logo
FDA approves twice-a-year injection for HIV prevention

FDA approves twice-a-year injection for HIV prevention

CNN18-06-2025
A drug currently used to treat certain HIV infections has also, on Wednesday, received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration to be used to prevent HIV.
Gilead Sciences, maker of the drug, announced that a twice-a-year injection of lenacapavir has been approved in the United States for HIV prevention under the brand name Yeztugo. In clinical trials, the drug was found to dramatically reduce the risk of infection and provide near-total protection against HIV, significantly more than the primary options available for pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP.
Therapies called PrEP have been used to prevent HIV infections for years. In the United States, this may involve taking pills, such as a daily medication called Truvada, or getting shots, such as injections every two months of the medication Apretude. But a twice-yearly shot of lenacapavir has now become another option in the prevention toolbox – making it the first and only such shot for HIV prevention.
'Yeztugo could be the transformative PrEP option we've been waiting for – offering the potential to boost PrEP uptake and persistence and adding a powerful new tool in our mission to end the HIV epidemic,' Dr. Carlos del Rio, a distinguished professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and co-director of the Emory Center for AIDS Research, said in a Gilead news release. 'A twice-yearly injection could greatly address key barriers like adherence and stigma, which individuals on more frequent PrEP dosing regimens, especially daily oral PrEP, can face. We also know that, in research, many people who need or want PrEP preferred less frequent dosing.'
With any PrEP drug, 'by having that medicine in your bloodstream or in your body, if you encounter HIV, it blocks it from taking hold. It arrests infection from taking hold,' said Dr. Jared Baeten, senior vice president of clinical development and the virology therapeutic area head at Gilead Sciences.
The human immunodeficiency virus or HIV, spread primarily through unprotected sex or sharing needles, attacks the body's immune system, and without treatment, it can lead to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or AIDS. Although rates of new HIV infections have fallen in the US, about 1.2 million people are estimated to have HIV, and about 13% of them may not know it.
A study called the PURPOSE 2 trial found that just two shots a year of lenacapavir can reduce the risk of HIV infection by 96%, proving it to offer near-total protection against HIV. Another study, the PURPOSE 1 trial, found that lenacapavir demonstrated 100% efficacy for HIV prevention in women.
'Lenacapavir is a unique option for people for HIV prevention because it's an injection given just twice a year. So people can get it privately, discreetly, and then set it and forget it and not have to think about it until six months later,' Baeten said. 'For many people, that might be the empowered, private option that might make HIV prevention workable in their lives.'
There continues to be a lot of stigma, fear and misinformation around HIV, said Ian Haddock, who participated in the PURPOSE 2 trial for lenacapavir.
When Haddock was a teenager living in rural Texas, he recalled, he faced some of that stigma.
'The first thing that was said when my family found out that I was queer was, 'You're going to get AIDS,' ' said Haddock, who does not live with HIV. 'So that's the first thing I heard.'
Now, at 37, Haddock knows that HIV does not discriminate. He works to break such misguided stereotypes about the LGBTQ+ community as the founder of a nonprofit called the Normal Anomaly Initiative, and he said he is proud to have participated in the clinical trial.
'It feels like a full-circle moment,' he said.
Haddock said he started to take daily PrEP pills in 2015 to help reduce his risk of HIV, but sometimes they would give him an upset stomach or he would forget to take them.
In January 2024, when he learned about the lenacapavir clinical trial, he quickly enrolled. He had no side effects during the trial other than irritation at the injection site, he said.
Even though the trial has concluded, Haddock said, he plans to continue receiving lenacapavir injections twice a year, and he hopes the FDA approval will help raise awareness of HIV prevention tools.
In 2012, the FDA approved Truvada, also made by Gilead Sciences, making it the first PrEP medication for HIV prevention in uninfected adults in the United States – but 'even though PrEP has been around since 2012, people don't really know what it is, and they often kind of conflate it to having HIV or being extremely promiscuous,' Haddock said.
'So this just opens up a completely new opportunity,' he said of lenacapavir.
Last year, Gilead Sciences released data from the PURPOSE 2 trial that showed 99.9% of the participants who received an injection of lenacapavir twice a year for HIV prevention did not become infected.
There were only two cases among 2,180 people, effectively proving 89% more effective than the PrEP pill Truvada. The trial was unblinded early because it met its key endpoints, allowing lenacapavir to be offered to all participants, and the drug was found to be well-tolerated.
'The most common side effects, as you might expect, are injection-site reactions,' Baeten said, such as rash or discomfort.
The PURPOSE 2 trial included cisgender men, transgender men, transgender women and nonbinary people 16 or older who had sex with partners assigned male at birth. Some of the study participants became pregnant during the trial and continued to receive lenacapavir during pregnancy without complications, Baeten said.
'This is a milestone moment in the decades-long fight against HIV. With twice-yearly administration and remarkable efficacy, lenacapavir will help us prevent HIV on a scale never seen before,' Daniel O'Day, chairman and chief executive officer at Gilead Sciences, said in an emailed statement.
'After 17 years of research and pioneering clinical trials, Gilead scientists have delivered the next frontier in HIV innovation: a prevention medicine with remarkable efficacy that only needs to be delivered twice a year,' O'Day said. 'It's a true scientific breakthrough that could help millions of people around the world.'
Now that lenacapavir has been approved for prevention, people should be able to visit their providers and ask about the drug within two days, Gilead Sciences said in an email. The company added that it could take up to two months for someone to receive their first injections, based on coverage decisions.
The list price for lenacapavir, when used for HIV prevention, will be announced soon, Baeten said. The list price is expected to be different from when lenacapavir is used for the treatment of multidrug-resistant HIV, in which other HIV medications have not worked and the patient meets certain other requirements for lenacapavir treatment.
One study published in November in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy found that for treatment, lenacapavir costs up to nearly $45,000 per person per year without insurance, as an average wholesale list price – but it could be mass-produced for less than $100 per person per year.
The team of researchers behind the study projected a possible minimum price based on the drug's current ingredients, production models and cost models. They demonstrated that lenacapavir could be mass-produced for up to $93 per person per year, potentially falling to about $40 per person per year 'if voluntary licences are in place and competition between generic suppliers substantially improves.'
'Voluntary licensing and multiple suppliers are required to achieve these low prices,' the researchers wrote in the study abstract. 'This mechanism is already in place for other antiretrovirals.'
Lenacapavir is the latest HIV prevention shot to receive FDA approval. Apretude, made by GSK's ViiV Healthcare, was the first injectable pre-exposure prophylaxis medication to receive approval in the US in 2021.
The hope is that PrEP tools could lead to a total halt to new HIV infections in future generations, Baeten said.
'Every one of us would like nothing more than to end this epidemic, and that's what really solid prevention can do for us – that coupled with testing and treatment,' he said.
'I want this next generation to think about HIV as something that they can end in their lifetime, end in their generation. And I want their next generation to be one where they've never had to think about HIV at all,' he said. 'We've got this amazing opportune moment right now as a world to think about where we can be in the future. We can be a world without HIV.'
The new FDA approval comes as the Trump administration has cut back funding for HIV-related research grants, HIV prevention and surveillance programs through the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and sharply curtailed global HIV efforts.
The administration's 2026 budget proposal includes the elimination of funding for HIV programs, totaling more than $1.5 billion, according to the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute.
With the approval of lenacapavir for PrEP, 'now is not the time to pull the rug out from under HIV prevention,' Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, said in an email.
'The obliteration of CDC HIV prevention and surveillance programs is an absurd proposal that will just increase HIV infections and health costs down the road,' he said. 'We urgently call on Congress to reject these cuts in order to ensure that states and community-based organizations have the resources to prevent HIV, which is still a serious infectious disease and results in about 32,000 new cases each year.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Intuitive receives CE mark approval for robotic-assisted surgical system
Intuitive receives CE mark approval for robotic-assisted surgical system

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Intuitive receives CE mark approval for robotic-assisted surgical system

Intuitive's multi-port robotic-assisted surgical system, da Vinci 5, has secured the CE mark approval for use in both adult and paediatric patients in Europe. This approval allows the system to be utilised for a wide range of minimally invasive endoscopic procedures across abdominopelvic and thoracoscopic procedures, including those in gynaecology, urology, and general laparoscopy. The system builds on the functional design of the da Vinci Xi Surgical System. It features over 150 improvements, contributing to the da Vinci surgical system portfolio that has been leveraged in more than 410,000 procedures in Europe last year. The system delivers improved surgical senses, including Force Feedback-enabled technology and an ergonomic surgeon console for supporting surgeon career longevity. It also streamlines workflow with a universal user interface for care teams and integrates assistance to automate chosen tasks. Additionally, the surgical system delivers actionable insights via an intelligent platform that claims to have 10,000 times more computing power, with new sensors, processors, and software. This provides surgeons with usable data aiding them to quantify, understand, and enhance their surgical performance. Intuitive CEO Dave Rosa said: 'At Intuitive, we're focused on providing healthcare systems across Europe and around the world with thoughtful innovation that solves problems today and into the future. 'After over a decade of careful development, da Vinci 5 is the most advanced and integrated platform we've ever created – designed to enable better outcomes, efficiency, and insights for the future of minimally invasive care.' Last year, da Vinci 5 was cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in various surgical procedures for adults, spanning general, gynaecology, urology, and thoracic. "Intuitive receives CE mark approval for robotic-assisted surgical system" was originally created and published by Medical Device Network, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio

10 African countries most exposed to Trump's health aid cuts
10 African countries most exposed to Trump's health aid cuts

Business Insider

time5 hours ago

  • Business Insider

10 African countries most exposed to Trump's health aid cuts

Several African countries' health systems remain critically vulnerable to the fallout from President Donald Trump's ongoing efforts to scale back U.S. foreign assistance, most notably through the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Several African countries are critically vulnerable due to reduced U.S. foreign assistance, particularly from cuts to USAID programs. For some nations like Somalia and South Sudan, U.S. health aid constitutes over 200% of their government health spending, making them heavily reliant. Cuts to U.S. health aid threaten African public health progress and may lead to global health risks due to weakened disease surveillance capabilities. Newly released data shows how heavily African health systems rely on U.S. aid, raising serious concerns about the impact of abrupt funding cuts on public health across the continent. According to the Center for Global Development, the United States has been a central player in supporting global health supply chains, particularly through the Global Health Supply Chain – Procurement and Supply Management (GHSC-PSM) project. In 2024 alone, the project supported 73 countries and disbursed $1.15 billion in donated health commodities and technical assistance. The majority of the funding focused on HIV (71.1%), followed by malaria (20.3%), family planning (7%), and maternal, neonatal, and child health (1.5%). In nine countries, this aid accounted for more than 10% of total government health spending, levels that are difficult to replace with domestic resources. Trump's freeze on $72 billion in U.S. foreign aid spending led to the suspension of hundreds of development projects in over 200 countries and territories, affecting nearly 10,000 USAID personnel. In total, the administration terminated 5,341 projects worth $75 billion and initiated a sharp reduction in USAID staffing, signaling a dramatic shift in America's approach to global development. For Africa, where U.S. aid often supports core health services, these actions threaten to reverse years of progress in disease control, maternal health, and emergency preparedness, while exposing millions to increased health risks. African nations most hit by US health aid cuts Recent data sourced from Business Daily Africa shows that countries like Somalia, South Sudan, and Malawi are among the most at risk, with U.S. health aid making up 237%, 235%, and 207% of their government health spending, respectively. The chart below ranks the top 10 African countries most vulnerable to Trump's health aid cuts, based on U.S. health aid as a percentage of government health spending: In over 20 African countries, U.S. assistance forms a vital share of national health budgets. For nations like Uganda, Liberia, and Mozambique, it covers more than 80% of health spending, supporting key services such as HIV/AIDS treatment, immunizations, and maternal care. The impact would be especially severe in fragile states like Somalia and South Sudan, where local systems cannot absorb such a shock. In these countries, U.S. aid underpins essential services, and its loss could trigger a collapse in healthcare delivery and a rise in preventable diseases.

U.S. Budget Cuts Are Robbing Early-Career Scientists of Their Future
U.S. Budget Cuts Are Robbing Early-Career Scientists of Their Future

Scientific American

time6 hours ago

  • Scientific American

U.S. Budget Cuts Are Robbing Early-Career Scientists of Their Future

As a young doctoral researcher at a university in the southern U.S., Camilo felt like he was finally closing in on his dream of becoming a leader in the next generation of HIV scholars. His recent work has helped hundreds of LGBTQ+ Latino people access HIV prevention programs and preexposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, a medication that reduces HIV infection risk. But these lifesaving efforts—and Camilo's hopes of a career focused on directly helping people in his community—came to a screeching halt one recent Friday afternoon: he opened an e-mail that said a National Institutes of Health grant, vital to his work, had been terminated. 'I saw an image of a floating pair of scissors clipping my future,' says Camilo, who asked to use a pseudonym, citing fear of retaliation. Since researchers first began receiving grant termination letters in late February, massive chunks of federal funding for science and health have been canceled on a near-weekly basis. The Trump administration has framed these cuts as a way to reduce wasteful spending, refocus research priorities and eliminate ideological bias. Grants have been flagged for containing keywords such as 'women,' 'diverse,' 'minority' and 'racially.' Camilo's research checked all the boxes for the administration's crackdown on so-called diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) research. He had been expecting the bad news, but when it came, it was still crushing. 'You're losing everything,' he says. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Grant Watch, a project tracking Trump's scientific funding cancellations, has tallied more than 2,482 terminated NIH grants worth $8.7 billion and 1,669 terminated National Science Foundation grants worth $1.5 billion as of mid-June. An NSF spokesperson declined an interview request from Scientific American but wrote in an e-mail that 'we remain committed to awarding grants and funding all areas of science and engineering.' The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to direct requests for an interview for this article. An NIH representative did not respond to a list of written questions but said the agency 'is taking action to terminate research funding that is not aligned with NIH and HHS priorities.' 'I saw an image of a floating pair of scissors clipping my future.' —Camilo, doctoral researcher On June 16 Judge William Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled against cuts to hundreds of grants for projects through the NIH, calling these cuts 'void and illegal' and indicating that funding must be reinstated. Experts expect the Trump administration will appeal the ruling, which does not apply to all of the terminated grants compiled by Grant Watch. Virtually every research sector has been disrupted in some way since Trump took office and issued a slew of executive orders affecting science and health care. Tens of thousands of federal employees at the HHS, NIH and other science- and health-related agencies have been laid off. Universities are bracing for major federal funding cuts by freezing new hiring and cutting graduate student positions. Private research companies and industries have also seen some federal support severed—including support for the development of new vaccines and cancer treatments. 'When you cut fellowships and grants, you're cutting the people that are doing the work.' —Andrew Pekosz, virologist, Johns Hopkins University Of the many thousands of researchers grappling with the fallout, one group is being disproportionately affected: early-career scientists. Senior researchers often have a diversity of funding streams, but for those starting out in the field, 'grants serve as the foundation for an entire career of work,' says Megan Ranney, dean of the Yale School of Public Health. With the cuts, 'there are some [early-career researchers] who we will undoubtedly lose from the scientific and health enterprises.' Scientific American posted on a Reddit space for scientists, researchers and lab workers to ask people how they are grappling with the professional and personal whiplash of these interruptions. More than 50 people responded with public comments; dozens more sent private messages expressing fears, frustrations and concerns. We interviewed several of them—and other junior researchers—about how the cuts are affecting their current and future work and what the long-term consequences may be for the U.S. Research Interrupted Students and postdoctoral researchers perform the vast majority of research at academic institutions, so in addition to disrupting individual lives, the cuts have thrown whole laboratories into disarray. 'When you cut fellowships and grants, you're cutting the people that are doing the work,' says Andrew Pekosz, a virologist who leads a lab at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Pekosz's lab had recently lost a COVID-related grant that was supposed to run until September. which forced him to dismiss a postdoc and a research associate because he lacked funding for their salaries. He was able to cobble together support for a Ph.D. student on the project but had to shorten the timeline for the research. Although the lab's grant is among those that Judge Young ordered the NIH to restore, much damage has already been done. 'There's just an overwhelming sense of insecurity.' —Sierra Wilson, Ph.D. student, University of Pittsburgh Labs that still have funding are also working under high pressure and low morale. 'We're constantly asking our PI [principal investigator], 'Is everything going to be okay? Are we going to be safe?'' says R.K., an undergraduate student at a lab in the Midwest that's investigating treatments for a genetic disease. (R.K. asked to be identified by his initials, citing fear that speaking out could harm his future career.) At weekly meetings, he says, the lab's principal investigator has been pushing the team to publish more papers 'in order to show our progress to donor organizations.' If the researchers' NIH funding shrinks, he says, 'we would need to persuade our other donors for more money to make up the gap.' Applied across thousands of U.S. labs, these losses—both tangible and psychological—will add up, Pekosz says. 'We're going to see a massive downsizing of biomedical research efforts because there simply is not going to be the funding available to maintain the current level,' he says. Recent data suggest this is likely to prove correct. For example, according to a 2023 JAMA Health Forum paper, of the 356 drugs that gained Food and Drug Administration approval between 2010 and 2019, more than 84 percent received research funding from the NIH before approval. This research was powered by early-career workers: billions of dollars in NIH funding supported graduate students, postdocs and research staff who conducted the work. Under the current budget cuts, however, 'all of this is at risk,' says Fred Ledley, a co-author of the 2023 paper and a professor of natural and applied sciences at Bentley University. Deeply Personal The termination letter for Calimo's grant, which is not affected by Judge Young's ruling, said that it 'no longer [effectuated] agency priorities' and that 'research programs based primarily on artificial and non-scientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives, are antithetical to the scientific inquiry, do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life or reduce illness.' Not only did these claims completely contradict the original score that NIH grant reviewers gave Camilo's application, reading the letter made him feel like he was being 'attacked,' he says. Early-career grants are both crucial stepping stones to larger grants and recognition of a rising researcher's potential. The way the Trump administration's termination letters are worded 'delegitimates the scientists and the work they do,' Ranney says. 'There's often a deeply personal aspect.' 'I just feel very let down and betrayed by my country.' —Alex, postdoc, University of Colorado Sometimes, that personal aspect is literally about the researchers themselves. Sierra Wilson, a Ph.D. student at the University of Pittsburgh, assumed her liver-regeneration research would be safe from the cuts. But because Wilson is a first-generation college student from a low-income household, her funding came from a program that aimed to increase diversity in biomedical research, and according to the NIH spokesperson, that program is now 'expired.' When Wilson read her termination letter in late April, she suspected it must be related not to her research but to her classification as an underrepresented scholar. In her case, she says, the federal cuts appear to be targeting 'people themselves—which feels more discriminatory.' The NIH spokesperson did not respond to Scientific American's question about the allegation that the termination of grants in the now expired program appeared to be based on researchers' identity or background. According to the spokesperson, 'Grantees may appeal terminations for nonalignment with agency priorities.' Wilson sent an appeal request in May, but she does not expect a timely resolution, and to her knowledge, her grant is not affected by Judge Young's decision. University personnel who helped her with the appeals process told her that they expect she will have graduated by the time the NIH gets back to her. A number of junior researchers say all these blows are taking a heavy toll on their mental health. One of them is Alex, a postdoc at the University of Colorado, whose last name has been withheld for privacy at her request. Alex, who says she comes from a low socioeconomic background and served in the military before pursuing research developing flu vaccines, reports recurring nightmares about losing her postdoctoral job. She 'spirals' each time she sees bad news about science at stake, she says, and has recently developed blood pressure issues. 'I just feel very let down and betrayed by my country,' she says. 'I feel ashamed I even served it.' The Lost Generation of Scientists Scientists who are just entering their field can spark fresh ideas and bring an appetite for change. But dwindling funding and opportunities threaten to 'choke off' this influx of new talent—further constraining the already competitive job market—Pekosz says. He has even seen signs of the scientist-hiring drought spilling over into industry. His graduating Ph.D. students are struggling to secure jobs, he says, adding that his inbox is full of e-mails from prospective students as well as laid-off federal scientists seeking positions in his lab. Wilson has fading hopes for securing a job in academia when she graduates this fall. 'With all these grant and job terminations, the market is flooded, and people aren't hiring because [they don't know] how things will work out,' Wilson says. 'There's just an overwhelming sense of insecurity.' Many scientists, including early-career ones, are contemplating leaving the U.S. to find better support for their research. R.K., who plans to pursue a dual medical degree and Ph.D., is now considering applying to programs in Asia and Europe. Alex, likewise, is strongly thinking about leaving the country. 'I would love to be a PI,' she says. 'But there's no hope left here.' If available scientific talent continues to decline in the U.S., experts anticipate a potential domino effect on the economy. In 2024 every dollar invested in NIH research generated a $2.56 return, so the U.S. economy will likely feel the aftershocks of the recent cuts relatively quickly, Ranney says. In the longer term, scientific discoveries 'will start to stagnate,' she says. 'We need to recognize that we have a tremendous amount of power.' —Tyler Yasaka, medical and Ph.D. student, University of Pittsburgh There's also a likelihood that science fields will become a less appealing choice for incoming college students. 'I worry that we're going to see a loss of basic scientific skill and knowledge as fewer people go into science,' Ranney says. If the pipeline of new talent slows, the nation's position as a global leader in science will be difficult to maintain—or to recover once it's gone, she says. It's going to be impossible to replace all the lost federal funding, Ranney says. The remaining hope, then, is that 'we can reverse course,' she says. Some scientists are uniting and pushing back. Tyler Yasaka, a dual medical and Ph.D. student at the University of Pittsburgh, is part of an informal committee at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's Hillman Cancer Center that's brainstorming actions researchers and students can take, such as advocating for science in front of elected officials at Capitol Hill. He is also independently launching a podcast to share scientists' experiences with funding. 'I think most scientists aren't comfortable speaking out publicly, but if we value democracy, we have an obligation to use our voices,' Yasaka says. 'We need to recognize that we have a tremendous amount of power.' Fortunately for Camilo, his university has found institutional funds to support the remainder of his Ph.D. But he no longer sees a clear path forward after graduation to continue his research on HIV and LGBTQ+ health among Latinos in the U.S.—public health issues that are personally important to him. 'It's sad and upsetting,' he says. 'I do not want to give up on my community.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store