Why the world must aim to eliminate PEPFAR and end the HIV epidemic
But preserving PEPFAR shouldn't be seen as the end goal. Instead, global health officials should be working toward the day when the world no longer needs it.
That ambitious goal might sound far-fetched, given that an estimated 1.3 million people were newly infected with HIV in 2023 globally. But consider this: Last month, the Food and Drug Administration approved a drug called lenacapavir, a twice-yearly injectable treatment that clinical trials have shown is 100 percent effective at preventing HIV infection among young women and 96 percent effective among gay and bisexual men and transgender people.
The drug has the potential to be a groundbreaking improvement over the current standard for HIV prevention, oral PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis treatment). For all its promise, oral PrEP has confronted the difficult realities of human behaviour. Adhering to a daily medication regimen is challenging under any circumstances, but especially so in communities where HIV-related stigma is pervasive. Even in wealthier countries, gay men who take the medication have been disparaged. Oral PrEP also tends to be less effective in women, though studies differ on whether this is due to lower adherence and access barriers or biological differences in how the medication is absorbed in female anatomy.
Lenacapavir, manufactured by Gilead Sciences, could help address these challenges. It is discreet and can be administered privately in a clinical setting. It requires dosing only twice a year, and it is easier and less painful to administer than previous injectable drugs to prevent HIV.
In the United States, lenacapavir costs more than $28,000 per person per year before insurance. But Gilead has licensed six generic manufacturers to produce the drug at cost for 120 low- and middle-income countries. Together with the Global Fund, the company has pledged to distribute 2 million doses - still a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed for population-level protection, but a meaningful start.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad loading
Of course, the drug is no silver bullet. Unfortunately none of the licensed generic manufacturers are based in sub-Saharan Africa, the region with the greatest need, and scaling up production could take years. So far, the U.S. is the only country to approve it, and regulatory timelines elsewhere are likely to lag.
Nevertheless, lenacapavir is exciting for what it represents: An innovation that can draw PEPFAR into a new era defined not by fighting HIV, but ending it. Advocates of the program should remember that it was designed as an emergency response to an uncontained pandemic; for it to become a permanent fixture of global health would constitute a failure of its mission.
Moreover, the program is far from perfect. Like many HIV prevention programs, it often sacrifices preventative care for treatment when budgets tighten. Those trade-offs stand in the way of HIV elimination. The program is also, regrettably, subject to the whims of U.S. politics. In February, Secretary of State Marco Rubio restricted HIV prevention aid so that only pregnant and breastfeeding women can receive it - as if to invite more AIDS epidemics.
The world has a long way to go until PEPFAR can safely be shuttered. After all, foundations and private companies cannot replace the program, which provides nearly 70 percent of global financing for HIV/AIDS response. But it's possible to imagine a future in which biomedical science and investments into a sustainable health infrastructure make the program obsolete. That's something the world should strive for. - The Washington Post
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Elon Musk's third party – pie in the sky, or does it have a real chance of success?
Once and future political kingmaker Elon Musk is dreaming of starting a third political party to seize the high ground from both Democrats and Republicans. Could he do it, and have there been historical examples of successful third parties in American politics? When Elon Musk and Donald Trump angrily – or was it petulantly – ended their unique political marriage, utilising Trump's rhetoric and Musk's money, Musk soon enough began talking about creating a new third party to challenge the Democratic-Republican parties' seeming lock on American politics. A big chunk of that talk revolved around the ostensible overlapping similarities of the Republicrats/Demopublicans in their basic ideas in contesting elections, with the argument that nothing really changes, no matter who wins. Instead, the national debt continues to grow, the federal deficit continues to balloon, and, courtesy of the country's actual politics in the congressional-presidential partnership, it is all just about taxing, spending and borrowing. The usual understanding of American political parties and the country's political architecture is that the system basically precludes the rise and success of third-party challenges to that duopoly. But that is not entirely true in the historical record, and thus what it might mean for the future of Musk's presumed intentions. From the beginning of the republic, it is important to realise that political parties were not even mentioned in the American Constitution or any early legislation. Washington's warning The nation's first president, George Washington, in his last major public utterance, his 'Farewell Address', had warned the country that political factions would seek to obstruct the execution of the laws created by the government or even to prevent the branches of government from exercising the powers provided to them by the Constitution. Washington had further warned that factions might claim to be trying to answer popular demands for solving pressing problems, but their real intentions would be to take the power from the people and place it in the hands of unjust men. Some of that warning still rings true. In fact, by the time Washington had offered such advice, the nation's political leadership was already splitting into two parties – the Federalists under John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, who urged a stronger national government and infrastructure development, versus the Democratic-Republicans under Thomas Jefferson, who favoured a weaker national government. Over time, the Federalists withered away due to their opposition to what the Americans called the War of 1812. They were eventually replaced by the Whig Party, which advocated strongly for national improvements such as railroads, harbours and canals, as well as the expansion of the nation to the west, at least in part to elide around the question of the expansion or preservation of the institution of legal slavery. On the increasingly vexed issue of slavery – including its abolition, expansion, or the prevention of expansion into new territories – the Whigs remained largely silent even as slavery was becoming a key political division of the nation. By 1856, however, the tangled issue of slavery had given rise to entirely new political movements, first the Free Soil Party and then the Republicans. Four years later, in what remained the country's most successful third-party effort, the Republicans successfully ran candidates for congressional seats as well as their presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, winning in a four-way race. In the northern half of the nation, Lincoln trounced a divided Democratic Party, winning sufficient electoral votes to gain a majority of the national electoral vote total. In the South, the other half of the Democratic Party faced the last gasp of the Whigs, now renamed the Constitutional Union Party, winning most of the electoral votes at stake there. The geographical split became the harbinger of the Civil War that began shortly after the election. The Constitutional Union Party disappeared entirely – as it had attempted to push slavery off the national discussion agenda, something impossible given the tenor of the time. Thus, the outcome of the 1860 election points to a key question confronted by every potential third (or fourth) party challenge. Winning popular votes does not easily translate into electoral college success sufficient to win a state's electoral votes – unless one wins a plurality of the popular vote, state by state. As a result, winning even 20% of an election's popular vote total can still translate into zero electoral votes – and it is the electoral votes that determine an electoral outcome. In a phrase, the presidential electoral system is a kind of indirect election as opposed to simply winning x number of votes. Many countries have proportional electoral systems for their parliamentary governments and thus prime ministerships. Such systems do not discourage the formation of third, fourth, fifth or even more separate parties – if they win sufficient parliamentary seats, the respective parties negotiate to form governing coalitions. By contrast, the two long-time dominant American parties, in the absence of any overwhelming national question that threatens to destroy the nation, such as slavery's continuation or expansion, build their respective electoral coalitions within the organisational confines of those two parties. They negotiate compromises among factions within the party and potential supporters and often incorporate ideas, proposals and visions from beyond the party to gain sufficient support to win at the polls. Perhaps the best example of this was the Democratic Party's victory under Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. Under his leadership, the party enthusiastically embraced ideas for social security measures, broader rights for union recognition, emergency employment relief and other social welfare messages previously proposed by various proponents of what were often called socialist ideas. Those proposals, made amid the Great Depression, helped Democrats gain a massive victory over the hapless incumbent Republican president, Herbert Hoover. More recently, the Republicans have absorbed a whole range of marginal, conspiratorial views and attitudes from fringe groups and made them central to their party's ideology in the hands and language of the current president, Donald Trump. Musk's third party Looking ahead, what about Elon Musk's promise, or threat, to sponsor and underwrite a new third party? Beyond the origins of the Republican Party, numerous other third-party efforts have taken place – usually in response to the sense that the feelings and concerns of whole classes of potential voters are being ignored and have not – or cannot – be incorporated into either of the two major parties' offerings. Theodore Roosevelt's 'Bull Moose' Party in the 1912 election was a kind of anomaly based on the idea that the actual Republican nominee and incumbent president, William Howard Taft, had backslid from his mentor and former president, Theodore Roosevelt's progressive policies. Roosevelt actually gained more popular votes than the party's formal candidate, thus splitting the Republican vote and giving Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson the win. Other significant third-party candidates – Henry Wallace, Strom Thurmond in 1948, George Wallace in 1968 and 1972, John Anderson in 1980, various Libertarian Party candidates over the years, Dr Jill Stein in multiple elections, and Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 – were actually on the ballots of multiple states. Save for the experiences of George Wallace and Strom Thurmond, while these candidates received significant popular vote totals (and sometimes made the difference in who the ultimate winner would be as was the case with Jill Stein in 2000), they failed to gain a plurality of the votes in any state, thus failing to gain electoral votes in their respective presidential elections. Thurmond and George Wallace's candidacies represented racial segregation protest votes over increasing racial integration under federal laws and thereby gained some electoral vote success in the South. Henry Wallace's run was largely in protest over the increasing drift towards a cold war with the Soviet Union. Anderson, Stein, and Perot, in different ways, argued that the existing parties failed to address the need for new political approaches beyond a nearly moribund status quo. For Perot in particular, concern over tax policies and the national debt/government deficit were key to his agenda. However, none of the latter three – plus the various Libertarian Party candidates – ever achieved actual electoral vote success. The challenge This goes to the heart of Elon Musk's task and challenge. To create a new national political party, elections in America remain the responsibility of the several states, not the federal government. That means the creators of a new national party must do so across the landscape of many states – and each state's rules and regulations are different. To create a party as a functioning organisation is one thing, but getting that party on the ballot across the nation is very different. Each state will require thousands of signatures on petitions by registered voters in their state, as well as addressing other legal requirements. Additionally, an actual political party organisation will need to conform to the financial registration and reporting requirements of the Federal Elections Commission concerning recording campaign contributions and expenses, once they set up fundraising mechanisms. None of this is simple, all of it is time-consuming, and most of it is expensive in terms of legal work. Of course, if you are Elon Musk and you are serious about doing this, money isn't all that much of an obstacle. Much more important will be answering the fundamental question of why such a party is desirable or necessary. What are its goals and objectives on the big questions (whatever they are), and how does it propose to address them? And perhaps most important of all, who will put their hand up as a candidate? Where will a serious candidate or candidates come from, and what kind of relevant experience will they bring to the challenge? How will they be picked? What kind of convention or nominating process is contemplated? One further thing to consider is that there are, in fact, many political parties in the US, perhaps two dozen or more, but mostly active at individual state or local election levels, where the mechanics of managing the creation of a party are less daunting. The Libertarian and Green Parties both already have national presences, and in recent elections, they have fought to be listed on the ballots of every state. One conceivable approach would be for Elon Musk to simply take over one or the other of those minor parties and thus sidestep the registration and organisation of an entirely new party. However, it is hard to imagine how his ideas would easily comport with either of those two minor parties. Yet another alternative conceivably might be for Musk to finance an aggressive operation to gain control of the Republican Party machinery, even though that would run into a buzzsaw of opposition from party regulars, the Maga crowd and current office holders under the Republican banner. But with enough money, he probably could overcome the institutional hurdles of launching a new party. However, the basic questions of what it would stand for, who would be its leader or leaders, and how voters could find such an alternative attractive remain almost entirely unanswerable at this moment. Election 2028, sans Trump However, there is the fact that the 2028 general election will be the first in 12 years without Donald Trump as a candidate. At least for now, the challengers' race among Republicans for that nomination is only beginning to form, and the nature of their respective key ideas remains a mystery. The one great third-party success was back in 1860. That is a long time ago and came before almost all the contemporary rules, regulations, technology, and campaign management techniques had come into existence. We are left with the conclusion that Musk's threat to bankroll a new party is really an effort to do battle with his one-time friend and political partner. There is one further factor to consider. Rather than aiming initially for a presidential race, Musk and his coterie may be planning to pursue efforts to elect independent candidates in congressional races across the country. The hurdles to such candidacies would be lower, the races could be selected based on popular dissatisfaction with incumbent Republicans aiming for reelection, or where no incumbent will be running due to a retirement, illness or death. There are, of course, current senators who are technically independents – Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine. Both of those caucus with the Democrats, but have successfully run as independents in their respective races. Further in the past, other senators and congressmen who were independents or even members of the Socialist Party successfully won their elections. Some of that history may give Elon Musk's team hope for a viable third party, even if it is one that can't gain the White House. Perhaps it can, at first, gain a toehold in Congress, or in state legislatures. But all of that presupposes Musk's attention will stay intently engaged on such political dreams, rather than colonising Mars or reviving the Tesla brand. DM
eNCA
18 hours ago
- eNCA
US Fed poised to hold off on rate cuts
WASHINGTON - The US central bank is widely expected to hold off slashing interest rates again at its upcoming meeting, as officials gather under the cloud of an intensifying pressure campaign by President Donald Trump. Policymakers at the independent Federal Reserve have kept the benchmark lending rate steady since the start of the year as they monitor how Trump's sweeping tariffs are impacting the world's biggest economy. With Trump's on-again, off-again tariff approach -- and the levies' lagged effects on inflation -- Fed officials want to see economic data from this summer to gauge how prices are being affected. When mulling changes to interest rates, the central bank -- which meets on Tuesday and Wednesday -- seeks a balance between reining in inflation and the health of the jobs market. But the bank's data-dependent approach has enraged the Republican president, who has repeatedly criticised Fed Chair Jerome Powell for not slashing rates further, calling him a "numbskull" and "moron." Most recently, Trump signalled he could use the Fed's $2.5-billion renovation project as an avenue to oust Powell, before backing off and saying that would be unlikely. Trump visited the Fed construction site on Thursday, making a tense appearance with Powell in which the Fed chair disputed Trump's characterisation of the total cost of the refurbishment in front of the cameras.
TimesLIVE
18 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Findings give hope for monthly HIV prevention pill
There are several antiretroviral formulations proven to prevent HIV infection: a daily pill, two different jabs that offer protection for two and six months respectively, and a vaginal ring for women that has to be replaced monthly. In a few years, a long-acting pill may join the ranks, if it works. The pill, for now called MK-8527, has the potential to prevent HIV infection for up to a month in its current formulation. It is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI), which means it disrupts a specific step in the cycle by which the virus makes copies of itself. The pill is now moving onto pivotal phase-three trials, after promising results from a smaller phase-two study presented at the International Aids Society (IAS) conference held in Kigali, Rwanda. The phase-two study, conducted in trial sites in South Africa, the US and Israel showed that MK-8527 was well tolerated and had a safety profile similar to a placebo. It also showed the levels of the antiretroviral were at the required levels in the bodies of study participants, though the study was not designed to determine whether it is effective. Whether MK-8527 actually prevents HIV infection will now be tested in two large phase-three studies across multiple countries, including South Africa. In these studies, the efficacy of the monthly pill will be compared with a daily HIV prevention pill that is already widely available in South Africa's public sector. The daily pill contains the antiretroviral drugs tenofovir disaproxil fumarate and emtricitabine. Latest findings The phase-two study looked at three different doses of the monthly pill — 3mg, 6mg and 12mg — as well as a placebo. The 350 participants, about one third of which were from South Africa, were given one pill (either an active pill or placebo) every month for six months. They were monitored for at least two months afterwards. None of the participants acquired HIV during the study. The researchers enrolled adults who were at a low risk of being exposed to HIV and excluded pregnant and breastfeeding women, and people who had previously used MK-8527 or a similar antiretroviral drug called Islatravir, said Dr Kenneth Mayer, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who presented the findings in Kigali earlier this month. The levels of the antiretroviral in the blood of all the participants were measured on day one and two, on the last day of taking the pill, and again at the first follow-up visit after stopping the pill. Based on these results, Mayer said there doesn't appear to be a build-up of drugs in the body that might prove toxic over time. This supports evaluating the use of a monthly pill over a longer period (than the six months in the study), he said, 'without concern that increasing drug levels will cause toxicity after a longer period of monthly administration'.
