- In July of 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (Truvada) to reduce the risk of sexual transmission of HIV among uninfected individuals at high risk of infection. The approval for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) was based on two large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, one in HIV-negative men and transgender women who have sex with men, and one in heterosexual HIV-discordant couples.1,2
- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the use of Truvada® (a fixed-dose combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to reduce the risk of HIV infection in those people at high risk of HIV infection.1 In addition, the CDC has issued interim guidance for PrEP for clinicians using this HIV-prevention option for men who have sex with men (MSM) and high-risk heterosexually active adults.2,3 Corresponding to these events, published commentaries suggest renewed enthusiasm for ending AIDS.
- Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) using daily oral tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC, or Truvada) sits at the crossroads of the evolving AIDS response in 2012. After decades of intensive HIV prevention research and more than a few disappointments, we are now in an “era of evidence” in which there are new tools to help end the epidemic including PrEP,1–3 voluntary medical male circumcision,4,5 and treatment as prevention for HIV-positive people.6 There is renewed hope, too, for vaccines7 and microbicides.
- The meta-analysis reported in the three Guide to Community Preventive Services papers published in this issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine1–3 targets two basic prevention strategies—comprehensive risk reduction (CRR) and abstinence education—which have the common purpose of lowering adolescent sexual risk behavior. Meta-analyses were conducted for each strategy on key behavioral and biological outcomes. This study did a commendable job of identifying the available studies of sexual risk-reduction interventions and evaluating them according to criteria for study quality.
- For decades, sexuality education policies and practices in the U.S. have been a mixture of science, morality, politics, and the personal opinions of key decision makers. Far too often, science has fared dismally when policy, practice, and curriculum decisions were made in state legislatures and local school board meetings. The new research focusing on the meta-analyses of group-based comprehensive risk reduction (CRR) and abstinence education interventions is one additional tool in the toolkit of those who want to use science, not ideology, to address the sexual risk-taking of America's youth.