Better PrEP Adherence Linked to More Bone Loss - People who took daily Truvada 90% to 100% of the time were more likely to develop osteopenia or osteoporosis.

A small proportion of people developed bone loss after they started using daily tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (Truvada or generic equivalents) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and the more they took it, the greater the effect, according to a study presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI 2022).

It is well known that tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is associated with bone loss in HIV-positive people using it for treatment, but there is less evidence about its effects on HIV-negative people taking it for prevention. Some prior studies showed people on PrEP experience mild bone loss, which usually resolves after stopping Truvada. The newer tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (Descovy) is easier on the bones and kidneys but more associated with weight gain and elevated lipids; with no generic equivalent, it is also a more expensive option.

Joseph Chang, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Los Angeles, and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis to look at the link between Truvada PrEP and bone loss.

The study included 7,698 adults in Southern California who used Truvada for PrEP between 2012 and 2020. Data were extracted from the Kaiser Permanente HealthConnect System. Nearly all were men, and about a third each were in the 18 to 29 and 30 to 39 age groups. About a third were white, 40% were Latino, 10% were Asian and 7% were Black. About 40% had good adherence, as indicated by a “proportion of days covered” (PDC) by PrEP in the 90% to 100% range, while about 60% had suboptimal adherence below 90%.

The participants had no prior history of osteoporosis (substantial bone loss) or osteopenia (mild bone loss) as indicated by a T-score of -1 or less. However, they had all undergone a DEXA bone scan at some point during the study. Chang said DEXA scans were not part of routine PrEP monitoring and the researchers did not look at the reasons why people had the scans, leaving open the possibility that this group may have been at higher risks for bone problems than the overall population using PrEP.

Over an average follow-up period of 502 days, 217 participants (3%) developed osteopenia or osteoporosis. The researchers noted that this is similar to the rate among HIV-positive people using treatment regimens that contain tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.

An initial analysis found that people with hepatitis B, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, impaired kidney function or hypertension were more likely to experience bone loss, but these factors were not statistically significant in an adjusted analysis that controlled for multiple variables.

However, people with better adherence to PrEP remained at greater risk for bone loss in the fully adjusted analysis. People in the 90% to 100% PDC category were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with osteopenia or osteoporosis compared to those with lower PDC adherence levels. In fact, more than 90% of those with osteopenia or osteoporosis were in the 90% to 100% PDC category compared with 9% in the below 90% adherence category. Obesity and younger age were associated with a lower risk of osteopenia or osteoporosis.

Reassuringly, no new cases of HIV were detected during the study period, even among participants with less than 90% adherence.

Based on these findings, the researchers suggested that counseling on the incidence of osteoporosis and osteopenia as well as routine screening should be considered for people starting daily Truvada for PrEP. “Annual to every other year DEXA may be advisable,” Chang said.

Because the amount of time spent on Truvada was the strongest risk factor for bone loss, they also suggested that future studies should explore whether on-demand PrEP, or “PrEP 2-1-1”—in which the pills are taken before and after sex rather than daily—might mitigate the risk of serious adverse effects.

 
It's ridiculous how normalized taking PrEP has become among gay men. Not being a gigantic gutter sloot is simply not an option, or at least using condoms instead.

You only want to use medication as a last resort, and PrEP isn't that kind of medication. Big pharma and LGBT do have an enduring symbiotic relationship though.
 
It's ridiculous how normalized taking PrEP has become among gay men. Not being a gigantic gutter sloot is simply not an option, or at least using condoms instead.

You only want to use medication as a last resort, and PrEP isn't that kind of medication. Big pharma and LGBT do have an enduring symbiotic relationship though.
It's frankly ingenious. ERBs and the past follies have made it super hard to do more "adventurous" science on humans and even some animals. However if you were to identify a demographic that is unlikely to have children/family to file suit, they are a good target to start with. Imagine their excitement when LGBTs don't just volunteer to take these medications/treatments with little evidence of efficacy, they animalistically demand it. This is like Mengele's subjects fighting with each other to get a chance to be a subject. The doctors are the first order monsters. While I am sympathetic to the second-order Cronenburgs for being manipulated, there are unfortunately many cases where previous victims become active perpetrators.
 
Yeah, why are gays so hypersexual? I don't get it.
They're horny men. They think more about sex than women do. But, they don't have to worry about pregnancy, nor wooing, and there's zero possibility of starting a family. They have all the free time in the world to fuck.

Now, you might say "But AIDS seems a lot riskier than pregnancy, why not wear a condom?" and you'd be correct. But they don't care, too horny.
 
A no-name site called POZ and they are encouraging people to not take PrEP so they can cause more death in the lgbt community...

Definitely sounds like a right wing troll site to me.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: KiwiFuzz and XYZpdq
Funny. Heterosexuals don't have to take PrEP. I wonder what could be so different about gays that they need an AIDS preventative drug. /sarcasm

This isn't actually the case anymore; there has been more infections of heterosexual people in Europe with HIV than gay men for the past few years.

Cases have declined in all groups, and I suspect a big part of it is that some gay men take as many precautions possible where straight people generally aren't targeted by HIV awareness campaigns, but there's a 5-6% difference in the numbers of cases now between gay men vs straight men.

Supposedly straight women have it higher too, though I've not seen as much about that.

Lesbians, as ever, are unloved and have the lowest infection rate of all.
 
This isn't actually the case anymore; there has been more infections of heterosexual people in Europe with HIV than gay men for the past few years.

Cases have declined in all groups, and I suspect a big part of it is that some gay men take as many precautions possible where straight people generally aren't targeted by HIV awareness campaigns, but there's a 5-6% difference in the numbers of cases now between gay men vs straight men.

Supposedly straight women have it higher too, though I've not seen as much about that.

Lesbians, as ever, are unloved and have the lowest infection rate of all.
The magic johnson campaign in the 1990s did alot to promote the "HIV doesnt care who you are" which is true.

all it takes is a junkie turning tricks or a lol bi sexual dudes on the down low.

Never mind that the diseases being treatable leads people to think its no big deal.
 
This isn't actually the case anymore; there has been more infections of heterosexual people in Europe with HIV than gay men for the past few years.
According to this infographic, in the western world, 57% of new HIV cases are among gay men. I don't know what the fuck "other sexual partners of key populations" means, but I'm going to be generous and assume it doesn't mean "gay men by another name" even though we all know it does.

It's hard to get concrete data on how many men are gay because of all the astroglidingturfing going on, but a reasonable high end guess is 5%. That means 2.5% of the population makes up 57% of new HIV cases, or 22x overrepresentation. What makes this number especially incredible is that 20% of gay men already have HIV, so the actual numbers are even more severe, because they don't count as potential vectors for "new" infection.

So I don't know where you got your data, but if I had to guess I'd say the "more infections" number you saw is an absolute number, which is a useless metric when dealing with two populations of hugely disparate sizes.
 
This isn't actually the case anymore; there has been more infections of heterosexual people in Europe with HIV than gay men for the past few years.

Cases have declined in all groups, and I suspect a big part of it is that some gay men take as many precautions possible where straight people generally aren't targeted by HIV awareness campaigns, but there's a 5-6% difference in the numbers of cases now between gay men vs straight men.

Supposedly straight women have it higher too, though I've not seen as much about that.

Lesbians, as ever, are unloved and have the lowest infection rate of all.
I wonder how much of the European increase is due to migrants being too uptight about sex to seek help with doing it safely but not so uptight they don't rawdog it anyway. (I don't know about Arabs, but African men will straight up refuse to use a condom even though HIV is so prevalent where they're from.)

And gay men actually have higher rates of condom use than straights, but they still pick up HIV frequently since they have so much more sex total and so many gay men already have it. Fun fact: When statistics talk about X percentage of people not using condoms correctly, they're mostly referring to people not using a condom every time, not that people are wearing it like a hat or something (although I'm sure there are idiots who do that too).
 
Back