Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:

Advocacy efforts surrounding the development, optimization and availability of generic antiretrovirals (ARVs) has primarily focused on nations in the global south, where highly effective regimens are available for less than $200 per patient, per year, and as a result, 14 million life-years have been saved, including nine million in sub-Saharan Africa, since 1995. With patent expirations pending over the next four to five years for several Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)-preferred and -alternative ARVs,* attention to the potential for cost savings--along with the safety, efficacy and convenience of generic options to be made available in the U.S.--is now critical.

According to mathematical modeling published by Rochelle Walensky, MD, and colleagues, an Atripla (efavirenz, emtrictabine and tenofovir DF)-comparable regimen consisting of generic lamivudine (approved in 2011), generic efavirenz (expected to become available in 2014-2015), and brand-name brand tenofovir (Viread; not expected to go off patent until at least 2017), prescribed as individual once-daily tablets, was associated with a 50 percent reduction in drug costs and savings of $920 million in the first year of availability alone.

Of potential concern is Walensky and colleagues' conclusion that this regimen would be associated with reduced efficacy, resulting in 4.4 months of life lost per patient lifetime. This finding was based on two assumptions: 1) the increased pill burden would hinder adherence and reduce viral suppression, leading to worse outcomes, and 2) lamivudine is potentially inferior to emtricitabine and may increase the frequency of drug resistance, potentially affecting viral suppression efficacy in second-line therapy.
There's nothing more frustrating than mixed messages from leading public health authorities--particularly when many lives stand a good chance of being lost because of the disparity. This is proving to be the case with hepatitis C, a chronic disease that affects roughly 4 million U.S. residents and continues to infect approximately 17,000 people annually in this country alone. Even more harrowing, it kills between 10,000 and 15,000 American residents a year--a rate that hasn't yet peaked (deaths from HCV are projected to increase to 35,000 a year by 2030), given that many people infected decades ago are just now becoming ill.

A key component of the solution is to get more people living with hepatitis C virus (HCV) conclusively tested. The reason? An astonishing 75 percent of people living with HCV do not know they're infected, do not (yet) have outward symptoms of the disease, and therefore have not been linked to the care and treatment they may need to cure the virus and halt the progression of its life-threatening complications. 
I should probably start this blog entry with an important and long-overdue preface.

As of October 31, I am no longer the President and Editor-in-Chief of AIDSmeds. Writing that doesn't come easy. Thirteen years after beginning work with Peter Staley to develop and expand and AIDSmeds into what it is today--a comprehensive, easy-to-use educational portal for people living with HIV and their care providers--and four years after becoming its President and Editor-in-Chief, I have decided it's best for me to move on.

I am now the HIV Project Director at the Treatment Action Group (TAG), a New York City-based international research activism group. At TAG I'll be working on a variety of advocacy efforts, including antiretroviral research and the organization's hepatitis/HIV, pathogenesis/cure/prevention and tuberculosis/HIV projects. I'll also be helping lead advocacy for research into various AIDS- and non-AIDS related health complications and the science needed to fully implement the National HIV/AIDS Strategy and the Affordable Care Act.
Roughly a year ago, I was asked by Jose Zuniga of the International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care (IAPAC) to serve as a writer and member of the first-ever blue-ribbon panel assigned with the task of developing international guidelines for improving engagement in HIV care and treatment adherence. The Guidelines for Improving Entry into and Retention in Care and Antiretroviral Adherence for Persons with HIV were first made available online ahead of print by Annals of Internal Medicine on March 5 and were eventually published in the May 1 issue of the journal.

The experience was eye-opening, to say the least. Working most closely with two of the smartest, dedicated and caring HIV-treating clinicians and researchers I can name--Michael Mugavero, MD, of the University of Alabama, Birmingham, and Melanie Thompson, MD, of the AIDS Research Consortium of Atlanta--I was most heavily involved in the sections focusing on entry into and retention in care. Basically, I was charged with reviewing to what extent people living with HIV are actually receiving regular care--irrespective of whether or not actual HIV treatment is prescribed--and coming up with recommendations to shore up weaknesses. How hard could this possibly be?

Well, it turned out to be much easier than I thought, only because the national portrait of entry into and retention in HIV care has been consistently abysmal and the astounding dearth of data from well-designed studies exploring entry and retention strategies that could be used to construct well-formed recommendations.
Truvada.jpg
In early March, AIDS Healthcare Foundation began a paid advertisement campaign urging Gilead Sciences to refrain from seeking approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for Truvada for use of the combination tablet as HIV prevention, in an approach known as pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP. 

The ads were met by an outcry from the community. One prominent organization, the HIV Prevention Justice Alliance, issued a sign-on letter, dated March 16, urging the FDA "to examine the study results of PrEP rather than playing to speculation and fear." 

While I agree that PrEP should be considered as an option in the HIV prevention toolkit and would ultimately support an effort by Gilead to expand Truvada's labeling to include PrEP--should the company petition the FDA for approval--I am also of the mind that a green light from the FDA should not be met with the rush-to-treatment that typically follows approval of a drug.  

2010 Treatment News in Review (Part 2)

| 1 Comment
The second of a two-part glimpse at the most significant HIV/AIDS treatment news of 2010:

Test and Treat

Evidence in support of early HIV treatment has been coming in fast and furious. So much so that it prompted the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to update its treatment guidelines in December 2009, recommending treatment for all people with HIV once their CD4s hit 500. And this past May, the San Francisco Department of Health--with the backing of Project Inform and other groups--began recommending treatment for all city residents testing positive for the virus, regardless of their CD4 count.

What has prompted this sense of urgency? First, a number of cohort studies have indicated that delaying therapy until the CD4 count falls below 350 is associated with poorer survival and a higher risk of non-AIDS-related disease and complications, compared with those starting treatment with higher CD4s. Second, mathematical models suggest that getting and keeping as many HIV-positive people on therapy as possible will effectively reduce average viral loads in geographic communities and, in turn, reduce the likelihood of ongoing transmission of the virus 

Both are ambitious goals, to be sure. Yet not all experts are convinced we have enough data to support these recommendations. There are concerns that patients will be coerced into starting therapy before they're ready, along with questions regarding the short- and long-term safety risks of prolonged treatment, as well as adherence and cost issues. 

To help address these questions--and to determine, once and for all, if starting therapy early further improves disease-free survival--the START trial moved this year into its second, pivotal phase and is hoping to randomize more than 4,000 HIV treatment-naïve individuals to either begin therapy immediately or to delay treatment until their CD4s fall below 350. 

"Getting a study like START has been an activist priority for at least 10 years, and luckily, it is now being run when treatment is at its safest," Simon Collins of the United Kingdom's HIV i-Base said in an AIDSmeds web exclusive on the subject of early treatment. "Many activists continue to believe in the importance of this study, probably many more than those who think we already know enough without the data it will provide."

Revising the Definition of Disability

A September 13 report issued by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), arguing that the criteria used by the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) to gauge HIV-related disability is outdated and should be overhauled to include new qualifications based on CD4 cell counts and specific sets of medical conditions, resulted in a firestorm of controversy. 

The HIV Infection Listings, established in 1993, are the criteria currently used to determine whether people living with HIV are disabled by their infection and eligible for benefits. For example, a person living with HIV and a history of employment may be eligible for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)--and, with it, access to Medicare--once a serious AIDS-defining illness has been diagnosed, such as Mycobacterium avium complex or cytomegalovirus. Other benefits, including Social Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid for people living with HIV who have limited employment histories, are also dependent on disability status as determined by SSA.

Since the Listings were created, the IOM report argues, HIV care has advanced and the disease has dramatically changed from a uniformly fatal condition to a potentially chronic manageable infection, in which CD4 cell recovery and a return to physical health--and ability to work--is an expected positive consequence of contemporary ARV treatment.  Conversely, a number of non-AIDS-related health complications are becoming increasingly prevalent among people living with HIV receiving ARV therapy--such as neurocognitive impairment, chronic kidney disease, osteoporosis and a number of treatment-associated side effects--many of which can cause disability and were not included in the original 1993 HIV Infection Listings.

Though the he IOM recommendations, which were requested by SSA, will only apply to new Social Security disability applicants once the existing criteria are amended--current disability claimants will not be effected by the proposed changes--activists question the logic of changing a system that continues to work for so many. Some claim, for example, that revisions for new claimants will effectively create a two-tier system for disability beneficiaries. 

The process is just beginning, however. While SSA welcomed the IOM report, it has not yet acted on its recommendations. Sometime in the coming year it is likely that SSA will host a public comment period, based on its interpretation of the recommendations, before it decides whether or not to move forward with changes, likely in 2012.

ADAP Waiting Lists

As of December 16, 2010, there were 4,732 individuals on AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) waiting lists in nine states, according to the National Alliance of State & Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD).  This is a 32 percent increase from the 3,586 individuals reported to be on ADAP waiting lists in October 2010. 

In addition, 19 ADAPs, including seven with current waiting lists, have instituted additional cost containment measures since April 1, 2009 (reported as of December 9, 2010).   In addition, 11 ADAPs, including four with current waiting lists, reported they are considering implementing new or additional cost-containment measures by the end of ADAP's current fiscal year (March 31, 2011).    

Why is ADAP a mess, asks Trenton Straub in the October 2010 issue of POZ? One reason, says NASTAD, is that demand is growing because more people are unemployed and losing health insurance. Additionally, ADAP funds are shrinking because of state and federal fiscal crises. What's more, the nation's efforts to test more people have led to more diagnoses. And then there's the fact that HIV meds are working--which means more people are living longer and taking meds.

Fortunately, the House of Representatives has approved an additional $60 million for ADAP in fiscal year 2011, which should help--but by no means solve--the waiting list situation in many states. The increased funding was included in a bill that will fund all federal programs next year at existing levels, except in some instances. 

HIV and Aging Research to the Fore

Brittle bones, the relentless exchange of muscle for fat, weak hearts, and forgetfulness are common occurrences among men and women in their senior years. What if, however, these health issues begin to happen during a person's 40s and 50s? That's exactly what researchers fear is occurring in people with HIV--and we don't fully understand why.

The data emerging from recent scientific conferences paint a troubling picture--they increasingly suggest that diseases common among the elderly are now occurring at a much earlier age in people with HIV. In addition, several immunological alterations characteristic of HIV infection, notably declines in the immune system's ability to mount effective responses to disease-causing pathogens, are similar to immunosenscence: gradual deterioration of the immune function brought on by aging. 

Is this accelerated aging or something else? There are believers that it is, and there are skeptics. Where both sides agree, however, is that much more research is necessary. 

Enter the Coalition for HIV and Aging Research and Policy Advocacy (CHARPA), a newly formed group of activists hoping that the National institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) will begin to explore the issue with zeal and determination (not to mention funding). 

Right now [NIAID is] just paying lip service to HIV and aging by given it an 'awareness day,'" claims Lei Chou of the Treatment Action Group referring to a September 9 press release from the institute dedicating September 18, 2010, National HIV/AIDS and Aging Awareness Day. In response, CHARPA has called NIAID and other divisions of the National Institutes of Health to the mat in the form of several research demands, highlighted in our October 5 web exclusive on the subject. 

In addition to HIV & aging research advocacy, CHARPA also intends to work on other areas, such as disease prevention and care guidelines. It will also explore how Ryan White programs and health care reform will affect the aging HIV population and whether or not safety nets will be there as people's needs for ancillary care grow.


Archives

 

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Blog

Recent Comments

  • The8: The only thing I'm concerned with is doctors trying to read more
  • Matt: Hi Tim, We wondered if you wanted to share your read more
  • Dr. Karron Power: As a doctor living and practicing in San Francisco, I read more
  • George Beier: Hey Tim -- Thank you for all the wonderful work read more
  • Ed Craft: In this day and age, why is Egrifta not able read more
  • Anonymously Anonymous: Nothing about updating the HIV Listing is meant to help read more
  • Thomas B. Bowie Jr.: We have to understand the history of HIV/AIDS medical and read more
  • Courtney: From the perspective of the health care worker, the biggest read more
  • Thom: One of the more difficult things to manage in living read more
  • Bob leavitt: home visits! Just a quick run through n transmission rates read more

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Tim on Twitter

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by the bloggers and by people providing comments are theirs alone. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Smart + Strong and/or its employees.

Smart + Strong is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information contained in the blogs or within any comments posted to the blogs.



© 2013 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved. Terms of use and Your privacy