapavir study and continues with the twice-yearly shots as part of the research follow-up.
'Now I forget that I'm on PrEP because I don't have to carry around a pill bottle,' said Haddock, who leads the Normal Anomaly Initiative, a nonprofit serving Black LGBTQ+ communities.
'Men, women, gay, straight – it really just kinds of expands the opportunity for prevention,' he added. Just remembering a clinic visit every six months 'is a powerful tool versus constantly having to talk about, like, condoms, constantly making sure you're taking your pill every day.'
Gilead said the U.S. list price, meaning before insurance, is $28,218 a year, which it called similar to some other PrEP options. The company said it anticipated insurance coverage but also has some financial assistance programs.
Most private insurers are supposed to cover PrEP options without a co-pay although the Supreme Court is considering a case that could overturn that requirement. Congress also is considering huge cuts to Medicaid. And while community health centers still are an option, the Trump administration has largely dismantled HIV prevention work at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that would normally get the message to vulnerable populations who'd qualify for the shot, said Carl Schmid of the nonprofit HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute.
Schmid worries the shot won't meet its potential because 'we're basically pulling the rug out of HIV prevention and testing and outreach programs.'
Gilead also has applications pending for the twice-yearly shot in other countries. Last fall, the company signed agreements with six generic drug makers to produce low-cost versions of the shot for 120 poor countries mostly in Africa, Southeast Asia and the Caribbean. Gilead plans to make enough shots to supply 2 million people in those countries, at no profit, until the generics are available, said company senior vice president Dr. Jared Baeten.
Winnie Byanyima, executive director of UNAIDS, said in a statement the price is still too high. If it's unaffordable, she said, 'it will change nothing.'
And HIV experts worry the arrangements Gilead has made to reduce costs in some countries leave out middle-income countries like some in Latin America.
'Everyone in every country who's at risk of HIV needs access to PrEP,' said Dr. Gordon Crofoot of Houston, who helped lead the study in men. 'We need to get easier access to PrEP that's highly effective like this is.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
37 minutes ago
- The Hill
HHS terminates California sex education grant over ‘gender ideology content'
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Thursday announced it had terminated California's participation in a federal sex education grant program after the state refused to remove information about transgender people from its curricula. The department's Administration for Children and Families (ACF) asked California in March to submit all learning materials for its Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP), a teen pregnancy prevention and sexual health initiative established in 2010 under the Affordable Care Act, 'for a medical accuracy review.' On Thursday, the Health Department said it identified content in the state's curricula outside of the scope of PREP's authorizing statute. 'Specifically, ACF identified multiple examples of gender ideology content, including lessons teaching students that gender identity is distinct from biological sex and that boys can identify as girls and vice versa,' Acting Assistant Secretary Andrew Gradison wrote in a termination letter to officials at California's Department of Public Health (CDPH). In June, Gradison instructed the department to remove 'all content concerning gender ideology' from its PREP curricula within 60 days. According to Thursday's termination letter, California's health department said in its Aug. 19 response that it would 'not make any such modifications,' arguing its program materials are relevant and medically accurate and ACF does not have authority to take an enforcement action. PREP's authorizing statute 'includes no mention of gender ideology,' which 'is not supported by the weight of science,' Gradison wrote to the department on Thursday, adding, 'Termination of all California State PREP grants is now appropriate.' The CDPH has 30 days to submit an appeal. A spokesperson for the department did not immediately return a request for comment. In a statement, Gradison said the Trump administration 'will not allow taxpayer dollars to be used to indoctrinate children.' 'Accountability is coming for every state that uses federal funds to teach children delusional gender ideology,' he said. In an emailed statement, Elana Ross, a spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), said, 'If it's a day ending in y, President Trump is attacking kids' safety, health, and access to education as part of his culture war.' Earlier Thursday, Trump threatened to defund California schools that do not adhere to the administration's policies on transgender students. Since returning to office in January, Trump has sought to bar transgender girls from participating in girls' school sports and prohibit trans students from using restrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity. The Justice Department last month sued California's Education Department and the state's governing body for high school sports over what it said was a pattern of 'illegal sex discrimination against female student athletes.' Both entities have refused to comply with the administration's demands to ban trans athletes from girls' competitions, citing a 2013 state law protecting the right of transgender students to compete in line with their gender identity.


Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
New Blood Pressure Guidelines: My Likes and Concerns
The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology, along with numerous other professional societies, have released new guidance on hypertension. The 105-page document updates guidance from 2017. Here are a few highly selected likes and worries. Things I Like Accurate measurement of blood pressure. The authors place great emphasis on the accurate measurement of blood pressure (BP). This includes a picture of a patient who is sitting, feet on the floor and arm resting on a table. Adjacent to the picture is an 8-point list of how to take a BP. It boggles my mind how badly BP is taken in the healthcare setting. I don't think I've ever witnessed it done properly — not once, in 30 years of practice. I am not sure how the culture evolved not to care about accurate BP measurement. We have time-outs, sepsis protocols, and quality measures for numerous conditions, and yet, something as simple as accurate recording of a vital sign is virtually ignored. Mediocrity has been codified as standard when it comes to measuring BP. A healthcare system could improve its quality overnight if it made accurate BP recording a point of emphasis. Good on the authors. Home-based BP monitoring. A corollary of accurate BP measure is the class 1/evidence level A recommendation to supplement office BP measures with home-based monitoring. While this makes sense, it's actually supported by multiple RCTs which, taken together, show that home monitoring of BP plus lifestyle interventions leads to clinically significant BP reduction that persists for at least 12 months. The authors emphasize that cuffless technology options that are often embedded in wearable devices are not reliable enough for clinical use. One caveat the authors did not mention, but which I find important, is practical guidance on use of home BP devices. I have seen people who spend far too much of their life recording and pondering their BP. Patients need clear education regarding the natural fluctuations of BP, and that the goal is to reduce average BP over days to weeks. We want patients to have good BP and good lives. More often than not, I find myself telling patients to use their home BP cuff less, not more. Single-pill combination drugs. My view of single-pill combination drugs has changed. I used to be against combining agents in a single pill because it can be hard to change course. The guidelines give a class 1 recommendation for using combination pills for patients with stage 2 hypertension (systolic BP ≥ 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP ≥ 90 mm Hg). I like this call on both efficacy (it probably will take multiple drugs) and efficiency grounds; having only one pill and one prescription to fill and refill is important. Renal denervation caution is warranted. Renal denervation (RDN) is on the precipice of becoming cardiology's biggest blemish — even worse than left atrial appendage occlusion. Doctors and hospitals are coiled and ready to deploy this procedure to the millions with high BP. The only thing maintaining sanity is the reluctance of payers — thankfully. Here is a quote from the guideline document: While some trials showed a small but significant reduction in 24-hour ambulatory SBP by 3 to 5 mm Hg over the sham arm, others failed to reach their primary endpoint. Although broader indications are approved for the RDN devices by the FDA, given the relatively short duration of follow-up in clinical trials with modest BP-lowering effects and the absence of CVD outcome trials, RDN should not be considered as a curative therapy for hypertension or full replacement for antihypertensive drugs. I would have been stronger, but this is decent. The problem comes in that RDN makes the colored recommendation box, albeit with the lowest 2b level. I call this a problem because procedure-loving doctors only need it to be recommended. The level of recommendation does not matter in the real world of US medicine. I reiterate: RDN trials found either no significant or clinically small reductions in systolic BP. There are no sham-controlled efficacy data beyond a few months and not even a hint of clinical outcome data. A middle-aged person does not require BP control for 3 months; they need it for 3 decades. RDN was a nice idea, but before a single dollar is paid to a doctor or hospital for this procedure, we should have far more persuasive evidence. I would have left it out of the colored box of recommendations. Two Things I Worry About Summary statements and colored boxes. The document begins with take-home messages. I take from this that the writers think clinicians are not capable of reading the document. These efforts to dumb down medicine, which are not specific to hypertension guidelines, worry me greatly. Hypertension is one of the most common and modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular health. Clinicians should be encouraged and expected to read the details of the document — including the references. Few things could be more important in the prevention of cardiovascular disease than extreme knowledge of hypertension. I feel the same way about the colored boxes of recommendations, which attempt to simplify what is complex. I believe it best to provide the narrative review and references — with a table, perhaps — but jettison the summary boxes, because the vast majority of patients do not fit into such algorithms. Risk-based recommendations use the new PREVENT risk score. A major feature of this guideline is to base treatment not only on BP measures but also on overall cardiovascular risk. For instance, for patients with stage 1 hypertension and a 10-year PREVENT risk score of < 7.5%, the recommendation is for lifestyle interventions only. Risk-based intervention is a decent idea; my worry here is the use of the new PREVENT score. PREVENT is a new AHA initiative; it replaces the pooled cohort equation (PCE). Proponents of the score cite its many advantages. These include broader outcomes, such as heart failure, atrial fibrillation, stroke, as well as atherosclerotic events. PREVENT is also derived from more diverse and contemporary data that include kidney function and social determinants of health. These factors are believed to lead to improved calibration between expected and observed event rates. The provocative feature of PREVENT in the statin decision was that more accurate calibration — with less risk overestimation — led to fewer patients being labeled statin eligible. Similar concerns arise in the hypertension guideline. Will use of PREVENT lead to undertreatment? Another highly provocative feature of PREVENT is that it does not include race as a determinant of risk. While this may satisfy equity concerns, some cite strong associations of race and risk in hypertension — and not considering race may lead to undertreatment of vulnerable people. I am neither a statistician nor an epidemiologist, but decreeing a new risk score that could affect so many patients, and the most important modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, seems like a major risk. The authors give this a class 1/evidence level B rating, but I find no trials comparing PREVENT and PCE as risk modifiers. I am not saying it is wrong to use PREVENT; rather, I am saying that even a little undertreatment of BP could be a public health disaster. Let me know what you think in the comments section.


New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Piercing your kids' ears puts them at risk for this allergy — the EU even has laws for it
Tiny studs, big trouble? Parents itching to pierce their kids' ears might want to put down the needle — a growing body of research suggests the popular practice could cost more than just a few tears. 'Delay ear piercings in young girls,' Dr. Niha Qamar (@doctor._.q), a board-certified allergist and immunologist, said in a recent TikTok, warning it could increase the risk of a serious, lifelong allergy. Dr. Niha Qamar is a board-certified allergist based in New York. TikTok/@doctor._.q Nationwide, nickel is the leading cause of allergic contact dermatitis — a red, itchy rash that flares up when the skin touches a normally harmless material. Roughly 1.1 million American children are affected by a nickel sensitivity, and studies show that number has quadrupled over the past 30 years. Researchers say early ear piercings are a major factor. In a Swedish study of 960 schoolgirls aged 8 to 15, researchers found that 'the ones who had ear piercings had 13% nickel allergy, versus 1% of the girls who didn't have ear piercings,' Qamar said. Another study out of Finland showed that 31% of pierced kids had a reaction to nickel — compared to just 2% of those without. And in the US, a study found that just 4% of men with no piercings were sensitive to nickel, while 11.1% and 14% of those with one or multiple piercings, respectively, were affected. 'Europe actually passed legislation to decrease the amount of nickel in jewelry (for this reason),' Qamar said. Many Americans get their ears pieced as infants or young children. deltahman – That regulation, the Nickel Directive, was introduced by the European Union in 1994 to limit how much nickel can leach from items like earrings. In the years since, countries like Denmark have reported major drops in sensitization, along with an estimated $2 billion in related health care savings. Nickel allergy isn't deadly, but it can make life miserable. Reactions may include hives, cracked skin, burning, itching and discoloration. More severe symptoms can strike when someone eats nickel-rich foods or has a metal device implanted. Blisters, diarrhea, fatigue, headaches and full-body swelling are all on the table. With no cure, managing symptoms becomes a lifelong battle — and avoiding nickel isn't easy, since it lurks in everything from jewelry and belt buckles to bra hooks and braces. Some people require treatment, which can include medication and even light therapy. With nickel sensitization on the rise in the US, major medical groups are calling for tighter regulations like those already in place in Europe. In 2020, the American Academy of Pediatrics urged the federal government to crack down on nickel in clothing and jewelry. 'The burden of symptoms and cost is high,' the policy statement notes. 'The United States can act on EU data revealing that legislation to limit exposures in childhood, especially with earrings, can impact the prevalence and potentially the severity of disease.' Until then, Qamar says parents should play it safe and hold off on piercing their kids' ears. 'If your child is getting pieced ears, get jewelry that is nickel free,' she recommended. 'That will reduce the risk of nickel sensitization.'