Archive for the HIV Category

The Most Deadly STD: AIDS

Thursday, September 8th, 2011 | Permalink

The Most Deadly Disease: AIDS

AIDS is a disease that is widely known all over the world primarily because of the way it affects the infected person. There have been enough movies, documentaries and other similar forms of media coverage for the disease and the people suffering from it. Furthermore, there have also been a host of awareness programs undertaken all over the world. However, despite so many media campaigns, many people still do not know a lot about AIDS. In order to rectify this, the following is some critical information pertaining to AIDS.

What is AIDS?

AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease that is deadly because it affects the body’s ability to defend itself. The full form of AIDS is Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and it is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus or, as it is more generally known, HIV. As mentioned earlier, AIDS is a disease where HIV renders the infected person’s immune system almost redundant. This results in the patient becoming susceptible to a variety of external infections and internal tumors that he or she would have otherwise been able to fight off. Therefore, in simple words, AIDS is a disease which destroys the patient’s immunity, leading to him or her contracting all types of diseases. It is worth noting that research and scientific studies have revealed that AIDS originated on the continent of Africa.

How do people get affected from AIDS?

AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease, which means that sexual activities can result in a person contracting the virus from the other person. Although AIDS is counted under the category of sexually transmitted diseases, it can spread in more ways than just sexual activities. Apart from sexual activities, HIV can spread through people sharing needles, blood transfusions and from a pregnant mother to her child. In a nutshell, HIV can spread through direct contact of a mucous membrane or bodily fluids like blood, vaginal fluid, semen, preseminal fluid and breast milk.

What symptoms are there in a person suffering from AIDS?

The primary effect of HIV in a person is partial or complete loss of immunity. This leaves the door open for opportunistic infections. Therefore, the direct and most blatant symptom of AIDS are the person developing multiple diseases in multiple parts of the body that would have otherwise not occurred. The agents of these infections could be virtually all types of microorganisms including fungi, bacteria, viruses and parasites. In fact, people with AIDS are also particularly susceptible to cancers and tumors.

What is the treatment for AIDS?

There is no known treatment for AIDS which is why most media campaigns and doctors suggest that the best foot forward is prevention of the disease. However, if a person is already HIV positive, then there are ways through which the problems can be managed. This procedure is an antiretroviral treatment that is extremely expensive and rare in most countries. Furthermore, the treatment also has its related side effects such as extreme fatigue, diarrhea, malaise and nausea. Also, the regimen that an HIV positive or AIDS patient has to follow under this treatment can be very demanding.

Breast-Feeding and HIV Transmission in Developing Countries

Wednesday, August 10th, 2011 | Permalink

Introduction

Breast-Feeding: A Public Health Paradox

Breast-feeding is a basic and extremely successful component in child survival, but it takes on another significance in countries with high HIV prevalence. Although the mechanisms of transmission are not well defined, it is now known that HIV can be transmitted from mother to child via breast-feeding. Therefore, a mother with HIV infection and her spouse must weigh the pluses and minuses of breast-feeding against alternative infant-feeding options, which in many parts of the developing world, can be less-than-perfect alternatives.

Dr. Grace John-Stewart has counseled pregnant women in Nairobi, Kenya, on infant feeding practices for several years. Counseling in a country with high HIV prevalence is an intensive, demanding process. It involves multiple visits to clinics; the attention of on-staff nutritionists; and an understanding of each individual’s HIV status, infant feeding preferences, housing situation, and finances. A woman’s infant- feeding choices may be surprising. Some women with HIV infection may have the resources to use infant formula, but they will breast-feed to hide their HIV status. Some women may not have clean water or the other essentials to prepare hygienic formulas, but they are desperate to try another path after a child has died.

The World Health Organization Technical Consultation Group (2000) recommended that women with HIV infection practice replacement feeding when possible, in which she feeds her infant commercial or home- prepared formula rather than breast milk. When replacement feeding is neither feasible nor safe, mothers are encouraged to exclusively breast-feed; that is, to provide only breast milk
or expressed breast milk, for the first three to six months. Weaning is advised as soon as it is physically and emotionally realistic to do so, in order to reduce the possibility of HIV transmission. Underlying these recommendations is the concept of informed choice: providing women with counseling on the benefits and risks associated with exclusive breast- feeding and formula-feeding, and supporting their decisions in whatever ways possible.

At the heart of this issue is the need for information that will help pregnant women with HIV infection arrive at a difficult and personal decision about infant feeding. But this is too simple a picture. Mother-to- child transmission prevention programs are relatively new, and they face practical challenges in their implementation and operation, including those of adequate staffing and training, supplies of free or subsidized infant formula, and access to HIV testing facilities and antiretroviral drugs.

Infant Feeding: New Findings from Africa

Two studies on infant feeding, one in Kenya and the other in South Africa, have generated much interest. Their findings may at first appear contradictory, but together they help paint a more detailed picture about the benefits of exclusive feeding, the safety of formula feeding, and the risks of mixed feeding, or providing both breast milk and other liquid and solid foods to infants. [Note: Although the World Health Organization (WHO) has reviewed the data in both studies, it has not altered its infant feeding recommendations based on the findings.
Figure 1.  Infant HIV infection and mortality rates.

Child age

During a 1992–98 clinical trial, researchers assigned 401 mothers with HIV-1 infection at random to two groups, and were asked to either breast-feed or formula-feed their children. The 401 mother-infant pairs were followed for an average of two years. The group of formula-fed infants, compared with the breast-fed infants, had a lower cumulative probability of HIV-1 infection at two years (21 percent vs. 37 percent) and a higher rate of remaining HIV-negative and alive
(70 percent vs. 58 percent). Figure 1 shows the benefit of formula-feeding in this particular study population.

The rate of HIV-1 transmission via breast milk was estimated to be 16.2 percent in an infant’s first two years, with the majority of HIV-1 infections occurring in the first six months.
Because compliance was only 70 percent in the formula-fed group, indicating that some mothers were also breast-feeding, the rate of HIV-1 transmission via breast milk could be higher than estimated.

These results are disquieting, partly because six months of locally produced dried milk formula costs the equivalent of US$300 (slightly less than the average Children may become infected with HIV while in the uterus, during delivery, or during breast-feeding. Breast-feeding accounts for one-third to one-half of all mother-to-child HIV-1 infections (Fowler and Newell
2002).

Women with established HIV disease who breast-feed have a 14 percent risk of transmitting HIV infection to their children (Van de Perre 1999), whereas women who become infected with HIV during breast-feeding have a 29 percent risk of transmission (Fowler and Newell 2002).

HIV exists as a free-floating virus in breast milk and in the cells of the lining of the breast ducts. Little is known about the biological process and timing of how HIV is transmitted from mother to child.

Several factors associated with increased transmission risks have been identified, including the level of detectable HIV in the breast milk, maternal CD4 count, mastitis (inflammation of the breast), bleeding nipples, and breast abscesses (John et al. 2001; Fowler and Newell 2002).

Whereas the risk of HIV-1 infection was significantly lower for formula-fed infants, the data cannot be generalized outside of the study population, because all enrolled mothers had access to clean water and formula preparation instructions. A primary concern with formula feeding is the risk of diarrhea and related illness or death, resulting from bacteria introduced during preparation of formula or from unclean water.

On the basis of these study findings, the same group of researchers wanted to more closely examine formula feeding to determine whether the benefits of formula feeding would be outweighed by the risks associated with not breast-feeding. Breast-feeding guards against infant illness and death and confers protective antibodies from the mother. Mbori-Ngacha et al. (2001), using the same study population, determined that formula-fed and breast-fed infants had similar mortality rates (20 percent and 24.4 percent at two years), a similar incidence of diarrhea (155 and 149 incidents per 100 person-years), and an identical incidence of pneumonia (62 per 100 person-years), but breast-fed infants overall had faster growth and weight increase, particularly in the first six months.

Nduati and colleagues (2001) also explored the effect of breast-feeding on maternal death rates in the same study. The cumulative probability of maternal death at two years was 3.8 percent among those who fed their children formula versus 10.5 percent for those who breast-fed, representing a threefold increased risk of death. Researchers determined that breast-feeding may have contributed to 69 percent of the deaths among women who were breast-feeding and hypothesized that the higher mortality may be related to the demands of
producing breast milk, insufficient food intake, or a higher basal metabolic rate, as caused by HIV-1 infection. A significant association was also found between maternal death and high viral loads and low CD4 counts at the time of study enrollment. Two study limitations are the small number of deaths (24 out of 425 enrollees), and the percentage of enrollees lost to follow up.

South Africa

Coutsoudis et al. (2001b) found substantially higher rates of HIV infection in children who consumed a mixture of breast milk and other liquid and solid foods than in children who were exclusively breast-fed for at least three months or in children who were exclusively formula-fed. This observational study of 551 mother- child pairs was part of a randomized clinical trial exploring the effects of vitamin A on mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Unlike the study in Kenya, women were not randomized to breast-feed or formula-feed; instead, women self-selected their feeding method. Enrollees in the Durban, South Africa study were followed for 15 months between 1995 and 1998.

At six months, the cumulative probability of HIV detection was higher in children who received a mixed feeding (a combination of breast milk and other liquid or solid foods), than in those who were fed breast milk or formula exclusively. It is interesting and important in light of the Kenya study that researchers found that children who were breast-fed or formula-fed exclusively shared the same cumulative probability of HIV detection at six months.

By 15 months, children who received a mixed feeding, as compared with children who were exclusively
breast-fed, were at significantly higher risk for HIV infection. Although the reason for the higher transmission rate among mixed-fed children is unknown, researchers hypothesize that children who receive a mixture of breast milk and other foods experience irritation to their bowels and the lining of the gut, and that this disturbed mucosal surface then becomes vulnerable to HIV infection. Alternatively, children may not be accessing the full protective effect of breast milk when they receive a mixed feeding.

In contrast to the Kenya findings that breast-feeding is associated with increased maternal mortality, Coutsoudis et al. (2001a) found no evidence pointing to higher mortality or illness rates for HIV-positive women who fed their children breast milk versus those who fed their children formula.

Intensive antiretroviral (ARV) therapy proved successful in reducing mother-to-child transmission of HIV in trials conducted in the United States and Europe in the mid 1990s. In developing countries, the cost and lack of access to drugs limits the availability of multiple-drug or long-term ARV therapy. Working within these constraints, researchers discovered in a 1998 trial in Thailand that a short-course ARV regimen was effective in reducing HIV transmission from mother to child in women who did not breast-feed. This was one of several relatively simple ARV regimens that has proven effective in reducing mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

The underlying concept is that women who take ARVs late in their pregnancy, and during labor and delivery, will significantly reduce their viral load and reduce the possibility of HIV transmission through blood or genital fluids. In some cases, infants are also administered ARVs in a single dose or for the first week of life, in the hope of destroying any virus transmitted during birth. Short-course maternal ARV regimens have become widely accepted as an HIV prevention strategy.

However, children of mothers with HIV-1 infection continue to be exposed to the virus after delivery if they breast-feed. Several large-scale mother-to-child transmission trials in sub-Saharan Africa have found that over time, breast-feeding erodes the initial benefits of ARVs. (Figure 2 describes three of these drug regimens and their efficacy rates in detail.)

The Petra Study Team (2002) reported a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which 1,457 pregnant women with HIV-1 infection in South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda were followed between 1996 and 2000, and in which HIV infection and mortality in children were calculated at 6 weeks and 18 months. Women were randomized to receive different regimens of zidovudine or lamivudine. At six weeks, Regimen A, the most successful of the three, reduced HIV-1 transmission by 63 percent. By 18 months, the effect of the combination therapy on HIV transmission was reduced, which researchers attributed to breast-feeding. Children in the Regimen A trial had an 18.9 percent cumulative incidence of HIV-1 infection or death, whereas the cumulative incidence for those in the placebo group was 25.6 percent.

Drug Therapy and Viral Bursts

Van de Perre and colleagues (2001) were curious about the difference in long-term efficacy results between those of the Petra Study Team, which used a combination of zidovudine and lamivudine drug therapy, and monotherapy drug trials. They speculate that one probable cause of the lowered efficacy rates in the Petra study may be a temporary surge in viral load immediately after drug therapy is discontinued. The more efficacious the drug therapy, they reason, the higher the viral rebound. While this viral burst does not necessarily affect the mother, it may increase the transmissibility of HIV, placing infants at risk for infection just as they are beginning to breast-feed.

Dr. Grace John-Stewart outlines the type of speculative questions that arise around the possibility of a viral rebound. If an aggressive combination therapy approach is used, as compared to single-drug regimens, will breast-feeding infants be at additional risk? If a woman discontinues therapy abruptly, perhaps returning home to her rural area, is there danger of a viral rebound? There are also unknowns related to drug efficacy and drug adherency issues: For example, how will short- course drug regimens that women are taking now to protect their children from HIV infection affect drug effectiveness once women have access to long- term ARV therapy for their own disease?

As a beginning point, a study is underway in Burkina Faso to more closely examine the viral load and natural history of HIV-1 in breast milk after women stop taking oral zidovudine (Van de Perre,
1999).

In another set of drug therapy trials, researchers found a distinct difference in drug efficacy based on maternal CD4 cell count. Leroy and colleagues (2002) analyzed data from two randomized controlled trials conducted in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, and Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso, between 1995 and 1998. In one trial, women with HIV-1 infection were given oral zidovudine or a placebo during late-stage pregnancy and delivery, and in the other trial, zidovudine drug therapy was extended for an additional week after delivery. Researchers followed 629 children for two years and found that the zidovudine regimen reduced the estimated cumulative risk of HIV-1 infection in breast-fed children at 24 months by 26 percent. For women with less-advanced HIV disease (or CD4 cell counts ≥500/mL), the regimen had an even more dramatic effect, whereas for women with advanced HIV-1 disease, the estimated cumulative risk of HIV-1 infection was similar to that of the placebo group.

Guay and colleagues (1999), in a large-scale study in Kampala, Uganda, during 1997–99, assigned 626 pregnant women with HIV-1 infection at random to one of two groups, to receive either nevirapine or zidovudine during delivery. From other studies, it is now clear that unlike zidovudine short-course therapy, administered a month before delivery, zidovudine administered at delivery and after is minimally effective. Thus, a comparison of nevirapine to this regimen of zidovudine is similar to comparing nevirapine to a placebo. At 14–16 weeks, the estimated HIV-1 transmission risk in the nevirapine group was 13.1 percent, and in the zidovudine group it was 21.3 percent. Nevirapine, a drug that is low in cost and easy to administer, holds much hope. Follow-up data collected at 18 months shows nevirapine’s continued efficacy. In addition, in contrast to the observation in West Africa, the efficacy of nevirapine was highest in women with immunosuppression (Nakabiito et al. 2000). In women with CD4 counts ≤200/mL, the HIV transmission rate at 18 months for those in the women who received nevirapine was 31.6 percent, whereas the rate was 54.9 percent in women who received zidovudine.

Researchers are now turning their attention to how the protective effect of ARVs can be safeguarded in
breast-feeding populations. One possibility just beginning to be explored is the administration of drug therapy to infants during the entire course of breast-feeding. The other is continued ARV treatment for mothers during the breast-feeding period. Basic research is also underway to better understand the mechanisms of how nevirapine and zidovudine work, and to explore why 85 percent of the infants who are exposed to HIV via breast milk do not become infected.

Conclusion

There is no best answer for HIV-positive women with infants. Reducing vertical HIV transmission is challenging, particularly in developing countries where mothers with HIV infection do not have access to long-term antiretroviral regimens, formula-feeding, or other preventive strategies that mothers in wealthier countries routinely follow. Mother-to-child transmission research is pointing, however, in a few directions. In settings where formula-feeding is neither possible nor recommended, a policy of exclusive breast-feeding for three to six months is advocated. In acknowledgment that breast-feeding is a feasible, popular, and widely practiced infant feeding method throughout the world, researchers are now turning their attention to strategies for reducing the risk of mother-to-child transmission during breast-feeding. These include further studies to
explore the optimal duration of breast-feeding, weaning recommendations, and most prominently, antiviral drug therapy for mothers and infants.

The Advances Through HIV/AIDS Research Series

This series uses an innovative methodology to bridge the dynamic worlds of HIV/AIDS research and the practice of HIV/AIDS prevention, care, and support in developing countries. The 2002–2003 series includes nine papers on a range of topics. The goal of the series is to disseminate key research findings and expert analyses to busy practitioners and policy makers working in the field. Each paper places significant, new, or controversial research findings in a broader context and explores their practical and policy implications for those working on the frontlines. These are not “best practice” recommendations. Instead, the series aims to help decision makers recognize research breakthroughs and emerging technical challenges, and consider their implications for HIV/AIDS program planning, design, and applied research.

The Methodology

In the development of each paper, an internationally recognized expert frames the paper, identifying key issues, recommending the most pertinent and recent publications, and describing significant ongoing research. The key issues and research findings are then modified into an accessible format for a broad audience. These papers are not lengthy or exhaustive literature reviews; rather, they provide a rapid, rich, and selective examination of key issues and findings on the topic from the perspective of one well-known expert in the field.

The Expert

Grace John-Stewart, MD, MPH, PhD, is associate professor in the Department of Medicine and adjunct associate professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Washington. She has been a visiting research scientist at the University of Nairobi, in Kenya, since 1993. She is principal investigator of a five-year study titled “Cytotoxic T Lymphocytes and Breastmilk Transmission of HIV-1,” funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. John-Stewart was the principal investigator on “The Effect of Breastfeeding on Maternal HIV-1 Disease Progression,” a two-year Royalty Research Fund study, and “Couples Counseling to Enhance Infant HIV-1 Prevention,” a two-year study funded by the Pediatric AIDS Foundation. Dr. John- Stewart is a member of the World Health Organization Collaborative Center for Research and Training in STDs/HIV in Nairobi, Kenya. She has authored several papers on the subject of mother-to-child transmission of HIV and HIV transmission via infant feeding.

The Staff

Faculty and professional staff at the Center for Health Education and Research, University of Washington, Seattle, are responsible for producing this series, as part of The Synergy Project, funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) through contract HRN-C-99-0005-00 and managed by TvT Global Health and Development Strategies Division of Social & Scientific Systems, Inc. (TvT/SSS). At the University of Washington, Ruth O. Levine is primary author, Elaine Douglas is senior editor, and Marcia Weaver is project lead. At TvT/SSS, Barbara de Zalduondo is technical reviewer, and Polly Gilbert is responsible for dissemination. The opinions expressed in this series are those of the experts and authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Washington, TvT/SSS, or USAID.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus Overview

Sunday, July 24th, 2011 | Permalink

The Human Immunodeficiency Virus, or HIV has been around for over 30 years. In that time it has caused the death of millions and infected millions more. Current estimates put total worldwide infections at around 33.1 million people. But what is it? Where did it come from? And why haven’t we been able to stop it?

History

HIV is now believed to be a descendant of Simian Immunodeficiency Virus, a virus that only affected monkeys. SIV is believed to be over 32,000 years old. Somehow, the virus managed to cross over to humans in the form of what we now know to be HIV.

There are theories of how SIV crossed over to HIV, but nothing has been proven yet. The phenomenon isn’t unknown, and isn’t restricted to HIV. The process itself is called “zoonosis.”

The first HIV cases were found in the US in 1980. A few gay men in California and New York developed illnesses that seemed immune to treatment. Each was treated in isolation, until doctors realized that there was a common theme.

The discovery prompted extensive testing, and the HIV virus was identified. It was soon after that the link between HIV and AIDS was also identified. It took a while to convince many, indeed, some “experts” still dispute that fact that HIV and AIDS are linked. However, it is commonly believed that HIV leads to AIDS.

What is it?

HIV is a lentivirus, which attacks the immune system. It is part of the retrovirus strain that attacks animals and humans alike. HIV seems unique, but shares many common factors with Simian Immunodeficiency Virus or SIV.

The HIV virus is a roughly spherical cell that can only been seen through an electron microscope. It is surrounded by a membrane with tiny spikes made up of proteins.

The core of the cell is bullet-shaped and contains the three enzymes needed to replicate the virus. There are also two copies of the RNA, essential for replication. The inclusion of this RNA is one of the reasons HIV is so difficult to treat. It is much more complicated than other viruses like influenza.

The HIV cell has nine genes. Three of the genes, called gag, pol and env, contain information needed to make structural proteins for new virus particles. The other six genes, known as tat, rev, nef, vif, vpr and vpu, code for proteins that control the ability of HIV to infect a cell, produce new copies of virus, or cause disease.

Symptoms

At first, there are no symptoms. A lentivirus literally means “slow virus.” It sits in the body and works very slowly. That’s why many of those infected have no idea they have the disease.

It’s perfectly possible to remain asymptomatic for up to 20 years, while other, rare cases can develop symptoms after a couple of years. The average period is between 8 and 10 years before symptoms develop.

Within weeks of infection, some people can develop symptoms of primary or acute infection which typically have been described as a “mononucleosis” or “influenza” like illness. This can range from minimal fever, aches, and pains to very severe symptoms.

It is important to not however, that not everyone develops these symptoms. Currently, we have no idea why that is. The primary infection then fades, and the person will become asymptomatic again.

Infected people develop a severe reduction in a type of cell in the blood (CD4 cells) that is an important part of the immune system. These cells, often referred to as T cells, help the body fight infections.

After the primary infection has passed, the CD4 cells will gradually decline, and with it the immune system. Sufferers may develop the mild symptoms of HIV such as vaginal or oral thrush, fungal infections of the nails, a white brush-like border on the sides of tongue called hairy leukoplakia, chronic rashes, diarrhea, fatigue, and weight loss.

It’s important to realize that it isn’t HIV that kills. It merely opens the door to opportunistic diseases to come in and take over. The reduction of T cells reduces the body’s capacity to fight infection, which results in failing health, and eventually death.

Treatment

For the longest time, there was no effective treatment for those infected with HIV. Drug therapies have advanced to where antiviral drugs can be used to reduce the spread, and treat some symptoms of the virus.

Initially we were only able to treat the symptoms of the disease and not the disease itself. Treatment consisted of fighting the opportunistic infections that were able to attack the body once the T cells were depleted.

Modern treatment of HIV is all about suppression. The virus still does not have a cure. Combination therapy is now available to reduce the virulence of the infection and to keep it under control. These consist of antiretroviral drugs that suppress the growth of HIV cells in the body.

The problem with this treatment is that it’s expensive. It isn’t available to poorer parts of society and it’s those parts that are most at risk. There is of course, Medicaid and Medicare, but even those resources are finite.

The Prognosis

Much work is still ongoing to find more and better treatments for the virus. Discoveries are being made all the time, which will eventually still filter down though society.

The problem is that those most at risk from HIV infection are also the ones without access to healthcare. With our health system only catering to those who can afford it, vulnerable people often have to go without treatment.

The Ryan White Program and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program are directed at those without insurance or access to drugs. As always, funding is limited so these programs have to do what they can with what they have. That often means waiting lists, and going without for some.

The continued funding for these programs is good news for HIV sufferers. The Affordable Care Act should also widen access to healthcare. However, limited funding and an ever-growing demand will put even these programs under severe pressure over the coming years.

Vaginal Gel to Slow HIV Infection Rates?

Sunday, July 17th, 2011 | Permalink

With women being the largest group of HIV infected people in the world, a new treatment that could help them avoid transmitting the virus is causing excitement. A vaginal gel that can be self-applied may help reduce the numbers of infections.

With over 60 percent of new infections being women, and over 50 percent of the estimated 34 million people living with HIV or AIDS, women are the target of new efforts to curb the infection.

The Gel

The new treatment gel contains the anti-retroviral drug tenofovir. Infected women squirt the gel into themselves using a special applicator. This happens twice, 12 hours before sex, and 12 hours after.

The gel has also been found to reduce the incidences of herpes simplex 2, which is another virulent infection that causes problems on its own merits, but also makes it easier for HIV to gain a foothold in a person.

It works by lining the walls of the vagina, and penetrating the cells underneath, allowing the antiviral to get to work. This method is proving very effective in the trials so far.

The Trial

The Center for the AIDS Program of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA) has been running the trial in conjunction with the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, South Africa. Funding was secured from the US Agency for International Development and the South African government for the trial.

There have been 11 such trials since 2004, with 6 other gels being tested. This latest one is the only one to have provided tangible improvements in infection rates.

Of almost 900 women in the test, 445 of them receiving the active gel, all were 39 percent less likely to become infected with HIV. The 444 using a placebo gel weren’t so lucky.Among women who used the gel exactly as instructed, the infection rate fell by 54 percent, suggesting that rates could be halved if women use it properly.

The use of antiviral drugs has been used to reduce the spread of HIV for a while now, in fact, it coincides with another study by the World Health Organization, in association with the United States National Institutes of Health. This study used antiviral drugs administered early to reduce the spread of the HIV virus.

Why it Works

This gel worked where others have failed thanks to the antiviral ingredient tenofovir. The other gels were simply being tested as a physical barrier to infection. Including the antiviral in the gel has helped produce the results we have today. The new gel penetrates and protects from within the cells that HIV normally infects.

With other treatments being researched, and some positive findings being fed into the media, it paints a picture of a gradual improvement in the treatment of HIV and AIDS. This gel is so exciting because it can be made available to the poorest countries, who usually have the highest rates of infection.

As long as the gel is used correctly, it can provide an effective barrier to many people. When used in conjunction with common sense, and other preventive measures, it could dent the spread of the disease across the world.

The Effect

If the gel works as the research suggests, it could reduce the number of infections significantly. By closing another door to the virus, we are gradually reducing its ability to transfer to another person. If used alongside other treatment methods, it could provide an impermeable barrier to entry.

With women being the most common carriers of HIV, it makes sense to develop a treatment that not only protects, them, but others too. Used in conjunction with condoms, this treatment could be very effective in reducing the spread of the virus.

If only one-third of South African women used the gel, it could prevent 1.3 million infections and 820,000 deaths over 20 years. Multiply that across the world, and we have a real sign of hope for the future.

The other significant effect is that of power. There is little a woman can do to protect herself from infection right now. Much is in the hands of the man. Giving a woman the tools to protect herself brings her destiny back into her own hands.

The Future

Another trial of the gel is planned for the near future, with the help of the United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS. The aim of the trial is to confirm the results of the first one, and to refine the gel to see if it can become even more effective.

Once confirmed, the process can begin to make the gel available across the world. Gilead, the California-based company which developed tenofovir, has granted the South African government permission to make the drug and to sell it in the gel without having to pay the company a royalty. That is a significant barrier removed, and the cost to produced reduced significantly.

Licensing for individual markets takes time, sometimes up to 2 years, so the gel won’t be available for a few years yet.

Alternatives

At the same time, Australian firm Starpharma are trialing a different vaginal gel called VivaGel, which uses a different antiviral, but is said to produce similar results.

This gel is based on dendrimers and has demonstrated effective inhibition of HIV and HSV-2 even 24 hours after application. If either of these gel treatments are successful, it provides a significant inroad to preventing the spread of HIV.

VivaGel is still undergoing clinical trials, but it promises to be a huge factor in the fight against the spread of HIV, and could cut the HIV infection rate even more than current treatments available on the open market.

Add a comprehensive education campaign to the release of either of these gels, and make them widely available and we have a possible reduction in infections across the board. It’s unlikely that these two gels are the only ones undergoing trials or development.

Once the formulas are made available, and companies like Gilead are generous enough to waive their royalties, we have a viable, effective treatment for the spread of HIV.

Like Us On Facebook!