<< Back To Article
PrEP Fails in Gay Man Adhering to Daily Truvada, He Contracts Drug-Resistant HIV

Write a Comment

I have read and agree to the terms and conditions in the Posting Rules*



Truvada as prep explicitly exists as a preventative tool for HIV-1 virus. Its inserts and drug information EXPLICITLY states that it is not effective against HIV-2 (the multiple drug-resistant strain). The case study presented here does not undermine the preventative value of Prep in conjunction with traditional phrophlatic practices. It simply reinforces what the CDC already knows (and reports) about what Prep doesn’t protect against...

February 5, 2019


That is why people should practice safe sex (condoms), all the much more so if they keep changing partners constantly. We don't want reckless behavior to bring a drug resistant strain of HIV into the general public, now that science is slowly reaching a point in which it has a real chance at destroying the virus/retrovirus for good. PrEP is certainly a great tool, but should not substitute condoms, much less if living a highly promiscuous life.

July 30, 2017 Mars


Please do not rely on the 99% effectiveness figure given in the article. It is true that no one who adhered to Truvada contracted the virus in the study. BUT, the participants assigned to take Truvada self-selected their adherence - they got to choose if they took the pill or not, which makes the trial NOT randomized. In other words, yes, people who took Truvada didn't contract HIV. But we do not know if the Truvada is what protected them, or if adherent individuals also used condoms, etc.

December 21, 2016


Michael In Lexington, you can get an STD orally without a big old huge sore being visible. Happened to me.

July 25, 2016 Chicago


Why do so many people want to make this topic so complicated? 35 years of research, dozens of HIV medications developed and still over 30 million deaths. Two original facts remain. 1) HIV can be spread through unsafe sex, and 2) there is no cure. Period. Simple. Protect YOURSELF. Turning to a $50 daily pill that doesn't even claim to be totally effective "must be used as part of an HIV prevention plan...condoms" makes no sense whatsoever. Wishful thinking for some, but completely false.

May 24, 2016 Southern California


This is the main reason why 28 years ago when I tested positive in 1987 and given 18 months to live... I said to myself, If I have to die so be it ... leave whatever is inside me ALONE... whatever strain or whatever I contracted I didn't need help to make it mutate into something that WOULD kill me. Since I;ve never taken medications the strain I have is the same stain as 28 years ago and it's not bothing me so I don't want any doctor to bother it.

May 17, 2016 NYC


I can't rely on what someone says. If they say they are + and undetectable or negative maybe they are flat out lying. Oh it's okay I'm undetectable. Those are just words. Maybe they were undetectable months ago and are now in the beginning of treatment failure or tested negative at one point and now are not. Who knows? Condoms have to be used. And not just because of HIV, but hepatitis, syphillis hell even Zika. I ask status and check behavior to lessen my risk in the event of condom failure.

May 15, 2016


Let's not neglect that that an unbroken condom was once described as 100% effective. People who claimed they were infected while using condoms were dismissed as "immaculate infections" and told they were mentally ill. This lasted until the instant PrEP hit the scene, at which time there was an immediate stampede to upgrade our prevention paradigm, deriding condoms as an outmoded option that barely worked and was rarely used. Now, we wonder why people dare to question Prevention 2.0?

May 11, 2016 Tampa, FL


Hot topics