The world's only twice-a-year shot to prevent HIV could stop transmission — if people can get it
The U.S. has approved the world's only twice-a-year shot to prevent HIV, the first step in an anticipated global rollout that could protect millions – although it's unclear how many in the U.S. and abroad will get access to the powerful new option.
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
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
How Animal Testing in US Could Be Transformed Under Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Millions of animals each year are killed in U.S. laboratories as part of medical training and chemical, food, drug and cosmetic testing, according to the non-profit animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). For many animals held captive for research, including a huge range of species from dogs, cats and hamsters to elephants, dolphins and many other species, pain is "not minimized," U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows. The issue of animal testing is something most Americans agree on: it needs to change and gradually be stopped. A Morning Consult poll conducted at the end of last year found that 80 percent of the 2,205 participants either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "The US government should commit to a plan to phase out experiments on animals." Since President Donald Trump began his second term, his administration has been making moves to transform and reduce animal testing in country, although the question remains as to whether it will be enough to spare many more animals from pain and suffering this year. Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva What Is The Trump Administration Doing About It? There have been various steps taken in different federal agencies to tackle the issue of animal testing since Trump was sworn in on January 20. In April, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was "taking a groundbreaking step to advance public health by replacing animal testing in the development of monoclonal antibody therapies and other drugs with more effective, human-relevant methods." The FDA said that its animal testing requirement will be "reduced, refined, or potentially replaced" with a range of approaches, including artificial intelligence-based models, known as New Approach Methodologies or NAMs data. A Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) official told Newsweek: "The agency is paving the way for faster, safer, and more cost-effective treatments for American patients. "As we restore the agency's commitment to gold-standard science and integrity, this shift will help accelerate cures, lower drug prices, and reaffirm U.S. leadership in ethical, modern science." The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it was "adopting a new initiative to expand innovative, human-based science while reducing animal use in research," in alignment with the FDA's initiative. The agency said that while "traditional animal models continue to be vital to advancing scientific knowledge," new and emerging technologies could act as alternative methods, either alone or in combination with animal models. The NIH Office of Extramural Research told Newsweek it was "committed to transparently assessing where animal use can be reduced or eliminated by transitioning to [new approach methodologies (NAMs)]." "Areas where research using animals is currently necessary represent high-priority opportunities for investment in NAMs," the agency added. It added that it will "further its efforts to coordinate agency-wide efforts to develop, validate, and scale the use of NAMs across the agency's biomedical research portfolio and facilitate interagency coordination and regulatory translation for public health protection." During Trump's first term, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a directive to "prioritize efforts to reduce animal testing and committed to reducing testing on mammals by 30 percent by 2025 and to eliminate it completely by 2035," an EPA spokesperson told Newsweek. Although, the spokesperson added: "the Biden Administration halted progress on these efforts by delaying compliance deadlines." As a member of the House, Lee Zeldin, the EPA's current administrator, co-sponsored various bills during Trump's first term regarding animal cruelty, covering issues such as phasing out animal-based testing for cosmetic products; ending taxpayer funding for painful experiments on dogs at the Department of Veteran Affairs; empowering federal law enforcement to prosecute animal abuse cases that cross state lines; and others, the spokesperson said. What The Experts Think Needs To Be Done The Trump administration's efforts to tackle the issue of animal testing appear to be a step in the right direction, according to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "I was pleasantly surprised and quite frankly a bit shocked to read the simultaneous announcements by the NIH and the FDA regarding a new emphasis on the use of alternatives to animals," Jeffrey Morgan, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at Brown University in Rhode Island, told Newsweek. Morgan, who is also the director of the Center for Alternatives to Animals in Testing at Brown University, said that both agencies are moving together in the same direction on the issue "sends a unified and very powerful message to the research and biotech communities." He added that the announcements showed "a major acknowledgement of the limitations of the use of animals in research and testing." "What is especially exciting is that the NIH announcement will encourage the entry of new investigators into the field, further accelerating innovation in alternatives with exciting impacts for both discovery and applied research across all diseases," he said. He added that the FDA announcement and its emphasis on a new regulatory science that embraces data from alternatives was "equally exciting." "The demands of this new regulatory science will likewise accelerate innovation because it will establish the much-needed regulatory framework for the rigorous evaluation of data from alternatives," he said. While the administration's initiatives to shift research away from animal testing is heading in the right direction, its policies are "overdue," Dr. Thomas Hartung, a professor in the department of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. "The animal tests for safety were introduced more than 50 years ago. There is no other area of science where we do not adapt to scientific progress," he said. Hartung added that animal "testing takes too long and is too expensive to really provide the safety consumers want." He said that running animal tests for new chemicals can cost millions and take years in some cases. "Nobody can wait that long, even if they can afford the testing costs," he said. Hartung also believes the shifts in the industry to reduce animal testing have been "coming for a while," as over the last two decades, America's opposition to animal use in medical research has been increasing. "The alignment of FDA and NIH really makes the difference now, which I think is evidence of a strong relationship of their leaderships," he said. Yet in order to make a real difference, Hartung said clear deadlines are key to show that "this is not just lip service." He also said that he thought "the transformative nature of artificial intelligence in this field is not fully acknowledged." "We also need an objective framework for change to better science, such as the evidence-based toxicology approach," he said.
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump THREATENS US Food Security By Slashing Science Funding, Experts Warn
The Trump administration's cuts to climate research and weather forecasting are 'blinding' the U.S. to oncoming threats to its food supply — and kneecapping efforts to protect it. Heat waves and drought driven by fossil fuel burning could pose an existential threat to key parts of the American food supply, according to a recent study published in the journal Nature. Forecasting and adaptation could cut those crop failures almost in half, the study found. But those measures are under attack from President Trump's mass staff reductions at agencies tracking weather and climate. READ MORE:
San Francisco Chronicle
8 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump administration orders California to remove ‘disturbing gender ideology' from sex ed program
The Trump administration has given California 60 days to strip all references to gender identity from a federally funded sex education program or risk losing its funding. In a letter sent Friday to the California Department of Public Health, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families called the state's Personal Responsibility Education Program 'noncompliant' with federal law. The agency cited 'disturbing gender ideology content,' including passages explaining that gender identity can differ from biological sex and that some individuals identify as transgender or nonbinary. 'The Trump Administration will not tolerate the use of federal funds for programs that indoctrinate our children,' said Andrew Gradison, ACF's acting secretary, in a statement. 'The disturbing gender ideology content in California's PREP materials is both unacceptable and well outside the program's core purpose.' PREP, which receives approximately $6 million in federal support, is designed to educate youth on contraception, abstinence and preventing sexually transmitted infections. California officials said the program targets vulnerable populations, such as youth in homeless shelters and juvenile justice facilities. Among the flagged content were educational materials describing gender identity as a 'deep-seated, internal sense' and including terms such as 'cisgender,' 'transgender' and 'genderqueer.' The agency stated that such material exceeds the scope of PREP's authorizing statute. A spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom told The Hill that the state was first made aware of the directive through Fox News. 'To be clear: this is NOT California's K-12 sex education curriculum,' the spokesperson noted, calling it an 'effective, evidence-based program model.' The latest announcement comes just days after the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming medical care — such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy — for transgender minors.
