Expired PrEP

[hungry_hole]

I have a bottle of PrEP that I never took. I offered it to a fuck-buddy  but then realized it had expired on Feb 2021, 6 months ago. If I give it to him, will it still work to prevent HIV infection?

[Kimberley]

No worry's, still will prevent a HIV infection

[think before following links] https://www.thebody.com/article/prep-expiration-protection

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, hungry_hole said:

I have a bottle of PrEP that I never took. I offered it to a fuck-buddy  but then realized it had expired on Feb 2021, 6 months ago. If I give it to him, will it still work to prevent HIV infection?

It *should* still be effective, especially if the guy is on daily (rather than on-demand) PrEP, and even more especially if the bottle is one of those factory-sealed 30-day supplies that pharmacies sometimes use to fill a one-month supply.

Regardless: he should use the medication fairly soon, because the longer it sits, the less effective (slowly, but surely) it becomes. Unlike, say, a pain reliever, where 80% pain-killing power may well be more than you need, or enough to make things tolerable, PrEP dosages are designed so the amount of active ingredient in the tablet will still be working by the time your next dose is due (and there's some excess in there, so that if you take today's dose at 10:00 AM and tomorrow's not until 4:00 PM, you still have good protection past the 24-hour mark from the first dose. (Again, that assumes you're on daily PrEP and not just "starting out" on a fresh regimen).

But medications do break down over time, and lose efficacy - typically over a longer period than the typical expiration date, which is largely a "guaranteed safe until" date. But as they do, they WILL provide less protection, and at a certain point, I wouldn't want to risk it. That's why I'd say have him use the meds daily ASAP, and then resume his regular dosage. If he's NOT on a regular daily regimen, I wouldn't advise him to save them for "on demand" use. 

[Guest]

I would - politely - like to add to the last post.

Besides the expiration date, a PrEP regimen is more than just acquiring a pill. It should also consist of a (4th generation) HIV test before the start of the regime, to rule out the possibility that the one going on PrEP is already HIV-positive.

Obviously then it won't work, as you can't protect yourself against acquiring HIV if you already have it.

But the danger exist that this person by taking PrEP while already POZ would be cultivating a med-resistant strain of the HIV-virus that causes AIDS.

 

That's the explanation in lay-man's terms.
And I feel very strongly that if PrEP and treatment for HIV is available in your country or region, you should not post these questions here but see a doctor...

I don't think these posts are out of line, but last I checked this site is not the fountain of all medical knowledge however it is also meant to share personal experiences concerning health-issues we face as bare-backers.

Not referring people to the medical profession seems dangerous to me. 
And so does using drugs or medicine after their expiration date....  I don't think you need a medical degree to say that at least.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Guest

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

I would - politely - like to add to the last post.

Besides the expiration date, a PrEP regimen is more than just acquiring a pill. It should also consist of a (4th generation) HIV test before the start of the regime, to rule out the possibility that the one going on PrEP is already HIV-positive.

That was very polite indeed - and I should say, I made the assumption that the OP's friend was already tested and on PrEP, and this was simply a cost-saving means of him staying on his medication. You're absolutely correct that someone should NOT begin an unauthorized PrEP regimen on his own; testing prior to starting is essential. Thanks for making that clear.

[hungry_hole]

Thanks for comments but after some inquires expired PrEP is not a good idea.

[Guest]

I'd like to (still politely) add that using PrEP really needs medical guidance.
This website or threat cannot replace that in any way guys.

Before starting (like the 4th generation HIV testing) and also DURING using PrEP to check for other STD's, your liver function and to counsel in his PrEP-use.
There are reasons for this, partly for the health of the one on PrEP and for the parter to prevent inadvertently creating a med-resistant strain of HIV.

 

Edited August 17, 2021 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

That was very polite indeed

I need to be apparently.

A certain moderator will ban me for two weeks if I use combinations of words like 'trap' and 'hole' for a certain member's mouth, a qualification I feel is fitting in relation to the quality of the words coming out of said member's keyboard, but preventing me from checking if certain information given about subjects I feel are not un-important is sufficiently complete, unbiased and not harmful if taken at face value.

But noblesse oblige. 

 

Shame though that when using polite and apparently acceptable wording for this website, sarcasm is often lost on some members and moderators here.

Possibly because it's just the lowest form of wit and those members and moderators have a far more evolved sense of comedy than your's truly.

[Close2MyBro]

1 hour ago, BareLover666 said:

I need to be apparently.

A certain moderator will ban me for two weeks if I use combinations of words like 'trap' and 'hole' for a certain member's mouth, a qualification I feel is fitting in relation to the quality of the words coming out of said member's keyboard, but preventing me from checking if certain information given about subjects I feel are not un-important is sufficiently complete, unbiased and not harmful if taken at face value.

But noblesse oblige. 

 

Shame though that when using polite and apparently acceptable wording for this website, sarcasm is often lost on some members and moderators here.

Possibly because it's just the lowest form of wit and those members and moderators have a far more evolved sense of comedy than your's truly.

It's not that. There is definitely some "favoritism" going on here. I've had situations in which I reported a member for abusive behavior numerous times and nothing was done.

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

It's not that. There is definitely some "favoritism" going on here. I've had situations in which I reported a member for abusive behavior numerous times and nothing was done.

For what it's worth: I don't think there's any documentable favoritism going on here with the moderators. I've crossed the line a few times over the decade I've been here - especially as I got more active in replying to topics - and each time, I've had my hand slapped and have received a couple of suspensions.

There's an old rule in online interactions dating back to early bulletin boards from the 1980's and the days of dial-up 1200 baud modems: attack the ideas promoted and the words used, not the person posting them. Saying "That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard" doesn't say the person who posted said idea is dumb (even smart people say dumb things). "You're a moron", though, does, and that's the kind of thing that is against the rules. 

Nor is it against the rules to engage in robust debate with a person with whom you disagree on a serious point, nor is it against the rules to call out someone's bad advice online (though again, it's important to challenge the advice, not the user). Sometimes we can get so wrapped up in our postings that we consider any challenge to what we said as a personal attack - and even though it's not, the response it engenders may well itself become a personal attack subject to disciplinary procedures.

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

A certain moderator will ban me for two weeks if I use combinations of words like 'trap' and 'hole' for a certain member's mouth, a qualification I feel is fitting in relation to the quality of the words coming out of said member's keyboard, but preventing me from checking if certain information given about subjects I feel are not un-important is sufficiently complete, unbiased and not harmful if taken at face value.

But noblesse oblige.

Therein lies a good example of what I was talking about in my previous reply to Close2MyBro. If what a member says is worth challenging, fine - challenge it. Telling the member to shut his trap hole is not challenging the ideas he's put forth; it's an insult to him and a direction to self-censor. If you can't challenge the information without attacking the user, and you can't read what he posts without feeling the need to attack, you're free to put that member on "Ignore" so you don't see his postings. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

It's not that. There is definitely some "favoritism" going on here. I've had situations in which I reported a member for abusive behavior numerous times and nothing was done.

Possibly if the offending member and the moderator are acquainted as they live in the same state, like Louisiana? 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Sometimes we can get so wrapped up in our postings that we consider any challenge to what we said as a personal attack - and even though it's not, the response it engenders may well itself become a personal attack subject to disciplinary procedures.

To - politely - add to this:

We can also at times find that some members repeatedly give incomplete - and therefor harmful - information about HIV and it's prevention to the extent it's a pattern.
This pattern in one example I am aware was combined with posts that do not consider the impact of albeit acceptable choice of words, directed at fellow members battling depression and anxiety. These psychological challenged are faced by a large percentage of the gay population as a whole, by the way.

All though such a member is clearly out of line, he might be mentally incapable of taking responsibility for the consequences his words may have. 

 

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

To - politely - add to this:

We can also at times find that some members repeatedly give incomplete - and therefor harmful - information about HIV and it's prevention to the extent it's a pattern.
This pattern in one example I am aware was combined with posts that do not consider the impact of albeit acceptable choice of words, directed at fellow members battling depression and anxiety. These psychological challenged are faced by a large percentage of the gay population as a whole, by the way.

All though such a member is clearly out of line, he might be mentally incapable of taking responsibility for the consequences his words may have. 

 

And at the same time, other members may - and sometimes/often do - decide to attack the member for overlooking something the "other member" thinks is important, rather than add to the discussion by contributing missing context. Especially when those other members mistakenly assume (sometimes perhaps because they're not native English speakers) that the OP's choice of words was not "acceptable" in the almighty, exalted opinion of the other user. That can be exacerbated when the other member is so intent on navel-gazing, assuming his own experiences (with, say, mental illness) are shared by the vast majority of other people. 

[BootmanLA]

15 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

Possibly if the offending member and the moderator are acquainted as they live in the same state, like Louisiana? 

The extent to which I "know" the only moderator from Louisiana (that I'm aware of) is from this site. We have never met, we have never spoken, we have only corresponded on here regarding rules & infractions. Perhaps you are unaware that where he lives (specified in his profile) and where I live (specified in mine) are about three hours apart by car? That's like saying you and some guy in Luxembourg must know each other because you live that close.