Tenvir EM 200.300 mg 90 Tab

Print
Tenvir EM 200.300 mg 30 Tab. Emtricitabine and Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate is used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Its newest use is as a pre-exposure prophylaxis. This type of treatment is more commonly known as PrEP. It is being widely used in Australia as part of their HIV prevention strategy.
Tenvir EM
Rating: 5/5

With shipment Standard shipping for $15.00
Price
Sales price: $235.48
Sales price without tax: $235.48
Description

Tenvir EM is used as part of a regiment of antiretroviral medications to treat HIV-1 in adults over 18. A single pill contains a combination of two anti-HIV drugs, emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; however, Tenvir EM must be taken with at least one other anti-HIV medication to prevent HIV from progressing to AIDS.

Dosing

Tenvir EM is taken orally once a day, at the same time every day, with or without food. Because Tenovir can cause renal impairment, patients with a creatinine clearance of 30 to 49 ml/min should only take one tablet every 48 hours, and patients with a creatinine clearance of less than 30 ml/min should not take Tenvir EM at all.

Contraindications

Patients hypersensitive to either emtricitabine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate should not take Tenvir EM.

Side Effects

The most commonly reported side effects of Tenvir EM include:

  • rash
  • headache
  • nausea
  • vomiting
  • diarrhea

Rarer side effects documented include:

  • discoloration of palms and soles
  • abnormal triglyceride levels
  • abdominal pain
  • lactic acidosis
  • anorexia
  • hepatotoxicity
  • flatulence

Other adverse effects have been reported by patients taking Tenvir EM, so let your doctor know right away if you experience any health changes when beginning treatment.

Precautions

Immune reconstitution syndrome may occur for a few weeks after a patient first starts taking Tenvir EM. Patients, especially those with previous renal impairments, should be monitored for evidence of toxicity and to ensure that the HIV viral load remains undetectable at regular intervals. Research on the safety and efficiency of Tenvir EM in patients with underlying liver disorders is inconclusive. Some patients with hepatitis B have experienced exacerbation of hepatitis symptoms after suddenly discontinuing Tenvir EM. Changes in distribution of body fat and bone structure have been linked to long term use of antiretroviral medications. Let your doctor know immediately if you notice any sudden changes in your body.

Drug Interactions

Tenvir EM can heighten the risk of renal complications in patients taking valacyclovir, valganciclovir, acyclovir, ganciclovir or cidofovir. Taking Tenvir EM with didanosine may exacerbate didanosine-associated side effects. Atazanavir and lopinavir/ritonavir can worsen Tenvir-associated side effects. Patients on Tenvir EM should never take atazanavir without also taking ritonavir.

Pregnancy & Lactation

Animal testing has shown no risk of birth defects when pregnant animals were administered Tenvir EM, but testing on pregnant humans has yet to be completed. Low concentrations of virus may be present in breast milk even when the patient is under treatment, so mothers infected with HIV are advised to avoid breastfeeding because of the potential to transmit the virus to their child.

Overdosage

Tenvir EM's ingredients can be toxic when taken in large doses, so seek medical treatment right away if you ingest more than the prescribed amount. A haemodialysis or a hemodialysis may be needed to purge the chemicals from the body.

Reviews

Friday, January 16 2015
Hi Jamie, thanks for your coemmnt. I think there might've been some technical glitch which delayed your coemmnt from showing up. (unless you were talking about a separate coemmnt made earlier?)There is certainly an expanded field of use with the EVG and COBI licenses. However, in the case where a new use of a patented product is found, then in some countries, this new use can be patented. However, not all countries grant these new use patents. This effectively extends the patent term over that product, and hence the license term as well. Therefore, as I see it, unless a country grants these 'new use patents', the expanded field of use is unnecessarily expanding into an area where the license is not required at all - ie, royalties need not be paid. I agree with your point that Cipla is unlikely to sign a license for TDF. And also that a 5% royalty rate on a small revenue generating (for generics) drug, is a relatively small amount. And certainly, the much bigger issue as you pointed out is that countries like Brazil have been left out. However, I would like to add 2, possibly abstract-ish, points about it:a) With the Gilead licenses probably serving as a template for future licenses, these effects should be brought to light, regardless of whether this particular instance makes much of a difference or not. Thus, it is not 'bad' that a 5% royalty is being charged, but it is a fact that must be acknowledged n In the larger framework of what is an appropriate remuneration for companies making (life saving) drugs, the question of how much - is something that cannot be answered till pharma accounts are transparent (ie, never). So, while you could say that a 5% cost is barely anything, so it shouldn't make a difference, it can also be reversely put as - if it's too small to make a difference, why charge it? There will be at least one patient who will not be able to buy it because of that small increase. My point is Not that royalty
Administrator1
Tuesday, December 09 2014
Hi Jamie, thanks for your coemmnt. I think there might've been some technical glitch which delayed your coemmnt from showing up. (unless you were talking about a separate coemmnt made earlier?)There is certainly an expanded field of use with the EVG and COBI licenses. However, in the case where a new use of a patented product is found, then in some countries, this new use can be patented. However, not all countries grant these new use patents. This effectively extends the patent term over that product, and hence the license term as well. Therefore, as I see it, unless a country grants these 'new use patents', the expanded field of use is unnecessarily expanding into an area where the license is not required at all - ie, royalties need not be paid. I agree with your point that Cipla is unlikely to sign a license for TDF. And also that a 5% royalty rate on a small revenue generating (for generics) drug, is a relatively small amount. And certainly, the much bigger issue as you pointed out is that countries like Brazil have been left out.However, I would like to add 2, possibly abstract-ish, points about it:a) With the Gilead licenses probably serving as a template for future licenses, these effects should be brought to light, regardless of whether this particular instance makes much of a difference or not. Thus, it is not 'bad' that a 5% royalty is being charged, but it is a fact that must be acknowledged n In the larger framework of what is an appropriate remuneration for companies making (life saving) drugs, the question of how much - is something that cannot be answered till pharma accounts are transparent (ie, never). So, while you could say that a 5% cost is barely anything, so it shouldn't make a difference, it can also be reversely put as - if it's too small to make a difference, why charge it? There will be at least one patient who will not be able to buy it because of that small increase. My point is Not that royalty
Top Selling Products