Dr Lynne H. Milgram starts the conversation on choosing the right candidate for long-acting injectable PrEP, as well as how findings show it is cost effective.
Lynne Milgram, MD, MBA, CPE: The conversation needs to begin with the health care provider and the patient, and a good history has to be taken. It needs to be joint decision-making, clinical decision-making between patient and provider. This invincible but vulnerable at-risk population, those that want to hide that they're taking prophylaxis, are not going to take a pill a day. I don't think they should [hide it], but they do. There's a large population out there, people who just forget pills, people who don't understand why they have to take it every day. They need the prophylaxis, but the everyday pill is not going to work for them. Yet, there are many who the everyday pill will work for, but we need modalities, and a long-acting injectable is a great modality for a large portion of the population.
If you go into the store and you have an apple for $5.00 and an apple for $1.00, you're probably going to take the apple for $1.00. The problem with the study is it compared a price, and I don't even know if it was an accurate price, of a long-acting injectable to a generic PrEP, a generic prophylaxis for HIV. What it didn't do is take into account everything that we're talking about. What is the likelihood of adherence? How good is that apple if you don't eat it? How good are the pills if you don't take them? My understanding is that there may be some demonstration of superiority with the injectables in certain populations. That's important. Sometimes with the injectables, it's not just about price. It's about safety, efficacy, the long-term consequences. While I appreciate comparing apples to apples, I don't think we can in this case. We have to have a caveat or at least a footnote of, maybe we use generics on a percentage of the population. It's hard to say we are going to use a pill a day, even if it's less expensive, if people aren't going to take it. Not looking at long-term consequences is probably the biggest shortfall of the study.
Transcript edited for clarity.
Standard Criteria for Loss of Ambulation Needed in DMD
April 19th 2024A recent study suggests the differences between ambulation definitions for patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) can impact the identification of ambulant vs nonambulant individuals, and standard criteria across settings are needed.
Read More
Government agencies have created an online portal for the public to report potential anticompetitive practices in health care; there are changes coming to the “boxed warning” section for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies (CAR T) to highlight T-cell blood cancer risk; questions about the safety of obesity medications during pregnancy have arisen in women on them who previously struggled with fertility issues.
Read More
Gene, Light Therapy Combo Shows Promise Against Prostate Cancer Cells in Proof-of-Concept Study
April 18th 2024In their preclinical model, the researchers found efficacy both in vitro and in vivo by using CRISPR-Cas9 to mimic porphyria and combining the technology with light therapy.
Read More
Pegcetacoplan for PNH More Cost-Effective Than Anti-C5 Monoclonal Antibodies
April 18th 2024A cost-utility analysis conducted from the perspective of the Italian health system found that pegcetacoplan was more effective and less costly than 2 complement 5 (C5) inhibitors for the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH).
Read More