Heather Boerner

Heterosexuals with HIV have lower CD4 counts at diagnosis than their gay and bisexual male peers, according to an analysis of more than 300,000 people living with HIV globally.

“It was quite a startling finding for us, because it’s now telling everybody, ‘Look, if you have MSM [men who have sex with men] coming into your clinic, expect CD4 counts at diagnosis to be higher than if the person got the infection as a heterosexual,’” Narendra Dixit, PhD, senior fellow at the Indian Institute of Science’s Centre for Biosystems Science and Engineering, Bangalore, India, said in an interview.

And that means, he said, that the pattern may appear in local clinics.

“If they find that there are differences in the CD4 counts between heterosexuals and MSMs, they should not be surprised anymore,” he said.

Dr. Dixit proposed that the reason for this may be that the viruses transmitted among heterosexuals are more virulent, but the study didn’t provide evidence of that.
 

Immune health at HIV diagnosis

In this study, which was published online March 10 in PLOS Pathogens, Dr. Dixit and colleague Anathu James, PhD, a data scientist and an epidemiologist at the Indian Institute of Science, culled data from 337,119 people captured in studies in the United Kingdom, the United States, Europe, Australia, and China. For all participants, CD4 counts were drawn at the time of diagnosis and before starting HIV treatment. Dr. Dixit and Dr. James then divided the studies by HIV transmission group – gay and bisexual men versus heterosexuals – and then averaged CD4 counts in each study.

Then they created a mathematical model to estimate how quickly each group might progress to an AIDS-defining illness, given those initial CD4 counts.

What they found was that the mean CD4 count was consistently higher in the gay and bisexual males than in the heterosexuals, no matter where they lived. For instance, mean CD4 counts at diagnosis were a mean of 437 cells/mm³ among gay and bisexual men in one European cohort, compared to a mean of 307 among heterosexuals. In the U.S. data, the mean CD4 count for gay and bisexual men was 390, compared to 314 among heterosexuals. In China, the same held true: Gay men had a mean CD4 count of 368 cells/mm³; heterosexuals had a mean CD4 count of 270.

This remained true when they only looked at people between the ages of 13 and 29 years in the United States or whether they were younger than 40 in Europe and Australia. In Europe and Australia, though, heterosexual women younger than 40 had higher CD4 counts than either straight or gay men. But this difference did not reach statistical significance, and gay men had higher CD4 counts overall when the investigators didn’t segregate the data by age group.

“We were stunned,” Dr. Dixit told this news organization. “People never thought there could be a difference in the CD4 counts just because the mode of transmission is different – or, in this case, because the risk groups are different.”

There was no difference, though, in viral load at diagnosis.

In their mathematical model on progression to AIDS, the investigators estimated that these lower CD4 counts at diagnosis would lead to a progression to AIDS that was 19% higher for straight people than for gay and bisexual men. What this implies for practice is less clear. Right now, Dr. Dixit hopes the data will be used to conduct molecular analysis of HIV strains in heterosexuals and gay and bisexual men to see if the HIV circulating in straight communities is different – and perhaps more virulent – than the HIV circulating among gay and bisexual men. Previous research has suggested that CD4 counts can be used as a proxy for virulence.

Dr. Dixit’s mathematical model follows recent news of a highly virulent strain of HIV that’s been present in the Netherlands for decades. “More virulent” in that case meant that it was more highly transmissible and led to higher viral loads and a quicker decline of the immune CD4 cells. So when news of Dr. Dixit’s study went out, it was accompanied by a press release stating as fact that “HIV-1 infections are more virulent when transmitted through penile-vaginal intercourse.” The study’s title states that HIV is “more virulent” in heterosexuals.

But this study doesn’t actually show that, said virology researcher Timothy Henrich, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an interview. In the Netherlands study, investigators took the additional step of analyzing HIV genomes. But this was not done in the recent PLOS Pathogens study.

“This was essentially a large meta-analysis of multiple large cohorts across many different countries,” said Dr. Henrich, who was not involved in the study. “There was no in-depth sequence analysis to say, ‘Oh yeah, this is because of a difference in the viruses that are being transmitted.’ If I were reviewing this paper, I probably would have said, ‘This is an interesting observation, but please don’t go overboard in your conclusions.’”

The study made Dr. Henrich want to know more. For instance, what method did each study use to determine CD4 counts? Did they control for the length of time since acquisition? Dr. Henrich said that if they didn’t differentiate between acute infection and chronic infection, he wasn’t sure what conclusions could be drawn from the data. Dr. Dixit told this news organization that they used the plateau level – the point after acute infection when CD4 counts settle into a consistent level. But it’s unclear how far from HIV acquisition each of the people in these studies was.

What Dr. Henrich does know, he said, is that big data are going to continue to change how we think about and investigate HIV transmission and virulence and what it could mean for clinical practice. The National Institutes of Health, for instance, will soon require all researchers receiving their funding to make their raw data publicly available soon after publication.

“We’re going to see a lot more of these large studies going forward,” he said. And if molecular analyses bear out Dr. Dixit’s conclusion – which he called “a big if” – “maybe we could use this study as a way” to do this work in the future.

The study was funded by DBT Network and the Wellcome Trust India Alliance Senior Fellowship. Dr. Dixit has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Henrich is conducting studies funded in whole or in part by Merck and Gilead Sciences.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Heterosexuals with HIV have lower CD4 counts at diagnosis than their gay and bisexual male peers, according to an analysis of more than 300,000 people living with HIV globally.

“It was quite a startling finding for us, because it’s now telling everybody, ‘Look, if you have MSM [men who have sex with men] coming into your clinic, expect CD4 counts at diagnosis to be higher than if the person got the infection as a heterosexual,’” Narendra Dixit, PhD, senior fellow at the Indian Institute of Science’s Centre for Biosystems Science and Engineering, Bangalore, India, said in an interview.

And that means, he said, that the pattern may appear in local clinics.

“If they find that there are differences in the CD4 counts between heterosexuals and MSMs, they should not be surprised anymore,” he said.

Dr. Dixit proposed that the reason for this may be that the viruses transmitted among heterosexuals are more virulent, but the study didn’t provide evidence of that.
 

Immune health at HIV diagnosis

In this study, which was published online March 10 in PLOS Pathogens, Dr. Dixit and colleague Anathu James, PhD, a data scientist and an epidemiologist at the Indian Institute of Science, culled data from 337,119 people captured in studies in the United Kingdom, the United States, Europe, Australia, and China. For all participants, CD4 counts were drawn at the time of diagnosis and before starting HIV treatment. Dr. Dixit and Dr. James then divided the studies by HIV transmission group – gay and bisexual men versus heterosexuals – and then averaged CD4 counts in each study.

Then they created a mathematical model to estimate how quickly each group might progress to an AIDS-defining illness, given those initial CD4 counts.

What they found was that the mean CD4 count was consistently higher in the gay and bisexual males than in the heterosexuals, no matter where they lived. For instance, mean CD4 counts at diagnosis were a mean of 437 cells/mm³ among gay and bisexual men in one European cohort, compared to a mean of 307 among heterosexuals. In the U.S. data, the mean CD4 count for gay and bisexual men was 390, compared to 314 among heterosexuals. In China, the same held true: Gay men had a mean CD4 count of 368 cells/mm³; heterosexuals had a mean CD4 count of 270.

This remained true when they only looked at people between the ages of 13 and 29 years in the United States or whether they were younger than 40 in Europe and Australia. In Europe and Australia, though, heterosexual women younger than 40 had higher CD4 counts than either straight or gay men. But this difference did not reach statistical significance, and gay men had higher CD4 counts overall when the investigators didn’t segregate the data by age group.

“We were stunned,” Dr. Dixit told this news organization. “People never thought there could be a difference in the CD4 counts just because the mode of transmission is different – or, in this case, because the risk groups are different.”

There was no difference, though, in viral load at diagnosis.

In their mathematical model on progression to AIDS, the investigators estimated that these lower CD4 counts at diagnosis would lead to a progression to AIDS that was 19% higher for straight people than for gay and bisexual men. What this implies for practice is less clear. Right now, Dr. Dixit hopes the data will be used to conduct molecular analysis of HIV strains in heterosexuals and gay and bisexual men to see if the HIV circulating in straight communities is different – and perhaps more virulent – than the HIV circulating among gay and bisexual men. Previous research has suggested that CD4 counts can be used as a proxy for virulence.

Dr. Dixit’s mathematical model follows recent news of a highly virulent strain of HIV that’s been present in the Netherlands for decades. “More virulent” in that case meant that it was more highly transmissible and led to higher viral loads and a quicker decline of the immune CD4 cells. So when news of Dr. Dixit’s study went out, it was accompanied by a press release stating as fact that “HIV-1 infections are more virulent when transmitted through penile-vaginal intercourse.” The study’s title states that HIV is “more virulent” in heterosexuals.

But this study doesn’t actually show that, said virology researcher Timothy Henrich, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an interview. In the Netherlands study, investigators took the additional step of analyzing HIV genomes. But this was not done in the recent PLOS Pathogens study.

“This was essentially a large meta-analysis of multiple large cohorts across many different countries,” said Dr. Henrich, who was not involved in the study. “There was no in-depth sequence analysis to say, ‘Oh yeah, this is because of a difference in the viruses that are being transmitted.’ If I were reviewing this paper, I probably would have said, ‘This is an interesting observation, but please don’t go overboard in your conclusions.’”

The study made Dr. Henrich want to know more. For instance, what method did each study use to determine CD4 counts? Did they control for the length of time since acquisition? Dr. Henrich said that if they didn’t differentiate between acute infection and chronic infection, he wasn’t sure what conclusions could be drawn from the data. Dr. Dixit told this news organization that they used the plateau level – the point after acute infection when CD4 counts settle into a consistent level. But it’s unclear how far from HIV acquisition each of the people in these studies was.

What Dr. Henrich does know, he said, is that big data are going to continue to change how we think about and investigate HIV transmission and virulence and what it could mean for clinical practice. The National Institutes of Health, for instance, will soon require all researchers receiving their funding to make their raw data publicly available soon after publication.

“We’re going to see a lot more of these large studies going forward,” he said. And if molecular analyses bear out Dr. Dixit’s conclusion – which he called “a big if” – “maybe we could use this study as a way” to do this work in the future.

The study was funded by DBT Network and the Wellcome Trust India Alliance Senior Fellowship. Dr. Dixit has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Henrich is conducting studies funded in whole or in part by Merck and Gilead Sciences.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Heterosexuals with HIV have lower CD4 counts at diagnosis than their gay and bisexual male peers, according to an analysis of more than 300,000 people living with HIV globally.

“It was quite a startling finding for us, because it’s now telling everybody, ‘Look, if you have MSM [men who have sex with men] coming into your clinic, expect CD4 counts at diagnosis to be higher than if the person got the infection as a heterosexual,’” Narendra Dixit, PhD, senior fellow at the Indian Institute of Science’s Centre for Biosystems Science and Engineering, Bangalore, India, said in an interview.

And that means, he said, that the pattern may appear in local clinics.

“If they find that there are differences in the CD4 counts between heterosexuals and MSMs, they should not be surprised anymore,” he said.

Dr. Dixit proposed that the reason for this may be that the viruses transmitted among heterosexuals are more virulent, but the study didn’t provide evidence of that.
 

Immune health at HIV diagnosis

In this study, which was published online March 10 in PLOS Pathogens, Dr. Dixit and colleague Anathu James, PhD, a data scientist and an epidemiologist at the Indian Institute of Science, culled data from 337,119 people captured in studies in the United Kingdom, the United States, Europe, Australia, and China. For all participants, CD4 counts were drawn at the time of diagnosis and before starting HIV treatment. Dr. Dixit and Dr. James then divided the studies by HIV transmission group – gay and bisexual men versus heterosexuals – and then averaged CD4 counts in each study.

Then they created a mathematical model to estimate how quickly each group might progress to an AIDS-defining illness, given those initial CD4 counts.

What they found was that the mean CD4 count was consistently higher in the gay and bisexual males than in the heterosexuals, no matter where they lived. For instance, mean CD4 counts at diagnosis were a mean of 437 cells/mm³ among gay and bisexual men in one European cohort, compared to a mean of 307 among heterosexuals. In the U.S. data, the mean CD4 count for gay and bisexual men was 390, compared to 314 among heterosexuals. In China, the same held true: Gay men had a mean CD4 count of 368 cells/mm³; heterosexuals had a mean CD4 count of 270.

This remained true when they only looked at people between the ages of 13 and 29 years in the United States or whether they were younger than 40 in Europe and Australia. In Europe and Australia, though, heterosexual women younger than 40 had higher CD4 counts than either straight or gay men. But this difference did not reach statistical significance, and gay men had higher CD4 counts overall when the investigators didn’t segregate the data by age group.

“We were stunned,” Dr. Dixit told this news organization. “People never thought there could be a difference in the CD4 counts just because the mode of transmission is different – or, in this case, because the risk groups are different.”

There was no difference, though, in viral load at diagnosis.

In their mathematical model on progression to AIDS, the investigators estimated that these lower CD4 counts at diagnosis would lead to a progression to AIDS that was 19% higher for straight people than for gay and bisexual men. What this implies for practice is less clear. Right now, Dr. Dixit hopes the data will be used to conduct molecular analysis of HIV strains in heterosexuals and gay and bisexual men to see if the HIV circulating in straight communities is different – and perhaps more virulent – than the HIV circulating among gay and bisexual men. Previous research has suggested that CD4 counts can be used as a proxy for virulence.

Dr. Dixit’s mathematical model follows recent news of a highly virulent strain of HIV that’s been present in the Netherlands for decades. “More virulent” in that case meant that it was more highly transmissible and led to higher viral loads and a quicker decline of the immune CD4 cells. So when news of Dr. Dixit’s study went out, it was accompanied by a press release stating as fact that “HIV-1 infections are more virulent when transmitted through penile-vaginal intercourse.” The study’s title states that HIV is “more virulent” in heterosexuals.

But this study doesn’t actually show that, said virology researcher Timothy Henrich, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an interview. In the Netherlands study, investigators took the additional step of analyzing HIV genomes. But this was not done in the recent PLOS Pathogens study.

“This was essentially a large meta-analysis of multiple large cohorts across many different countries,” said Dr. Henrich, who was not involved in the study. “There was no in-depth sequence analysis to say, ‘Oh yeah, this is because of a difference in the viruses that are being transmitted.’ If I were reviewing this paper, I probably would have said, ‘This is an interesting observation, but please don’t go overboard in your conclusions.’”

The study made Dr. Henrich want to know more. For instance, what method did each study use to determine CD4 counts? Did they control for the length of time since acquisition? Dr. Henrich said that if they didn’t differentiate between acute infection and chronic infection, he wasn’t sure what conclusions could be drawn from the data. Dr. Dixit told this news organization that they used the plateau level – the point after acute infection when CD4 counts settle into a consistent level. But it’s unclear how far from HIV acquisition each of the people in these studies was.

What Dr. Henrich does know, he said, is that big data are going to continue to change how we think about and investigate HIV transmission and virulence and what it could mean for clinical practice. The National Institutes of Health, for instance, will soon require all researchers receiving their funding to make their raw data publicly available soon after publication.

“We’re going to see a lot more of these large studies going forward,” he said. And if molecular analyses bear out Dr. Dixit’s conclusion – which he called “a big if” – “maybe we could use this study as a way” to do this work in the future.

The study was funded by DBT Network and the Wellcome Trust India Alliance Senior Fellowship. Dr. Dixit has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Henrich is conducting studies funded in whole or in part by Merck and Gilead Sciences.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One year into treatment with an every-6-month dose of the investigational drug lenacapavir (LEN, Gilead Sciences) in a dual-treatment combination, 88% of treatment-naive people living with HIV had undetectable viral loads.

The findings, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, also showed the drug was well tolerated, with 2 of 182 people developing drug-resistant mutations to lenacapavir and one person developing a nodule at the injection site.

Laura Waters, MD, consulting physician in HIV and sexual health at Central and Northwest London NHS Trust, who was not involved in the trial, called the findings “hugely exciting,” especially given its unique mode of administration. Right now it’s formulated as a subcutaneous injection, not an intramuscular injection like cabotegravir and rilpivirine (Cabenuva, ViiV Healthcare).

“Clearly it’s incredibly exciting to have the option for a subcutaneous drug that could be given at home every 6 months,” Dr. Waters said in an interview. With phase 3 trials and long-term follow-up still to come, she said she’s looking forward to how the treatment evolves.

CALIBRATE is a phase 2, four-arm, open-label, active-control study. Of the 182 participants, 25 were randomized to the active control arm, in which participants took daily oral bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (Biktarvy, Gilead Sciences) as standard of care. The rest of the 182 participants were divided evenly between three arms. In one of those, treatment group three, participants took a daily oral version of 50-mg LEN with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF, Descovy, Gilead Sciences).

The other two arms, treatment groups one and two, were the arms in which Samir K. Gupta, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues tried the twice-yearly subcutaneous shots of LEN (LEN SC). Participants in those arms underwent a 2-week lead-in period in which they took 600 mg of LEN orally on days 1 and 2 and then a 300-mg pill on day 8 before starting the shots on day 15. As currently formulated, LEN SC shots can be given into the stomach and are designed to be simple enough to administer at home.

“It’s like doing an insulin shot,” Dr. Gupta said in an interview.

In addition to LEN SC, participants in treatment group one took a daily Descovy lead-in and then engaged in dual therapy of LEN plus TAF. In group two, they took a daily Descovy lead-in and then switched to LEN SC plus bictegravir (BIC) daily at 28 weeks.

Study results presented at the meeting were the results at 54 weeks. Researchers had previously presented 28-week results for CALIBRATE at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science 2021.

Of the participants, 7% were cisgender women, 52% were Black, and 45% were Latinx. A total of 15% of participants had baseline viral loads of more than 100,000 copies, and median CD4 counts were 437. None of the participants in either the active-control arm or the LEN SC plus Descovy group had a history of AIDS, defined as fewer than 200 cells/mcL. In the LEN SC plus Biktarvy group, two did, and there were six people with a history of AIDS in the oral LEN plus Descovy group.

At 54 weeks, 88% of participants in groups one and two – the LEN SC arms – had undetectable viral loads (viral loads below 50 copies/mL). Specifically, 90% of those in the LEN SC plus TAF arm had viral loads below 50 copies. Those taking LEN SC plus BIC had an 85% viral suppression rate. The best performing of all was the control arm, in which 92% had undetectable viral loads. The protocol didn’t allow for analysis of statistical significance between the arms, so it’s unclear if any of the treatments really surpassed the others, Dr. Gupta said.

When they looked only at people whose viral loads became undetectable early, by week 28, the results were slightly better, with 93% of people between the two subcutaneous arms having undetectable viral loads at week 54. Again, the results were slightly higher in the LEN SC plus TAF arm (94%) than the LEN SC plus BIC (92%). People taking daily oral LEN plus Descovy had the lowest rate of viral suppression, but it was still at 90% if they were virally suppressed early. Again, it’s unclear whether those differences were statistically significant.
 

Well tolerated, with a chance of a nodule

Regarding safety, LEN was well tolerated across treatment arms, though the oral LEN group had as many people develop resistance mutations as the other three groups combined. Still, that was only three people, with one each in the two subcutaneous arms and one in the control arm.

Two people developed resistance to LEN – one in the LEN SC plus BIC arm and one in the oral LEN plus Descovy arm. In the LEN SC plus BIC arm, the mutations Q67H and K70R emerged at week 10, following a mutation that’s common when people don’t take integrase inhibitors as they’re supposed to (M184M/I). This led Dr. Gupta to conclude that lack of adherence to the oral part of the regimen may have contributed to the development of resistance, rather than an issue with LEN SC itself.

In the oral LEN plus Descovy arm, mutation Q67H didn’t emerge until week 54, when pill counts and drug levels revealed that that participant hadn’t been taking his Descovy as prescribed. In both cases, viral loads in those participants returned to undetectable after switching to an integrase inhibitor–based three-drug regimen.

Most safety concerns were mild and included nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. But that was for non–injection-site reactions. There were more side effects of that sort, with most of them being pain, hardening of the site, and swelling. But 11% of participants developed more serious side effects, including nodules. Only one nodule was considered a grade 3 reaction; that person didn’t leave the trial because of it.

“These phase 2 data from the ongoing CALIBRATE trial support the further evaluation of lenacapavir for treatment and prevention of HIV-1,” he said.
 

Finding the right partner

In short, the findings are promising, Dr. Gupta told this news organization . But the question now, as Gilead prepares to begin a phase 3 efficacy trial, is what would be a good combination with LEN SC?

“Lenacapavir in a two-drug regimen should work,” he said. “The question now, though, is you have to find a suitable, potent, second agent to pair it with.”

Indeed, the long-acting HIV treatment pipeline sustained a blow in December 2021 when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration halted all trials for Merck’s investigational, long-acting drug islatravir. This led Dr. Waters to tweet: “Is it just me or are the islatravir abstracts at #CROI2022 quite sad to read?” She ended the tweet with, “I just hope it recovers!”

Indeed, Merck and Gilead have entered into an agreement to codevelop lenacapavir and islatravir as a weekly oral tablet. Islatravir seemed like the obvious choice as a partner to lenacapavir if phase 3 trials are successful, said Dr. Gupta. But now, it’s anyone’s guess as to what will happen. And while it’s too soon to say that lenacapavir is a success, it does leave the field wondering about how to use LEN SC without another, equally long-acting agent.

“When I talk about LEN, I show a picture of a man standing solo at a party, leaning against the wall looking a bit lonely, with ‘lenacapavir’ written over his head,” she said in an interview. “Right now, lenacapavir is the only drug at the 6-monthly party. It’s going to need some other guests if that party is going to rock.”

The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Gupta has received research funding from ViiV Healthcare and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences and ViiV Healthcare. Dr. Waters has received speaker or advisory fees from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Janssen, Theratech, Sipla, and Mylan.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One year into treatment with an every-6-month dose of the investigational drug lenacapavir (LEN, Gilead Sciences) in a dual-treatment combination, 88% of treatment-naive people living with HIV had undetectable viral loads.

The findings, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, also showed the drug was well tolerated, with 2 of 182 people developing drug-resistant mutations to lenacapavir and one person developing a nodule at the injection site.

Laura Waters, MD, consulting physician in HIV and sexual health at Central and Northwest London NHS Trust, who was not involved in the trial, called the findings “hugely exciting,” especially given its unique mode of administration. Right now it’s formulated as a subcutaneous injection, not an intramuscular injection like cabotegravir and rilpivirine (Cabenuva, ViiV Healthcare).

“Clearly it’s incredibly exciting to have the option for a subcutaneous drug that could be given at home every 6 months,” Dr. Waters said in an interview. With phase 3 trials and long-term follow-up still to come, she said she’s looking forward to how the treatment evolves.

CALIBRATE is a phase 2, four-arm, open-label, active-control study. Of the 182 participants, 25 were randomized to the active control arm, in which participants took daily oral bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (Biktarvy, Gilead Sciences) as standard of care. The rest of the 182 participants were divided evenly between three arms. In one of those, treatment group three, participants took a daily oral version of 50-mg LEN with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF, Descovy, Gilead Sciences).

The other two arms, treatment groups one and two, were the arms in which Samir K. Gupta, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues tried the twice-yearly subcutaneous shots of LEN (LEN SC). Participants in those arms underwent a 2-week lead-in period in which they took 600 mg of LEN orally on days 1 and 2 and then a 300-mg pill on day 8 before starting the shots on day 15. As currently formulated, LEN SC shots can be given into the stomach and are designed to be simple enough to administer at home.

“It’s like doing an insulin shot,” Dr. Gupta said in an interview.

In addition to LEN SC, participants in treatment group one took a daily Descovy lead-in and then engaged in dual therapy of LEN plus TAF. In group two, they took a daily Descovy lead-in and then switched to LEN SC plus bictegravir (BIC) daily at 28 weeks.

Study results presented at the meeting were the results at 54 weeks. Researchers had previously presented 28-week results for CALIBRATE at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science 2021.

Of the participants, 7% were cisgender women, 52% were Black, and 45% were Latinx. A total of 15% of participants had baseline viral loads of more than 100,000 copies, and median CD4 counts were 437. None of the participants in either the active-control arm or the LEN SC plus Descovy group had a history of AIDS, defined as fewer than 200 cells/mcL. In the LEN SC plus Biktarvy group, two did, and there were six people with a history of AIDS in the oral LEN plus Descovy group.

At 54 weeks, 88% of participants in groups one and two – the LEN SC arms – had undetectable viral loads (viral loads below 50 copies/mL). Specifically, 90% of those in the LEN SC plus TAF arm had viral loads below 50 copies. Those taking LEN SC plus BIC had an 85% viral suppression rate. The best performing of all was the control arm, in which 92% had undetectable viral loads. The protocol didn’t allow for analysis of statistical significance between the arms, so it’s unclear if any of the treatments really surpassed the others, Dr. Gupta said.

When they looked only at people whose viral loads became undetectable early, by week 28, the results were slightly better, with 93% of people between the two subcutaneous arms having undetectable viral loads at week 54. Again, the results were slightly higher in the LEN SC plus TAF arm (94%) than the LEN SC plus BIC (92%). People taking daily oral LEN plus Descovy had the lowest rate of viral suppression, but it was still at 90% if they were virally suppressed early. Again, it’s unclear whether those differences were statistically significant.
 

Well tolerated, with a chance of a nodule

Regarding safety, LEN was well tolerated across treatment arms, though the oral LEN group had as many people develop resistance mutations as the other three groups combined. Still, that was only three people, with one each in the two subcutaneous arms and one in the control arm.

Two people developed resistance to LEN – one in the LEN SC plus BIC arm and one in the oral LEN plus Descovy arm. In the LEN SC plus BIC arm, the mutations Q67H and K70R emerged at week 10, following a mutation that’s common when people don’t take integrase inhibitors as they’re supposed to (M184M/I). This led Dr. Gupta to conclude that lack of adherence to the oral part of the regimen may have contributed to the development of resistance, rather than an issue with LEN SC itself.

In the oral LEN plus Descovy arm, mutation Q67H didn’t emerge until week 54, when pill counts and drug levels revealed that that participant hadn’t been taking his Descovy as prescribed. In both cases, viral loads in those participants returned to undetectable after switching to an integrase inhibitor–based three-drug regimen.

Most safety concerns were mild and included nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. But that was for non–injection-site reactions. There were more side effects of that sort, with most of them being pain, hardening of the site, and swelling. But 11% of participants developed more serious side effects, including nodules. Only one nodule was considered a grade 3 reaction; that person didn’t leave the trial because of it.

“These phase 2 data from the ongoing CALIBRATE trial support the further evaluation of lenacapavir for treatment and prevention of HIV-1,” he said.
 

Finding the right partner

In short, the findings are promising, Dr. Gupta told this news organization . But the question now, as Gilead prepares to begin a phase 3 efficacy trial, is what would be a good combination with LEN SC?

“Lenacapavir in a two-drug regimen should work,” he said. “The question now, though, is you have to find a suitable, potent, second agent to pair it with.”

Indeed, the long-acting HIV treatment pipeline sustained a blow in December 2021 when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration halted all trials for Merck’s investigational, long-acting drug islatravir. This led Dr. Waters to tweet: “Is it just me or are the islatravir abstracts at #CROI2022 quite sad to read?” She ended the tweet with, “I just hope it recovers!”

Indeed, Merck and Gilead have entered into an agreement to codevelop lenacapavir and islatravir as a weekly oral tablet. Islatravir seemed like the obvious choice as a partner to lenacapavir if phase 3 trials are successful, said Dr. Gupta. But now, it’s anyone’s guess as to what will happen. And while it’s too soon to say that lenacapavir is a success, it does leave the field wondering about how to use LEN SC without another, equally long-acting agent.

“When I talk about LEN, I show a picture of a man standing solo at a party, leaning against the wall looking a bit lonely, with ‘lenacapavir’ written over his head,” she said in an interview. “Right now, lenacapavir is the only drug at the 6-monthly party. It’s going to need some other guests if that party is going to rock.”

The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Gupta has received research funding from ViiV Healthcare and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences and ViiV Healthcare. Dr. Waters has received speaker or advisory fees from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Janssen, Theratech, Sipla, and Mylan.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One year into treatment with an every-6-month dose of the investigational drug lenacapavir (LEN, Gilead Sciences) in a dual-treatment combination, 88% of treatment-naive people living with HIV had undetectable viral loads.

The findings, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, also showed the drug was well tolerated, with 2 of 182 people developing drug-resistant mutations to lenacapavir and one person developing a nodule at the injection site.

Laura Waters, MD, consulting physician in HIV and sexual health at Central and Northwest London NHS Trust, who was not involved in the trial, called the findings “hugely exciting,” especially given its unique mode of administration. Right now it’s formulated as a subcutaneous injection, not an intramuscular injection like cabotegravir and rilpivirine (Cabenuva, ViiV Healthcare).

“Clearly it’s incredibly exciting to have the option for a subcutaneous drug that could be given at home every 6 months,” Dr. Waters said in an interview. With phase 3 trials and long-term follow-up still to come, she said she’s looking forward to how the treatment evolves.

CALIBRATE is a phase 2, four-arm, open-label, active-control study. Of the 182 participants, 25 were randomized to the active control arm, in which participants took daily oral bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (Biktarvy, Gilead Sciences) as standard of care. The rest of the 182 participants were divided evenly between three arms. In one of those, treatment group three, participants took a daily oral version of 50-mg LEN with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF, Descovy, Gilead Sciences).

The other two arms, treatment groups one and two, were the arms in which Samir K. Gupta, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues tried the twice-yearly subcutaneous shots of LEN (LEN SC). Participants in those arms underwent a 2-week lead-in period in which they took 600 mg of LEN orally on days 1 and 2 and then a 300-mg pill on day 8 before starting the shots on day 15. As currently formulated, LEN SC shots can be given into the stomach and are designed to be simple enough to administer at home.

“It’s like doing an insulin shot,” Dr. Gupta said in an interview.

In addition to LEN SC, participants in treatment group one took a daily Descovy lead-in and then engaged in dual therapy of LEN plus TAF. In group two, they took a daily Descovy lead-in and then switched to LEN SC plus bictegravir (BIC) daily at 28 weeks.

Study results presented at the meeting were the results at 54 weeks. Researchers had previously presented 28-week results for CALIBRATE at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science 2021.

Of the participants, 7% were cisgender women, 52% were Black, and 45% were Latinx. A total of 15% of participants had baseline viral loads of more than 100,000 copies, and median CD4 counts were 437. None of the participants in either the active-control arm or the LEN SC plus Descovy group had a history of AIDS, defined as fewer than 200 cells/mcL. In the LEN SC plus Biktarvy group, two did, and there were six people with a history of AIDS in the oral LEN plus Descovy group.

At 54 weeks, 88% of participants in groups one and two – the LEN SC arms – had undetectable viral loads (viral loads below 50 copies/mL). Specifically, 90% of those in the LEN SC plus TAF arm had viral loads below 50 copies. Those taking LEN SC plus BIC had an 85% viral suppression rate. The best performing of all was the control arm, in which 92% had undetectable viral loads. The protocol didn’t allow for analysis of statistical significance between the arms, so it’s unclear if any of the treatments really surpassed the others, Dr. Gupta said.

When they looked only at people whose viral loads became undetectable early, by week 28, the results were slightly better, with 93% of people between the two subcutaneous arms having undetectable viral loads at week 54. Again, the results were slightly higher in the LEN SC plus TAF arm (94%) than the LEN SC plus BIC (92%). People taking daily oral LEN plus Descovy had the lowest rate of viral suppression, but it was still at 90% if they were virally suppressed early. Again, it’s unclear whether those differences were statistically significant.
 

Well tolerated, with a chance of a nodule

Regarding safety, LEN was well tolerated across treatment arms, though the oral LEN group had as many people develop resistance mutations as the other three groups combined. Still, that was only three people, with one each in the two subcutaneous arms and one in the control arm.

Two people developed resistance to LEN – one in the LEN SC plus BIC arm and one in the oral LEN plus Descovy arm. In the LEN SC plus BIC arm, the mutations Q67H and K70R emerged at week 10, following a mutation that’s common when people don’t take integrase inhibitors as they’re supposed to (M184M/I). This led Dr. Gupta to conclude that lack of adherence to the oral part of the regimen may have contributed to the development of resistance, rather than an issue with LEN SC itself.

In the oral LEN plus Descovy arm, mutation Q67H didn’t emerge until week 54, when pill counts and drug levels revealed that that participant hadn’t been taking his Descovy as prescribed. In both cases, viral loads in those participants returned to undetectable after switching to an integrase inhibitor–based three-drug regimen.

Most safety concerns were mild and included nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. But that was for non–injection-site reactions. There were more side effects of that sort, with most of them being pain, hardening of the site, and swelling. But 11% of participants developed more serious side effects, including nodules. Only one nodule was considered a grade 3 reaction; that person didn’t leave the trial because of it.

“These phase 2 data from the ongoing CALIBRATE trial support the further evaluation of lenacapavir for treatment and prevention of HIV-1,” he said.
 

Finding the right partner

In short, the findings are promising, Dr. Gupta told this news organization . But the question now, as Gilead prepares to begin a phase 3 efficacy trial, is what would be a good combination with LEN SC?

“Lenacapavir in a two-drug regimen should work,” he said. “The question now, though, is you have to find a suitable, potent, second agent to pair it with.”

Indeed, the long-acting HIV treatment pipeline sustained a blow in December 2021 when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration halted all trials for Merck’s investigational, long-acting drug islatravir. This led Dr. Waters to tweet: “Is it just me or are the islatravir abstracts at #CROI2022 quite sad to read?” She ended the tweet with, “I just hope it recovers!”

Indeed, Merck and Gilead have entered into an agreement to codevelop lenacapavir and islatravir as a weekly oral tablet. Islatravir seemed like the obvious choice as a partner to lenacapavir if phase 3 trials are successful, said Dr. Gupta. But now, it’s anyone’s guess as to what will happen. And while it’s too soon to say that lenacapavir is a success, it does leave the field wondering about how to use LEN SC without another, equally long-acting agent.

“When I talk about LEN, I show a picture of a man standing solo at a party, leaning against the wall looking a bit lonely, with ‘lenacapavir’ written over his head,” she said in an interview. “Right now, lenacapavir is the only drug at the 6-monthly party. It’s going to need some other guests if that party is going to rock.”

The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Gupta has received research funding from ViiV Healthcare and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences and ViiV Healthcare. Dr. Waters has received speaker or advisory fees from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Janssen, Theratech, Sipla, and Mylan.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Reports based on a press release in October 2021 suggested it, but now the full data tell the story: Early monitoring and treatment of anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) cut risk for anal cancer by 57% in people living with HIV.

“We now show, for the first time, that treatment of anal HSIL is effective in reducing the incidence of anal cancer,” said Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the Anal Neoplasia Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco. “These data should be included in an overall assessment for inclusion of screening for and treating HSIL as standard of care in people living with HIV.”

Dr. Palefsky presented the full results in a special session at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which drew excitement, gratitude, and relief from both researchers and clinicians, who flocked to the session.

But it’s not just people with HIV who will benefit from this research. Dr. Palefsky suggested that the findings should also be considered as guides for other people at high-risk for anal cancer, such as people who are immunocompromised for other reasons, including those with lupus, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, or cisgender women who have had vulvar or cervical cancer or precancer.

“If we can show efficacy in the most challenging group of all, which are people living with HIV, we think the results can be as good, if not even better, in the other groups at high risk of anal cancer,” Dr. Palefsky said.

But to serve anyone – whether living with HIV or not – infrastructure, algorithms, and workforce training are going be needed to meet the currently unserved people through use of high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) and other screening technology, he said.

Dr. Palefsy and colleagues screened 10,723 people living with HIV being served at 15 clinics nationwide. More than half, 52.2%, had anal HSIL – 53.3% of the cisgender men living with HIV in the trial, 45.8% of the cis women living with HIV, and a full 62.5% of transgender participants.

Those 4,446 participants were split evenly between the treatment arm and the control arm. Those in the treatment arm received treatment for HSIL on their first study visit via one of five options: hyfrecation, office-based electrocautery ablation, infrared coagulation, topical 5-fluorouracil cream, or topical imiquimod. Then, every 6 months after that, they came in for HRA, blood tests, anal Pap smears, and biopsies to check for any lingering or new HSIL. If clinicians found such cells, they received treatment again. If biopsies still showed HSIL and clinician and participant were worried about cancer, they could come in as frequently as every 3 months and receive treatment each time.

The active-monitoring control group still received an anal Pap smear, blood tests, biopsy, and HRA every 6 months – a level of care that is currently not mandated anywhere for people living with HIV, Dr. Palefsky said in an interview. They were also able to come in for more frequent monitoring (every 3 months) if clinicians were worried about cancer.

“Those in both arms would have been getting more attention than if they had not participated in the study,” he said.

In addition, during screening, researchers found that cancer was already present in 17 other people, who skipped the study to go right to treatment.

Participants reflected the demographics of the HIV epidemic in the United States. They were older (median age, 51 years), mostly gay (78%), and cisgender male (80%). Close to half, 42%, were Black, and 16% were Latinx. In addition, cisgender women made up 16% of the participants and transgender people, and nonbinary individuals accounted for more than 3% of the participants. In addition, one in three smoked.

The vast majority of participants had well-controlled HIV and healthy immune systems, though half in each arm had a history of AIDS, defined as lowest-ever CD4 immune cell counts below 200. Today, more than 80% of participants had undetectable viral loads, defined as a viral load less than 50 copies/mL, and another 7% had HIV viral loads below 200. In total, 9.3% in the treatment arm and 10.9% in the control arm had HIV viral loads higher than that. At time of enrollment, CD4 counts were above 600 in each group, indicating healthy immune systems.

Although all participants were there because they had anal HSIL, more than 1 in 10 – 13% – had abnormal cells so extensive that they covered more than half of the anal canal or the perianal region.

Once everyone was enrolled, researchers began monitoring and treatment, looking specifically for 31 cases of cancer – a number the team had determined that they’d need in order to draw any conclusions. Dr. Palefsky didn’t have to wait long. They were still trying to enroll the last 1,000 participants to have the power necessary to reach that number when the cancer diagnoses came in.

Dr. Palefsky told this news organization that the reason for that is unclear. It could be that some of those cases would have resolved on their own, and so the swiftness with which they reached the required number of cancer cases belies their seriousness. It could also be that the particular people who enrolled in this trial were engaging in behaviors that put them at even higher risk for anal cancer than the population of people living with HIV in the United States.

Or it could be that symptom-based screening is missing a lot of cancers that currently go untreated.

“So perhaps we will be seeing an increase in anal cancer reported in the future compared to the currently reported rates,” he said. “We don’t really know.”

Regardless of the reason for the speed to cases of cancer, the results were definitive: Nine participants were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the treatment arm, while 21 were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the control arm. That’s a 57% reduction in cancer occurrence between the arms. Or, to put it another way, the rate of anal cancer among people in the treatment arm was 173 per 100,000 people-years. In the active monitoring arm, it was 402 per 100,000 person-years. For context, the overall rate of anal cancer among people living with HIV is 50 per 100,000 person-years. The rate in the general U.S. population is 8 per 100,000 people-years.

The experimental treatment was such a definitive success that the investigators stopped the trial and shifted all participants in the control arm to treatment.
 

‘We have to build’

Before Dr. Palefsky was even done presenting the data, clinicians, people living with HIV, and experts at the session were already brainstorming as to how to get these results into practice.

“These data are what we have long needed to fuel some action on this important problem, including medical cost reimbursement through insurance and increasing the number of persons trained and capable in anal cancer screening,” John Brooks, MD, head of the epidemiology research team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, wrote in the virtual chat.

Jeff Taylor, a member of the ANCHOR advisory board and a person living with HIV who participated in one of the first azidothymidine trials in the late 1980s, responded quickly.

“What kind of advocacy from researchers, HIV clinicians and [people living with HIV] is needed to get this on treatment guidelines, HRA providers trained and certified, and payors to cover this so [people living with HIV] actually have access to lifesaving screening and [treatment]?” Mr. Taylor asked.

It’s a serious challenge. David Malebranche, MD, an Atlanta-based internal medicine physician who specializes in sexual health and HIV, commented in an interview. When he saw the initial press release last year on the ANCHOR findings, his first reaction was: “Thank god. We finally have some data to show what we’ve been trying to get people to do” all along.

But then he wondered, who is going to perform these tests? It’s a fair question. Currently, the wait for an HRA is 6-12 months in many parts of the country. And Dr. Malebranche can’t imagine this being added to his already full plate as a primary care provider.

“If you tell a primary care provider now that they have to do a rectal Pap smear, that’s going to be a problem while you’re also asking them to screen each patient for depression, anxiety, domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, all the healthcare maintenance and all the other screening tests – and then you deal with not only the urgent complaint but then all the complex medical issues on top of that – in a 15-minute or 10-minute visit,” he said.

Now that we have these data, he said, “we have to build.”

Dr. Palefsky agreed. Very few centers have enough people skilled at performing HRAs to meet the current demand, and it’s not realistic to expect clinicians to perform an HRA every 6 months like the study team did. There need to be algorithms put in place to help practitioners figure out who among their patients living with HIV could benefit from this increased screening, as well as biomarkers to identify HSIL progression and regression without the use of HRA, Dr. Palefsky told attendees. And more clinicians need to be recruited and trained to read HRAs, which can be difficult for the untrained eye to decipher.

Dr. Malebranche added another, more fundamental thing that needs to be built. Dr. Malebranche has worked in HIV clinics where the majority of his patients qualify for insurance under the Ryan White Program and get their medications through the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. While Ryan White programs can provide critical wraparound care, Dr. Malebranche has had to refer out for something like an HRA or cancer treatment. But the people who only access care through such programs may not have coverage with the clinics that perform HRA or that treat cancer. And that’s if they can even find someone to see them.

“If I live in a state like Georgia, which doesn’t have Medicaid expansion and we have people who are uninsured, where do you send them?” Dr. Malebranche asked. “This isn’t theoretical. I ran into this problem when I was working at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation last year. ... This is a call for infrastructure.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Brooks reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Palefsky has received consultant fees from Merck, Vir Biotechnology, Virion Therapeutics, and Antiva Bioscience, as well as speaker fees from Merck. Dr. Malebranche has received consulting and advising fees from ViiV Healthcare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Reports based on a press release in October 2021 suggested it, but now the full data tell the story: Early monitoring and treatment of anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) cut risk for anal cancer by 57% in people living with HIV.

“We now show, for the first time, that treatment of anal HSIL is effective in reducing the incidence of anal cancer,” said Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the Anal Neoplasia Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco. “These data should be included in an overall assessment for inclusion of screening for and treating HSIL as standard of care in people living with HIV.”

Dr. Palefsky presented the full results in a special session at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which drew excitement, gratitude, and relief from both researchers and clinicians, who flocked to the session.

But it’s not just people with HIV who will benefit from this research. Dr. Palefsky suggested that the findings should also be considered as guides for other people at high-risk for anal cancer, such as people who are immunocompromised for other reasons, including those with lupus, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, or cisgender women who have had vulvar or cervical cancer or precancer.

“If we can show efficacy in the most challenging group of all, which are people living with HIV, we think the results can be as good, if not even better, in the other groups at high risk of anal cancer,” Dr. Palefsky said.

But to serve anyone – whether living with HIV or not – infrastructure, algorithms, and workforce training are going be needed to meet the currently unserved people through use of high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) and other screening technology, he said.

Dr. Palefsy and colleagues screened 10,723 people living with HIV being served at 15 clinics nationwide. More than half, 52.2%, had anal HSIL – 53.3% of the cisgender men living with HIV in the trial, 45.8% of the cis women living with HIV, and a full 62.5% of transgender participants.

Those 4,446 participants were split evenly between the treatment arm and the control arm. Those in the treatment arm received treatment for HSIL on their first study visit via one of five options: hyfrecation, office-based electrocautery ablation, infrared coagulation, topical 5-fluorouracil cream, or topical imiquimod. Then, every 6 months after that, they came in for HRA, blood tests, anal Pap smears, and biopsies to check for any lingering or new HSIL. If clinicians found such cells, they received treatment again. If biopsies still showed HSIL and clinician and participant were worried about cancer, they could come in as frequently as every 3 months and receive treatment each time.

The active-monitoring control group still received an anal Pap smear, blood tests, biopsy, and HRA every 6 months – a level of care that is currently not mandated anywhere for people living with HIV, Dr. Palefsky said in an interview. They were also able to come in for more frequent monitoring (every 3 months) if clinicians were worried about cancer.

“Those in both arms would have been getting more attention than if they had not participated in the study,” he said.

In addition, during screening, researchers found that cancer was already present in 17 other people, who skipped the study to go right to treatment.

Participants reflected the demographics of the HIV epidemic in the United States. They were older (median age, 51 years), mostly gay (78%), and cisgender male (80%). Close to half, 42%, were Black, and 16% were Latinx. In addition, cisgender women made up 16% of the participants and transgender people, and nonbinary individuals accounted for more than 3% of the participants. In addition, one in three smoked.

The vast majority of participants had well-controlled HIV and healthy immune systems, though half in each arm had a history of AIDS, defined as lowest-ever CD4 immune cell counts below 200. Today, more than 80% of participants had undetectable viral loads, defined as a viral load less than 50 copies/mL, and another 7% had HIV viral loads below 200. In total, 9.3% in the treatment arm and 10.9% in the control arm had HIV viral loads higher than that. At time of enrollment, CD4 counts were above 600 in each group, indicating healthy immune systems.

Although all participants were there because they had anal HSIL, more than 1 in 10 – 13% – had abnormal cells so extensive that they covered more than half of the anal canal or the perianal region.

Once everyone was enrolled, researchers began monitoring and treatment, looking specifically for 31 cases of cancer – a number the team had determined that they’d need in order to draw any conclusions. Dr. Palefsky didn’t have to wait long. They were still trying to enroll the last 1,000 participants to have the power necessary to reach that number when the cancer diagnoses came in.

Dr. Palefsky told this news organization that the reason for that is unclear. It could be that some of those cases would have resolved on their own, and so the swiftness with which they reached the required number of cancer cases belies their seriousness. It could also be that the particular people who enrolled in this trial were engaging in behaviors that put them at even higher risk for anal cancer than the population of people living with HIV in the United States.

Or it could be that symptom-based screening is missing a lot of cancers that currently go untreated.

“So perhaps we will be seeing an increase in anal cancer reported in the future compared to the currently reported rates,” he said. “We don’t really know.”

Regardless of the reason for the speed to cases of cancer, the results were definitive: Nine participants were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the treatment arm, while 21 were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the control arm. That’s a 57% reduction in cancer occurrence between the arms. Or, to put it another way, the rate of anal cancer among people in the treatment arm was 173 per 100,000 people-years. In the active monitoring arm, it was 402 per 100,000 person-years. For context, the overall rate of anal cancer among people living with HIV is 50 per 100,000 person-years. The rate in the general U.S. population is 8 per 100,000 people-years.

The experimental treatment was such a definitive success that the investigators stopped the trial and shifted all participants in the control arm to treatment.
 

‘We have to build’

Before Dr. Palefsky was even done presenting the data, clinicians, people living with HIV, and experts at the session were already brainstorming as to how to get these results into practice.

“These data are what we have long needed to fuel some action on this important problem, including medical cost reimbursement through insurance and increasing the number of persons trained and capable in anal cancer screening,” John Brooks, MD, head of the epidemiology research team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, wrote in the virtual chat.

Jeff Taylor, a member of the ANCHOR advisory board and a person living with HIV who participated in one of the first azidothymidine trials in the late 1980s, responded quickly.

“What kind of advocacy from researchers, HIV clinicians and [people living with HIV] is needed to get this on treatment guidelines, HRA providers trained and certified, and payors to cover this so [people living with HIV] actually have access to lifesaving screening and [treatment]?” Mr. Taylor asked.

It’s a serious challenge. David Malebranche, MD, an Atlanta-based internal medicine physician who specializes in sexual health and HIV, commented in an interview. When he saw the initial press release last year on the ANCHOR findings, his first reaction was: “Thank god. We finally have some data to show what we’ve been trying to get people to do” all along.

But then he wondered, who is going to perform these tests? It’s a fair question. Currently, the wait for an HRA is 6-12 months in many parts of the country. And Dr. Malebranche can’t imagine this being added to his already full plate as a primary care provider.

“If you tell a primary care provider now that they have to do a rectal Pap smear, that’s going to be a problem while you’re also asking them to screen each patient for depression, anxiety, domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, all the healthcare maintenance and all the other screening tests – and then you deal with not only the urgent complaint but then all the complex medical issues on top of that – in a 15-minute or 10-minute visit,” he said.

Now that we have these data, he said, “we have to build.”

Dr. Palefsky agreed. Very few centers have enough people skilled at performing HRAs to meet the current demand, and it’s not realistic to expect clinicians to perform an HRA every 6 months like the study team did. There need to be algorithms put in place to help practitioners figure out who among their patients living with HIV could benefit from this increased screening, as well as biomarkers to identify HSIL progression and regression without the use of HRA, Dr. Palefsky told attendees. And more clinicians need to be recruited and trained to read HRAs, which can be difficult for the untrained eye to decipher.

Dr. Malebranche added another, more fundamental thing that needs to be built. Dr. Malebranche has worked in HIV clinics where the majority of his patients qualify for insurance under the Ryan White Program and get their medications through the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. While Ryan White programs can provide critical wraparound care, Dr. Malebranche has had to refer out for something like an HRA or cancer treatment. But the people who only access care through such programs may not have coverage with the clinics that perform HRA or that treat cancer. And that’s if they can even find someone to see them.

“If I live in a state like Georgia, which doesn’t have Medicaid expansion and we have people who are uninsured, where do you send them?” Dr. Malebranche asked. “This isn’t theoretical. I ran into this problem when I was working at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation last year. ... This is a call for infrastructure.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Brooks reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Palefsky has received consultant fees from Merck, Vir Biotechnology, Virion Therapeutics, and Antiva Bioscience, as well as speaker fees from Merck. Dr. Malebranche has received consulting and advising fees from ViiV Healthcare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Reports based on a press release in October 2021 suggested it, but now the full data tell the story: Early monitoring and treatment of anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) cut risk for anal cancer by 57% in people living with HIV.

“We now show, for the first time, that treatment of anal HSIL is effective in reducing the incidence of anal cancer,” said Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the Anal Neoplasia Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco. “These data should be included in an overall assessment for inclusion of screening for and treating HSIL as standard of care in people living with HIV.”

Dr. Palefsky presented the full results in a special session at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which drew excitement, gratitude, and relief from both researchers and clinicians, who flocked to the session.

But it’s not just people with HIV who will benefit from this research. Dr. Palefsky suggested that the findings should also be considered as guides for other people at high-risk for anal cancer, such as people who are immunocompromised for other reasons, including those with lupus, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, or cisgender women who have had vulvar or cervical cancer or precancer.

“If we can show efficacy in the most challenging group of all, which are people living with HIV, we think the results can be as good, if not even better, in the other groups at high risk of anal cancer,” Dr. Palefsky said.

But to serve anyone – whether living with HIV or not – infrastructure, algorithms, and workforce training are going be needed to meet the currently unserved people through use of high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) and other screening technology, he said.

Dr. Palefsy and colleagues screened 10,723 people living with HIV being served at 15 clinics nationwide. More than half, 52.2%, had anal HSIL – 53.3% of the cisgender men living with HIV in the trial, 45.8% of the cis women living with HIV, and a full 62.5% of transgender participants.

Those 4,446 participants were split evenly between the treatment arm and the control arm. Those in the treatment arm received treatment for HSIL on their first study visit via one of five options: hyfrecation, office-based electrocautery ablation, infrared coagulation, topical 5-fluorouracil cream, or topical imiquimod. Then, every 6 months after that, they came in for HRA, blood tests, anal Pap smears, and biopsies to check for any lingering or new HSIL. If clinicians found such cells, they received treatment again. If biopsies still showed HSIL and clinician and participant were worried about cancer, they could come in as frequently as every 3 months and receive treatment each time.

The active-monitoring control group still received an anal Pap smear, blood tests, biopsy, and HRA every 6 months – a level of care that is currently not mandated anywhere for people living with HIV, Dr. Palefsky said in an interview. They were also able to come in for more frequent monitoring (every 3 months) if clinicians were worried about cancer.

“Those in both arms would have been getting more attention than if they had not participated in the study,” he said.

In addition, during screening, researchers found that cancer was already present in 17 other people, who skipped the study to go right to treatment.

Participants reflected the demographics of the HIV epidemic in the United States. They were older (median age, 51 years), mostly gay (78%), and cisgender male (80%). Close to half, 42%, were Black, and 16% were Latinx. In addition, cisgender women made up 16% of the participants and transgender people, and nonbinary individuals accounted for more than 3% of the participants. In addition, one in three smoked.

The vast majority of participants had well-controlled HIV and healthy immune systems, though half in each arm had a history of AIDS, defined as lowest-ever CD4 immune cell counts below 200. Today, more than 80% of participants had undetectable viral loads, defined as a viral load less than 50 copies/mL, and another 7% had HIV viral loads below 200. In total, 9.3% in the treatment arm and 10.9% in the control arm had HIV viral loads higher than that. At time of enrollment, CD4 counts were above 600 in each group, indicating healthy immune systems.

Although all participants were there because they had anal HSIL, more than 1 in 10 – 13% – had abnormal cells so extensive that they covered more than half of the anal canal or the perianal region.

Once everyone was enrolled, researchers began monitoring and treatment, looking specifically for 31 cases of cancer – a number the team had determined that they’d need in order to draw any conclusions. Dr. Palefsky didn’t have to wait long. They were still trying to enroll the last 1,000 participants to have the power necessary to reach that number when the cancer diagnoses came in.

Dr. Palefsky told this news organization that the reason for that is unclear. It could be that some of those cases would have resolved on their own, and so the swiftness with which they reached the required number of cancer cases belies their seriousness. It could also be that the particular people who enrolled in this trial were engaging in behaviors that put them at even higher risk for anal cancer than the population of people living with HIV in the United States.

Or it could be that symptom-based screening is missing a lot of cancers that currently go untreated.

“So perhaps we will be seeing an increase in anal cancer reported in the future compared to the currently reported rates,” he said. “We don’t really know.”

Regardless of the reason for the speed to cases of cancer, the results were definitive: Nine participants were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the treatment arm, while 21 were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the control arm. That’s a 57% reduction in cancer occurrence between the arms. Or, to put it another way, the rate of anal cancer among people in the treatment arm was 173 per 100,000 people-years. In the active monitoring arm, it was 402 per 100,000 person-years. For context, the overall rate of anal cancer among people living with HIV is 50 per 100,000 person-years. The rate in the general U.S. population is 8 per 100,000 people-years.

The experimental treatment was such a definitive success that the investigators stopped the trial and shifted all participants in the control arm to treatment.
 

‘We have to build’

Before Dr. Palefsky was even done presenting the data, clinicians, people living with HIV, and experts at the session were already brainstorming as to how to get these results into practice.

“These data are what we have long needed to fuel some action on this important problem, including medical cost reimbursement through insurance and increasing the number of persons trained and capable in anal cancer screening,” John Brooks, MD, head of the epidemiology research team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, wrote in the virtual chat.

Jeff Taylor, a member of the ANCHOR advisory board and a person living with HIV who participated in one of the first azidothymidine trials in the late 1980s, responded quickly.

“What kind of advocacy from researchers, HIV clinicians and [people living with HIV] is needed to get this on treatment guidelines, HRA providers trained and certified, and payors to cover this so [people living with HIV] actually have access to lifesaving screening and [treatment]?” Mr. Taylor asked.

It’s a serious challenge. David Malebranche, MD, an Atlanta-based internal medicine physician who specializes in sexual health and HIV, commented in an interview. When he saw the initial press release last year on the ANCHOR findings, his first reaction was: “Thank god. We finally have some data to show what we’ve been trying to get people to do” all along.

But then he wondered, who is going to perform these tests? It’s a fair question. Currently, the wait for an HRA is 6-12 months in many parts of the country. And Dr. Malebranche can’t imagine this being added to his already full plate as a primary care provider.

“If you tell a primary care provider now that they have to do a rectal Pap smear, that’s going to be a problem while you’re also asking them to screen each patient for depression, anxiety, domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, all the healthcare maintenance and all the other screening tests – and then you deal with not only the urgent complaint but then all the complex medical issues on top of that – in a 15-minute or 10-minute visit,” he said.

Now that we have these data, he said, “we have to build.”

Dr. Palefsky agreed. Very few centers have enough people skilled at performing HRAs to meet the current demand, and it’s not realistic to expect clinicians to perform an HRA every 6 months like the study team did. There need to be algorithms put in place to help practitioners figure out who among their patients living with HIV could benefit from this increased screening, as well as biomarkers to identify HSIL progression and regression without the use of HRA, Dr. Palefsky told attendees. And more clinicians need to be recruited and trained to read HRAs, which can be difficult for the untrained eye to decipher.

Dr. Malebranche added another, more fundamental thing that needs to be built. Dr. Malebranche has worked in HIV clinics where the majority of his patients qualify for insurance under the Ryan White Program and get their medications through the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. While Ryan White programs can provide critical wraparound care, Dr. Malebranche has had to refer out for something like an HRA or cancer treatment. But the people who only access care through such programs may not have coverage with the clinics that perform HRA or that treat cancer. And that’s if they can even find someone to see them.

“If I live in a state like Georgia, which doesn’t have Medicaid expansion and we have people who are uninsured, where do you send them?” Dr. Malebranche asked. “This isn’t theoretical. I ran into this problem when I was working at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation last year. ... This is a call for infrastructure.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Brooks reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Palefsky has received consultant fees from Merck, Vir Biotechnology, Virion Therapeutics, and Antiva Bioscience, as well as speaker fees from Merck. Dr. Malebranche has received consulting and advising fees from ViiV Healthcare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Loss of smell. Fatigue. Mental health challenges. Difficulty breathing and other lower respiratory diseases. Fluid and electrolyte disorders. Cardiac dysrhythmia and other nonspecific chest pains. Trouble with urination. Diabetes?

Statistically, these are the conditions that defined post-acute SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) infection, or long COVID, for 28,118 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR before the Omicron wave. The data, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, can be used to guide diagnoses of long COVID, and may be the guide soon at Kaiser Permanente offices, Michael Horberg, MD, executive director of research, community benefit, and Medicaid strategy at the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute, said in an interview.

Medscape Illustration/Dreamstime/Getty Images

More than 1 in 10

About one in four people who’d had COVID reported symptoms they thought might be long COVID, but through the analysis, they found that only 13% actually developed new conditions that could be categorized as long COVID.

“When you start controlling for all those chronic conditions, a lot of symptoms fall out,” Dr. Horberg told this news organization. “Plus, when you start comparing to the COVID-negative population, especially in the first 30 days of your positive diagnosis, actually, the COVID-negative patients have essentially almost the same amount, sometimes more.”

For instance, in the first month after diagnosis, though people with COVID reported anxiety symptoms after their diagnoses, people who’d never had COVID were coming in even more often with that symptom. And although gastrointestinal disorders were common in people who’d had COVID, they were just as likely in people who had not. Nausea and vomiting were actually 19% more common in people without COVID than in those with it. And people without COVID were nearly twice as likely to develop nutritional and endocrine disorders.

In the longer run, people who’d had COVID were 25% more likely to develop dysrhythmias, 20% more likely to develop diabetes, 60% more likely to develop fatigue, 21% more likely to develop genitourinary conditions, 39% more likely to develop chest pains, and a full 3.88 times more likely to develop trouble with olfaction.

And although people who’d had COVID were numerically 5% more likely to develop both abdominal pain and vertigo, 4% more likely to develop nervous system disorders, and 1% more likely to develop anxiety disorders longer term, none of those reached statistical significance.

The only diagnosis that doesn’t make sense to Dr. Horberg is diabetes.

“At this point I don’t think it’s been fully explained,” Dr. Horberg said. “I don’t think COVID is affecting the pancreas. But I do think that these are people who probably sought medical care, who hadn’t been seeking medical care and that the findings of diabetes were incidental diagnoses.”

Still, Dr. Horberg isn’t saying never on that. “As they say, more research is needed,” he added.
 

Ready to define long COVID?

As an intensive care unit physician and pulmonologist, Michael Risbano, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, has seen a lot of COVID. As the co-manager of the medical system’s post-COVID clinic, he’s also seen a lot of people coming in for help with what could be long COVID. When he saw the data from Dr. Horberg’s presentation, at first it seemed to confirm what he’d already known. But then he looked further.

“Well, this is actually making sense,” Dr. Risbano thought. At his clinic, it’s been an ongoing challenge to tease out what symptoms existed before COVID. Unlike Kaiser, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is not a closed system.

“We know some people who tend to get sick [with COVID] have some underlying medical issues already,” Dr. Risbano said in an interview. “But we don’t always have a good baseline as to what they were like beforehand, so we don’t always know what’s changed.”

He said the study design here, though retrospective and based on chart review rather than prospective observation, starts to put symptoms into the larger context of a patient’s life. And the diabetes association really stood out to him. He recalled one patient who, when she was admitted to the ICU, had a hemoglobin A1c that was totally normal. But when that patient returned a few months later, her blood sugar had skyrocketed.

“It was sky-high, like 13, and she was in diabetic ketoacidosis,” he said. “I know that’s an N of 1, but my wife is a dietitian and a case manager, and she’s having a lot of people coming in with a new diagnosis of diabetes.”

Still, he said he’s not sure that the conditions the study identified should be the basis for a definition of long COVID.

“I don’t know if you can come up with a definition out of this,” he said. “But I think this is at least helpful in telling us what disease states are different pre- and post-COVID, and what sorts of diagnoses clinicians should look for when a patient comes in after having a COVID diagnosis.”

Dr. Horberg and Dr. Risbano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Loss of smell. Fatigue. Mental health challenges. Difficulty breathing and other lower respiratory diseases. Fluid and electrolyte disorders. Cardiac dysrhythmia and other nonspecific chest pains. Trouble with urination. Diabetes?

Statistically, these are the conditions that defined post-acute SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) infection, or long COVID, for 28,118 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR before the Omicron wave. The data, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, can be used to guide diagnoses of long COVID, and may be the guide soon at Kaiser Permanente offices, Michael Horberg, MD, executive director of research, community benefit, and Medicaid strategy at the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute, said in an interview.

Medscape Illustration/Dreamstime/Getty Images

More than 1 in 10

About one in four people who’d had COVID reported symptoms they thought might be long COVID, but through the analysis, they found that only 13% actually developed new conditions that could be categorized as long COVID.

“When you start controlling for all those chronic conditions, a lot of symptoms fall out,” Dr. Horberg told this news organization. “Plus, when you start comparing to the COVID-negative population, especially in the first 30 days of your positive diagnosis, actually, the COVID-negative patients have essentially almost the same amount, sometimes more.”

For instance, in the first month after diagnosis, though people with COVID reported anxiety symptoms after their diagnoses, people who’d never had COVID were coming in even more often with that symptom. And although gastrointestinal disorders were common in people who’d had COVID, they were just as likely in people who had not. Nausea and vomiting were actually 19% more common in people without COVID than in those with it. And people without COVID were nearly twice as likely to develop nutritional and endocrine disorders.

In the longer run, people who’d had COVID were 25% more likely to develop dysrhythmias, 20% more likely to develop diabetes, 60% more likely to develop fatigue, 21% more likely to develop genitourinary conditions, 39% more likely to develop chest pains, and a full 3.88 times more likely to develop trouble with olfaction.

And although people who’d had COVID were numerically 5% more likely to develop both abdominal pain and vertigo, 4% more likely to develop nervous system disorders, and 1% more likely to develop anxiety disorders longer term, none of those reached statistical significance.

The only diagnosis that doesn’t make sense to Dr. Horberg is diabetes.

“At this point I don’t think it’s been fully explained,” Dr. Horberg said. “I don’t think COVID is affecting the pancreas. But I do think that these are people who probably sought medical care, who hadn’t been seeking medical care and that the findings of diabetes were incidental diagnoses.”

Still, Dr. Horberg isn’t saying never on that. “As they say, more research is needed,” he added.
 

Ready to define long COVID?

As an intensive care unit physician and pulmonologist, Michael Risbano, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, has seen a lot of COVID. As the co-manager of the medical system’s post-COVID clinic, he’s also seen a lot of people coming in for help with what could be long COVID. When he saw the data from Dr. Horberg’s presentation, at first it seemed to confirm what he’d already known. But then he looked further.

“Well, this is actually making sense,” Dr. Risbano thought. At his clinic, it’s been an ongoing challenge to tease out what symptoms existed before COVID. Unlike Kaiser, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is not a closed system.

“We know some people who tend to get sick [with COVID] have some underlying medical issues already,” Dr. Risbano said in an interview. “But we don’t always have a good baseline as to what they were like beforehand, so we don’t always know what’s changed.”

He said the study design here, though retrospective and based on chart review rather than prospective observation, starts to put symptoms into the larger context of a patient’s life. And the diabetes association really stood out to him. He recalled one patient who, when she was admitted to the ICU, had a hemoglobin A1c that was totally normal. But when that patient returned a few months later, her blood sugar had skyrocketed.

“It was sky-high, like 13, and she was in diabetic ketoacidosis,” he said. “I know that’s an N of 1, but my wife is a dietitian and a case manager, and she’s having a lot of people coming in with a new diagnosis of diabetes.”

Still, he said he’s not sure that the conditions the study identified should be the basis for a definition of long COVID.

“I don’t know if you can come up with a definition out of this,” he said. “But I think this is at least helpful in telling us what disease states are different pre- and post-COVID, and what sorts of diagnoses clinicians should look for when a patient comes in after having a COVID diagnosis.”

Dr. Horberg and Dr. Risbano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Loss of smell. Fatigue. Mental health challenges. Difficulty breathing and other lower respiratory diseases. Fluid and electrolyte disorders. Cardiac dysrhythmia and other nonspecific chest pains. Trouble with urination. Diabetes?

Statistically, these are the conditions that defined post-acute SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) infection, or long COVID, for 28,118 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR before the Omicron wave. The data, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, can be used to guide diagnoses of long COVID, and may be the guide soon at Kaiser Permanente offices, Michael Horberg, MD, executive director of research, community benefit, and Medicaid strategy at the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute, said in an interview.

Medscape Illustration/Dreamstime/Getty Images

More than 1 in 10

About one in four people who’d had COVID reported symptoms they thought might be long COVID, but through the analysis, they found that only 13% actually developed new conditions that could be categorized as long COVID.

“When you start controlling for all those chronic conditions, a lot of symptoms fall out,” Dr. Horberg told this news organization. “Plus, when you start comparing to the COVID-negative population, especially in the first 30 days of your positive diagnosis, actually, the COVID-negative patients have essentially almost the same amount, sometimes more.”

For instance, in the first month after diagnosis, though people with COVID reported anxiety symptoms after their diagnoses, people who’d never had COVID were coming in even more often with that symptom. And although gastrointestinal disorders were common in people who’d had COVID, they were just as likely in people who had not. Nausea and vomiting were actually 19% more common in people without COVID than in those with it. And people without COVID were nearly twice as likely to develop nutritional and endocrine disorders.

In the longer run, people who’d had COVID were 25% more likely to develop dysrhythmias, 20% more likely to develop diabetes, 60% more likely to develop fatigue, 21% more likely to develop genitourinary conditions, 39% more likely to develop chest pains, and a full 3.88 times more likely to develop trouble with olfaction.

And although people who’d had COVID were numerically 5% more likely to develop both abdominal pain and vertigo, 4% more likely to develop nervous system disorders, and 1% more likely to develop anxiety disorders longer term, none of those reached statistical significance.

The only diagnosis that doesn’t make sense to Dr. Horberg is diabetes.

“At this point I don’t think it’s been fully explained,” Dr. Horberg said. “I don’t think COVID is affecting the pancreas. But I do think that these are people who probably sought medical care, who hadn’t been seeking medical care and that the findings of diabetes were incidental diagnoses.”

Still, Dr. Horberg isn’t saying never on that. “As they say, more research is needed,” he added.
 

Ready to define long COVID?

As an intensive care unit physician and pulmonologist, Michael Risbano, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, has seen a lot of COVID. As the co-manager of the medical system’s post-COVID clinic, he’s also seen a lot of people coming in for help with what could be long COVID. When he saw the data from Dr. Horberg’s presentation, at first it seemed to confirm what he’d already known. But then he looked further.

“Well, this is actually making sense,” Dr. Risbano thought. At his clinic, it’s been an ongoing challenge to tease out what symptoms existed before COVID. Unlike Kaiser, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is not a closed system.

“We know some people who tend to get sick [with COVID] have some underlying medical issues already,” Dr. Risbano said in an interview. “But we don’t always have a good baseline as to what they were like beforehand, so we don’t always know what’s changed.”

He said the study design here, though retrospective and based on chart review rather than prospective observation, starts to put symptoms into the larger context of a patient’s life. And the diabetes association really stood out to him. He recalled one patient who, when she was admitted to the ICU, had a hemoglobin A1c that was totally normal. But when that patient returned a few months later, her blood sugar had skyrocketed.

“It was sky-high, like 13, and she was in diabetic ketoacidosis,” he said. “I know that’s an N of 1, but my wife is a dietitian and a case manager, and she’s having a lot of people coming in with a new diagnosis of diabetes.”

Still, he said he’s not sure that the conditions the study identified should be the basis for a definition of long COVID.

“I don’t know if you can come up with a definition out of this,” he said. “But I think this is at least helpful in telling us what disease states are different pre- and post-COVID, and what sorts of diagnoses clinicians should look for when a patient comes in after having a COVID diagnosis.”

Dr. Horberg and Dr. Risbano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hours after their births, 34 infants began a three-drug combination HIV treatment. Now, 2 years later, a third of those toddlers have tested negative for HIV antibodies and have no detectable HIV DNA in their blood. The children aren’t cured of HIV, but as many as 16 of them may be candidates to stop treatment and see if they are in fact in HIV remission.

If one or more are, it would be the first time since the Mississippi baby in 2013 that scientists have induced childhood HIV remission by beginning HIV treatment very early.    

At the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Deborah Persaud, MD, interim director of pediatric infectious diseases and professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md., told this news organization that the evidence suggests that more U.S. clinicians should start infants at high risk for HIV on presumptive treatment – not only to potentially prevent transmission but also to set the child up for the lowest possible viral reservoir, the first step to HIV remission.

The three-drug preemptive treatment is “not uniformly practiced,” Dr. Persaud said in an interview. “We’re at a point now where we don’t have to wait to see if we have remission” to act on these findings, she said. “The question is, should this now become standard of care for in-utero infected infants?” 

Every year, about 150 infants are born with HIV in the United States, according to the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. Current U.S. perinatal treatment guidelines already suggest either treatment with one or more HIV drugs at birth to attempt preventing transmission or initiating three-drug regimens for infants at high risk for perinatally acquired HIV. In this case “high risk” is defined as infants born to:

• people who haven’t received any HIV treatment before delivery or during delivery,
• people who did receive treatment but failed to achieve undetectable viral loads, or
• people who acquire HIV during pregnancy, or who otherwise weren’t diagnosed until after birth.

Trying to replicate the Mississippi baby

The Mississippi baby did eventually relapse. But ever since Dr. Persaud reported the case of that 2-year-old who went into treatment-free remission in 2013, she has been trying to figure out how to duplicate that initial success. There were several factors in that remission, but one piece researchers could control was starting treatment very early – before HIV blood tests even come back positive. So, in this trial, researchers enrolled 440 infants in Africa and Asia at high risk for in utero HIV transmission.

All 440 of those infants received their first doses of the three-drug preemptive treatment within 24 hours of birth. Of those 440 infants, 34 tested positive for HIV and remained in the trial.*

Meanwhile, in North America, South America, and African countries, another 20 infants enrolled in the trial – not as part of the protocol but because their clinicians had been influenced by the news of the Mississippi baby, Dr. Persaud said, and decided on their own to start high-risk infants on three-drug regimens preemptively.

“We wanted to take advantage of those real-world situations of infants being treated outside the clinical trials,” Dr. Persaud said.

Now there were 54 infants trying this very early treatment. In Cohort One, they started their first drug cocktail 7 hours after delivery. In Cohort Two, their first antiretroviral combination treatment was at 32.8 hours of life, and they enrolled in the trial at 8 days. Then researchers followed the infants closely, adding on lopinavir and ritonavir when age-appropriate.
 

Meeting milestones

To continue in the trial and be considered for treatment interruption, infants had to meet certain milestones. At 24 weeks, HIV RNA needed to be below 200 copies per milliliter. Then their HIV RNA needed to stay below 200 copies consistently until week 48. At week 48, they had to have an HIV RNA that was even lower – below 20 or 40 copies – with “target not detected” in the test in HIV RNA. That’s a sign that there weren’t even any trace levels of viral nucleic acid RNA in the blood to indicate HIV. Then, from week 48 on, they had to maintain that level of viral suppression until age 2.

At that point, not only did they need to maintain that level of viral suppression, they also needed to have a negative HIV antibody test and a PCR test for total HIV DNA, which had to be undetectable down to the limit of 4 copies per 106 – that is, there were fewer than 4 copies of the virus out of 1 million cells tested. Only then would they be considered for treatment interruption.

“After week 28 there was no leeway,” Dr. Persaud said. Then “they had to have nothing detectable from the first year of age. We thought the best shot at remission were cases that achieved very good and strict virologic control.”

 

Criteria for consideration

Of the 34 infants in Cohort One, 24 infants made it past the first hurdle at 24 weeks and 6 had PCR tests that found no cell-associated HIV DNA. In Cohort Two, 15 made it past the week-24 hurdle and 4 had no detectable HIV DNA via PCR test.

Now, more than 2 years out from study initiation, Dr. Persaud and colleagues are evaluating each child to see if any still meet the requirements for treatment interruption. The COVID-19 pandemic has delayed their evaluations, and it’s possible that fewer children now meet the requirements. But Dr. Persaud said there are still candidates left. An analysis suggests that up to 30% of the children, or 16, were candidates at 2 years.

“We have kids who are eligible for [antiretroviral therapy] cessation years out from this, which I think is really important,” she said in an interview. “It’s not game over.”

And although 30% is not an overwhelming victory, Dr. Persaud said the team’s goal was “to identify an N of 1 to replicate the Mississippi baby.” The study team, led by Ellen Chadwick, MD, of Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, and a member of the board that creates HIV perinatal treatment guidelines, is starting a new trial, using more modern, integrase inhibitor-based, three-drug regimens for infants and pairing them with broadly neutralizing antibodies. The combination used in this trial included zidovudine, or AZT.

If one of the children is able to go off treatment, it would be the first step toward creating a functional cure for HIV, starting with the youngest people affected by the virus.  

“This trial convinces me that very early treatment was the key strategy that led to remission in the Mississippi baby,” Dr. Persaud said in an interview. “We’re confirming here that the first step toward remission and cure is reducing reservoirs. We’ve got that here. Whether we need more on top of that – therapeutic vaccines, immunotherapies, or a better regimen to start out with – needs to be determined.”

The presentation was met with excitement and questions. For instance, if very early treatment works, why does it work for just 30% of the children?

Were some of the children able to control HIV on their own because they were rare post-treatment controllers? And was 30% really a victory? Others were convinced of it.

“Amazing outcome to have 30% so well suppressed after 2 years with CA-DNA not detected,” commented Hermione Lyall, MBChB, a pediatric infectious disease doctor at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in the United Kingdom, in the virtual chat.

As for whether the study should change practice, Elaine Abrams, MD, professor of epidemiology and pediatrics at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and CROI cochair, said that this study proves that the three-drug regimen is at the very least safe to start immediately.

Whether it should become standard of care everywhere is still up for discussion, she told this news organization.

“It very much depends on what you’re trying to achieve,” she said. “Postnatal prophylaxis is provided to reduce the risk of acquiring infection. That’s a different objective than early treatment. If you have 1,000 high-risk babies, how many are likely to turn out to have HIV infection? And how many of those will you be treating with three drugs and actually making this impact by doing so? And how many babies are going to be getting possibly extra treatment that they don’t need?”

Regardless, what’s clear is that treatment is essential – for mother and infant, said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. It needs to start, he said, by making sure all mothers know their HIV status and have access early in pregnancy to the treatment that can prevent transmission.

“So much of what’s wrong in the world is about implementation of health care,” he said in an interview. Still, “if you could demonstrate that early treatment to the mother plus early treatment to the babies [is efficacious], we could really talk about an HIV-free generation of kids.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Persaud, Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Abrams, and Dr. Lyall all report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 2/16/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the number that tested positive for HIV and remained in the trial.

This article was updated 2/16/22.

Hours after their births, 34 infants began a three-drug combination HIV treatment. Now, 2 years later, a third of those toddlers have tested negative for HIV antibodies and have no detectable HIV DNA in their blood. The children aren’t cured of HIV, but as many as 16 of them may be candidates to stop treatment and see if they are in fact in HIV remission.

If one or more are, it would be the first time since the Mississippi baby in 2013 that scientists have induced childhood HIV remission by beginning HIV treatment very early.    

At the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Deborah Persaud, MD, interim director of pediatric infectious diseases and professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md., told this news organization that the evidence suggests that more U.S. clinicians should start infants at high risk for HIV on presumptive treatment – not only to potentially prevent transmission but also to set the child up for the lowest possible viral reservoir, the first step to HIV remission.

The three-drug preemptive treatment is “not uniformly practiced,” Dr. Persaud said in an interview. “We’re at a point now where we don’t have to wait to see if we have remission” to act on these findings, she said. “The question is, should this now become standard of care for in-utero infected infants?” 

Every year, about 150 infants are born with HIV in the United States, according to the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. Current U.S. perinatal treatment guidelines already suggest either treatment with one or more HIV drugs at birth to attempt preventing transmission or initiating three-drug regimens for infants at high risk for perinatally acquired HIV. In this case “high risk” is defined as infants born to:

• people who haven’t received any HIV treatment before delivery or during delivery,
• people who did receive treatment but failed to achieve undetectable viral loads, or
• people who acquire HIV during pregnancy, or who otherwise weren’t diagnosed until after birth.

Trying to replicate the Mississippi baby

The Mississippi baby did eventually relapse. But ever since Dr. Persaud reported the case of that 2-year-old who went into treatment-free remission in 2013, she has been trying to figure out how to duplicate that initial success. There were several factors in that remission, but one piece researchers could control was starting treatment very early – before HIV blood tests even come back positive. So, in this trial, researchers enrolled 440 infants in Africa and Asia at high risk for in utero HIV transmission.

All 440 of those infants received their first doses of the three-drug preemptive treatment within 24 hours of birth. Of those 440 infants, 34 tested positive for HIV and remained in the trial.*

Meanwhile, in North America, South America, and African countries, another 20 infants enrolled in the trial – not as part of the protocol but because their clinicians had been influenced by the news of the Mississippi baby, Dr. Persaud said, and decided on their own to start high-risk infants on three-drug regimens preemptively.

“We wanted to take advantage of those real-world situations of infants being treated outside the clinical trials,” Dr. Persaud said.

Now there were 54 infants trying this very early treatment. In Cohort One, they started their first drug cocktail 7 hours after delivery. In Cohort Two, their first antiretroviral combination treatment was at 32.8 hours of life, and they enrolled in the trial at 8 days. Then researchers followed the infants closely, adding on lopinavir and ritonavir when age-appropriate.
 

Meeting milestones

To continue in the trial and be considered for treatment interruption, infants had to meet certain milestones. At 24 weeks, HIV RNA needed to be below 200 copies per milliliter. Then their HIV RNA needed to stay below 200 copies consistently until week 48. At week 48, they had to have an HIV RNA that was even lower – below 20 or 40 copies – with “target not detected” in the test in HIV RNA. That’s a sign that there weren’t even any trace levels of viral nucleic acid RNA in the blood to indicate HIV. Then, from week 48 on, they had to maintain that level of viral suppression until age 2.

At that point, not only did they need to maintain that level of viral suppression, they also needed to have a negative HIV antibody test and a PCR test for total HIV DNA, which had to be undetectable down to the limit of 4 copies per 106 – that is, there were fewer than 4 copies of the virus out of 1 million cells tested. Only then would they be considered for treatment interruption.

“After week 28 there was no leeway,” Dr. Persaud said. Then “they had to have nothing detectable from the first year of age. We thought the best shot at remission were cases that achieved very good and strict virologic control.”

 

Criteria for consideration

Of the 34 infants in Cohort One, 24 infants made it past the first hurdle at 24 weeks and 6 had PCR tests that found no cell-associated HIV DNA. In Cohort Two, 15 made it past the week-24 hurdle and 4 had no detectable HIV DNA via PCR test.

Now, more than 2 years out from study initiation, Dr. Persaud and colleagues are evaluating each child to see if any still meet the requirements for treatment interruption. The COVID-19 pandemic has delayed their evaluations, and it’s possible that fewer children now meet the requirements. But Dr. Persaud said there are still candidates left. An analysis suggests that up to 30% of the children, or 16, were candidates at 2 years.

“We have kids who are eligible for [antiretroviral therapy] cessation years out from this, which I think is really important,” she said in an interview. “It’s not game over.”

And although 30% is not an overwhelming victory, Dr. Persaud said the team’s goal was “to identify an N of 1 to replicate the Mississippi baby.” The study team, led by Ellen Chadwick, MD, of Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, and a member of the board that creates HIV perinatal treatment guidelines, is starting a new trial, using more modern, integrase inhibitor-based, three-drug regimens for infants and pairing them with broadly neutralizing antibodies. The combination used in this trial included zidovudine, or AZT.

If one of the children is able to go off treatment, it would be the first step toward creating a functional cure for HIV, starting with the youngest people affected by the virus.  

“This trial convinces me that very early treatment was the key strategy that led to remission in the Mississippi baby,” Dr. Persaud said in an interview. “We’re confirming here that the first step toward remission and cure is reducing reservoirs. We’ve got that here. Whether we need more on top of that – therapeutic vaccines, immunotherapies, or a better regimen to start out with – needs to be determined.”

The presentation was met with excitement and questions. For instance, if very early treatment works, why does it work for just 30% of the children?

Were some of the children able to control HIV on their own because they were rare post-treatment controllers? And was 30% really a victory? Others were convinced of it.

“Amazing outcome to have 30% so well suppressed after 2 years with CA-DNA not detected,” commented Hermione Lyall, MBChB, a pediatric infectious disease doctor at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in the United Kingdom, in the virtual chat.

As for whether the study should change practice, Elaine Abrams, MD, professor of epidemiology and pediatrics at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and CROI cochair, said that this study proves that the three-drug regimen is at the very least safe to start immediately.

Whether it should become standard of care everywhere is still up for discussion, she told this news organization.

“It very much depends on what you’re trying to achieve,” she said. “Postnatal prophylaxis is provided to reduce the risk of acquiring infection. That’s a different objective than early treatment. If you have 1,000 high-risk babies, how many are likely to turn out to have HIV infection? And how many of those will you be treating with three drugs and actually making this impact by doing so? And how many babies are going to be getting possibly extra treatment that they don’t need?”

Regardless, what’s clear is that treatment is essential – for mother and infant, said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. It needs to start, he said, by making sure all mothers know their HIV status and have access early in pregnancy to the treatment that can prevent transmission.

“So much of what’s wrong in the world is about implementation of health care,” he said in an interview. Still, “if you could demonstrate that early treatment to the mother plus early treatment to the babies [is efficacious], we could really talk about an HIV-free generation of kids.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Persaud, Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Abrams, and Dr. Lyall all report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 2/16/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the number that tested positive for HIV and remained in the trial.

This article was updated 2/16/22.

Hours after their births, 34 infants began a three-drug combination HIV treatment. Now, 2 years later, a third of those toddlers have tested negative for HIV antibodies and have no detectable HIV DNA in their blood. The children aren’t cured of HIV, but as many as 16 of them may be candidates to stop treatment and see if they are in fact in HIV remission.

If one or more are, it would be the first time since the Mississippi baby in 2013 that scientists have induced childhood HIV remission by beginning HIV treatment very early.    

At the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Deborah Persaud, MD, interim director of pediatric infectious diseases and professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md., told this news organization that the evidence suggests that more U.S. clinicians should start infants at high risk for HIV on presumptive treatment – not only to potentially prevent transmission but also to set the child up for the lowest possible viral reservoir, the first step to HIV remission.

The three-drug preemptive treatment is “not uniformly practiced,” Dr. Persaud said in an interview. “We’re at a point now where we don’t have to wait to see if we have remission” to act on these findings, she said. “The question is, should this now become standard of care for in-utero infected infants?” 

Every year, about 150 infants are born with HIV in the United States, according to the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. Current U.S. perinatal treatment guidelines already suggest either treatment with one or more HIV drugs at birth to attempt preventing transmission or initiating three-drug regimens for infants at high risk for perinatally acquired HIV. In this case “high risk” is defined as infants born to:

• people who haven’t received any HIV treatment before delivery or during delivery,
• people who did receive treatment but failed to achieve undetectable viral loads, or
• people who acquire HIV during pregnancy, or who otherwise weren’t diagnosed until after birth.

Trying to replicate the Mississippi baby

The Mississippi baby did eventually relapse. But ever since Dr. Persaud reported the case of that 2-year-old who went into treatment-free remission in 2013, she has been trying to figure out how to duplicate that initial success. There were several factors in that remission, but one piece researchers could control was starting treatment very early – before HIV blood tests even come back positive. So, in this trial, researchers enrolled 440 infants in Africa and Asia at high risk for in utero HIV transmission.

All 440 of those infants received their first doses of the three-drug preemptive treatment within 24 hours of birth. Of those 440 infants, 34 tested positive for HIV and remained in the trial.*

Meanwhile, in North America, South America, and African countries, another 20 infants enrolled in the trial – not as part of the protocol but because their clinicians had been influenced by the news of the Mississippi baby, Dr. Persaud said, and decided on their own to start high-risk infants on three-drug regimens preemptively.

“We wanted to take advantage of those real-world situations of infants being treated outside the clinical trials,” Dr. Persaud said.

Now there were 54 infants trying this very early treatment. In Cohort One, they started their first drug cocktail 7 hours after delivery. In Cohort Two, their first antiretroviral combination treatment was at 32.8 hours of life, and they enrolled in the trial at 8 days. Then researchers followed the infants closely, adding on lopinavir and ritonavir when age-appropriate.
 

Meeting milestones

To continue in the trial and be considered for treatment interruption, infants had to meet certain milestones. At 24 weeks, HIV RNA needed to be below 200 copies per milliliter. Then their HIV RNA needed to stay below 200 copies consistently until week 48. At week 48, they had to have an HIV RNA that was even lower – below 20 or 40 copies – with “target not detected” in the test in HIV RNA. That’s a sign that there weren’t even any trace levels of viral nucleic acid RNA in the blood to indicate HIV. Then, from week 48 on, they had to maintain that level of viral suppression until age 2.

At that point, not only did they need to maintain that level of viral suppression, they also needed to have a negative HIV antibody test and a PCR test for total HIV DNA, which had to be undetectable down to the limit of 4 copies per 106 – that is, there were fewer than 4 copies of the virus out of 1 million cells tested. Only then would they be considered for treatment interruption.

“After week 28 there was no leeway,” Dr. Persaud said. Then “they had to have nothing detectable from the first year of age. We thought the best shot at remission were cases that achieved very good and strict virologic control.”

 

Criteria for consideration

Of the 34 infants in Cohort One, 24 infants made it past the first hurdle at 24 weeks and 6 had PCR tests that found no cell-associated HIV DNA. In Cohort Two, 15 made it past the week-24 hurdle and 4 had no detectable HIV DNA via PCR test.

Now, more than 2 years out from study initiation, Dr. Persaud and colleagues are evaluating each child to see if any still meet the requirements for treatment interruption. The COVID-19 pandemic has delayed their evaluations, and it’s possible that fewer children now meet the requirements. But Dr. Persaud said there are still candidates left. An analysis suggests that up to 30% of the children, or 16, were candidates at 2 years.

“We have kids who are eligible for [antiretroviral therapy] cessation years out from this, which I think is really important,” she said in an interview. “It’s not game over.”

And although 30% is not an overwhelming victory, Dr. Persaud said the team’s goal was “to identify an N of 1 to replicate the Mississippi baby.” The study team, led by Ellen Chadwick, MD, of Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, and a member of the board that creates HIV perinatal treatment guidelines, is starting a new trial, using more modern, integrase inhibitor-based, three-drug regimens for infants and pairing them with broadly neutralizing antibodies. The combination used in this trial included zidovudine, or AZT.

If one of the children is able to go off treatment, it would be the first step toward creating a functional cure for HIV, starting with the youngest people affected by the virus.  

“This trial convinces me that very early treatment was the key strategy that led to remission in the Mississippi baby,” Dr. Persaud said in an interview. “We’re confirming here that the first step toward remission and cure is reducing reservoirs. We’ve got that here. Whether we need more on top of that – therapeutic vaccines, immunotherapies, or a better regimen to start out with – needs to be determined.”

The presentation was met with excitement and questions. For instance, if very early treatment works, why does it work for just 30% of the children?

Were some of the children able to control HIV on their own because they were rare post-treatment controllers? And was 30% really a victory? Others were convinced of it.

“Amazing outcome to have 30% so well suppressed after 2 years with CA-DNA not detected,” commented Hermione Lyall, MBChB, a pediatric infectious disease doctor at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in the United Kingdom, in the virtual chat.

As for whether the study should change practice, Elaine Abrams, MD, professor of epidemiology and pediatrics at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and CROI cochair, said that this study proves that the three-drug regimen is at the very least safe to start immediately.

Whether it should become standard of care everywhere is still up for discussion, she told this news organization.

“It very much depends on what you’re trying to achieve,” she said. “Postnatal prophylaxis is provided to reduce the risk of acquiring infection. That’s a different objective than early treatment. If you have 1,000 high-risk babies, how many are likely to turn out to have HIV infection? And how many of those will you be treating with three drugs and actually making this impact by doing so? And how many babies are going to be getting possibly extra treatment that they don’t need?”

Regardless, what’s clear is that treatment is essential – for mother and infant, said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. It needs to start, he said, by making sure all mothers know their HIV status and have access early in pregnancy to the treatment that can prevent transmission.

“So much of what’s wrong in the world is about implementation of health care,” he said in an interview. Still, “if you could demonstrate that early treatment to the mother plus early treatment to the babies [is efficacious], we could really talk about an HIV-free generation of kids.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Persaud, Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Abrams, and Dr. Lyall all report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 2/16/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the number that tested positive for HIV and remained in the trial.

This article was updated 2/16/22.

In a first, a middle-aged woman has been in remission from HIV for 14 months after being treated for leukemia with transplants of adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood. If she remains off treatment without any hint of HIV, she would be only the third person in the world – after the Berlin Patient and the London Patient – to be cured through a transplant.

“Her own virus could not infect her cells,” said Yvonne Bryson, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles, who presented the study at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which both presenters and the audience attended remotely.

The middle-aged New York woman of mixed race, who has asked that her specific race and age not be shared to protect her privacy, was diagnosed with HIV in 2013 when she was still in the very early stages of infection. She started treatment immediately and quickly achieved an undetectable viral load. An undetectable viral load not only prevents someone from transmitting HIV to others but also reduces or eliminates HIV replication, which means fewer variants and less time for the virus to infiltrate cells where it can hide.

But in 2017, she was diagnosed with leukemia. As a last resort to cure her of the cancer, she received a combination of adult stem cells from a relative’s blood that closely matched her own and umbilical cord blood obtained from a cord blood bank. That particular sample of cord blood was selected for its genetic mutation against the CCR5 receptor on immune cells, CD4 T cells. That mutation makes the immune system resistant to HIV.

The two previous HIV cures, of Berlin Patient Timothy Ray Brown and London Patient Adam Castillejo, also used stem cell transplantation with a CCR5 mutation, but theirs were bone marrow transplants. Bone marrow transplants are more arduous than cord blood transplants, which are commonly used in pediatric cancer treatment.

In this case, the physicians treating her used both.

“This allows the adult cells to accelerate and grow up until the cord blood takes over,” said Dr. Bryson. During her presentation, Dr. Bryson pointed to two types of data: First, she presented data showing the level of HIV in the patient’s blood. Soon after HIV diagnosis and treatment, her viral load dropped to undetectable levels. She had a spike of virus when she received the transplant, but then it went back to undetectable and has stayed that way ever since.

Meanwhile, following the transplant, her immune system started rebuilding itself using the new, HIV-resistant cells provided in the transplant. As her care team watched, no graft-versus-host (GVH) disease, a common side effect of stem cell transplants, emerged. In fact, the transplant went so well that she was discharged early from the hospital.

One hundred days after the transplant, the immune system contained within the cord blood had taken over. Her CD4 immune cells returned to normal levels a little more than a year after the transplant. By 27 months, she decided to stop all HIV treatment to see if the transplant had worked.

This was the real test. But as Dr. Bryson and colleagues continued to watch her HIV viral load and her CD4 counts and search for infectious virus, they didn’t find any. She tested negative for HIV by antibody test. Dr. Bryson grew 75 million of her cells in a lab to look for any HIV. None. Aside from one blip in detectable HIV DNA at 14 weeks, researchers never found HIV in the patient again.

“Her cells are resistant to HIV now – both her own strains and laboratory strains,” Dr. Bryson told this news organization. “It’s been 14 months since then. She has no rebound and no detectable virus.”

The presentation drew as raucous as praise gets in a virtual environment. The comments began pouring in.

“Impressive results,” wrote Jim Hoxie, MD, professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Exciting case,” wrote Allison Agwu, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

And Dennis Copertino, a research specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, wrote: “Thank you so much for translating this important cure strategy to people of color.”

Most donors with CCR5 mutations are White, Dr. Bryson said, suggesting that this approach, in a mixed-race woman, could expand the pool of people living with HIV and cancer who are good candidates for the approach.

But other observers had questions, ones that may require more research to answer. Some asked why this woman’s virus, after transplantation, wasn’t just immune to viruses with CCR5 but also another variant, called CXCR4, that one wouldn’t expect. Luis Montaner, DVM, director of the Immunopathogenesis Laboratory at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, wondered whether it was more than the blood that had cleared HIV. Did it get into the tissue, too? That question has not yet been answered.

For Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the lack of GVH disease was a powerful and hopeful finding.

“There’s been this ongoing hypothesis that maybe graft-versus-host disease was needed at some level to help clear out every last single CD4+ T cell that may or may not have been harboring replication-competent virus,” Dr. Dieffenbach said in an interview. “But there was no GVH disease. That’s incredible. It’s a wonderful thing.”

Now the challenge is to move from a single case to making cure available to other people living with HIV.

The case also got cure researchers thinking.

Dr. Montaner called the case “an encouraging roadmap supporting anti-CCR5 strategies by CRISPR Cas9,” studies that are now underway.

Steven Deeks, MD, called the case “perhaps a model for how we might do this using a person’s own cells. Because we were never really going to be transplanting cells from another person as a scalable cure.”

For people living with HIV, particularly women of color, the results raise hopes and questions. Nina Martinez knows something about being a “first.” In 2019, she was the first American woman of color living with HIV to donate a kidney to another person living with the virus. To her, the excitement over the first woman of color being cured of HIV just shines a light on how very White and male HIV cure studies have been until now.

“For me, I’m not looking for a cure in which the successful step forward is me getting cancer,” she said in an interview. “I’m looking at, what’s going to be sustainable? I want to know what’s going to work for a group of people.”

Gina Marie Brown, a social worker living with HIV in New Orleans, is also thinking of groups of people.

“Every time we get a breakthrough, it’s like the sun is taken from behind the clouds a little more,” said Ms. Brown. “I think about people in the South, who bear a huge burden of HIV. I think about trans women. I think about Black women, and gay, bisexual, and same-gender-loving men. This could really impact HIV – in the same way that PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] has, the same way that one pill once a day has.”

When Ms. Brown was diagnosed with HIV 22 years ago, she started to plan her funeral.

“That’s how much I thought HIV was a death sentence,” she told this news organization. “Oh my goodness! Glad you stuck around, Gina.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Bryson, Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Deeks, and Dr. Montaner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a first, a middle-aged woman has been in remission from HIV for 14 months after being treated for leukemia with transplants of adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood. If she remains off treatment without any hint of HIV, she would be only the third person in the world – after the Berlin Patient and the London Patient – to be cured through a transplant.

“Her own virus could not infect her cells,” said Yvonne Bryson, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles, who presented the study at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which both presenters and the audience attended remotely.

The middle-aged New York woman of mixed race, who has asked that her specific race and age not be shared to protect her privacy, was diagnosed with HIV in 2013 when she was still in the very early stages of infection. She started treatment immediately and quickly achieved an undetectable viral load. An undetectable viral load not only prevents someone from transmitting HIV to others but also reduces or eliminates HIV replication, which means fewer variants and less time for the virus to infiltrate cells where it can hide.

But in 2017, she was diagnosed with leukemia. As a last resort to cure her of the cancer, she received a combination of adult stem cells from a relative’s blood that closely matched her own and umbilical cord blood obtained from a cord blood bank. That particular sample of cord blood was selected for its genetic mutation against the CCR5 receptor on immune cells, CD4 T cells. That mutation makes the immune system resistant to HIV.

The two previous HIV cures, of Berlin Patient Timothy Ray Brown and London Patient Adam Castillejo, also used stem cell transplantation with a CCR5 mutation, but theirs were bone marrow transplants. Bone marrow transplants are more arduous than cord blood transplants, which are commonly used in pediatric cancer treatment.

In this case, the physicians treating her used both.

“This allows the adult cells to accelerate and grow up until the cord blood takes over,” said Dr. Bryson. During her presentation, Dr. Bryson pointed to two types of data: First, she presented data showing the level of HIV in the patient’s blood. Soon after HIV diagnosis and treatment, her viral load dropped to undetectable levels. She had a spike of virus when she received the transplant, but then it went back to undetectable and has stayed that way ever since.

Meanwhile, following the transplant, her immune system started rebuilding itself using the new, HIV-resistant cells provided in the transplant. As her care team watched, no graft-versus-host (GVH) disease, a common side effect of stem cell transplants, emerged. In fact, the transplant went so well that she was discharged early from the hospital.

One hundred days after the transplant, the immune system contained within the cord blood had taken over. Her CD4 immune cells returned to normal levels a little more than a year after the transplant. By 27 months, she decided to stop all HIV treatment to see if the transplant had worked.

This was the real test. But as Dr. Bryson and colleagues continued to watch her HIV viral load and her CD4 counts and search for infectious virus, they didn’t find any. She tested negative for HIV by antibody test. Dr. Bryson grew 75 million of her cells in a lab to look for any HIV. None. Aside from one blip in detectable HIV DNA at 14 weeks, researchers never found HIV in the patient again.

“Her cells are resistant to HIV now – both her own strains and laboratory strains,” Dr. Bryson told this news organization. “It’s been 14 months since then. She has no rebound and no detectable virus.”

The presentation drew as raucous as praise gets in a virtual environment. The comments began pouring in.

“Impressive results,” wrote Jim Hoxie, MD, professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Exciting case,” wrote Allison Agwu, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

And Dennis Copertino, a research specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, wrote: “Thank you so much for translating this important cure strategy to people of color.”

Most donors with CCR5 mutations are White, Dr. Bryson said, suggesting that this approach, in a mixed-race woman, could expand the pool of people living with HIV and cancer who are good candidates for the approach.

But other observers had questions, ones that may require more research to answer. Some asked why this woman’s virus, after transplantation, wasn’t just immune to viruses with CCR5 but also another variant, called CXCR4, that one wouldn’t expect. Luis Montaner, DVM, director of the Immunopathogenesis Laboratory at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, wondered whether it was more than the blood that had cleared HIV. Did it get into the tissue, too? That question has not yet been answered.

For Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the lack of GVH disease was a powerful and hopeful finding.

“There’s been this ongoing hypothesis that maybe graft-versus-host disease was needed at some level to help clear out every last single CD4+ T cell that may or may not have been harboring replication-competent virus,” Dr. Dieffenbach said in an interview. “But there was no GVH disease. That’s incredible. It’s a wonderful thing.”

Now the challenge is to move from a single case to making cure available to other people living with HIV.

The case also got cure researchers thinking.

Dr. Montaner called the case “an encouraging roadmap supporting anti-CCR5 strategies by CRISPR Cas9,” studies that are now underway.

Steven Deeks, MD, called the case “perhaps a model for how we might do this using a person’s own cells. Because we were never really going to be transplanting cells from another person as a scalable cure.”

For people living with HIV, particularly women of color, the results raise hopes and questions. Nina Martinez knows something about being a “first.” In 2019, she was the first American woman of color living with HIV to donate a kidney to another person living with the virus. To her, the excitement over the first woman of color being cured of HIV just shines a light on how very White and male HIV cure studies have been until now.

“For me, I’m not looking for a cure in which the successful step forward is me getting cancer,” she said in an interview. “I’m looking at, what’s going to be sustainable? I want to know what’s going to work for a group of people.”

Gina Marie Brown, a social worker living with HIV in New Orleans, is also thinking of groups of people.

“Every time we get a breakthrough, it’s like the sun is taken from behind the clouds a little more,” said Ms. Brown. “I think about people in the South, who bear a huge burden of HIV. I think about trans women. I think about Black women, and gay, bisexual, and same-gender-loving men. This could really impact HIV – in the same way that PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] has, the same way that one pill once a day has.”

When Ms. Brown was diagnosed with HIV 22 years ago, she started to plan her funeral.

“That’s how much I thought HIV was a death sentence,” she told this news organization. “Oh my goodness! Glad you stuck around, Gina.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Bryson, Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Deeks, and Dr. Montaner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a first, a middle-aged woman has been in remission from HIV for 14 months after being treated for leukemia with transplants of adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood. If she remains off treatment without any hint of HIV, she would be only the third person in the world – after the Berlin Patient and the London Patient – to be cured through a transplant.

“Her own virus could not infect her cells,” said Yvonne Bryson, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles, who presented the study at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which both presenters and the audience attended remotely.

The middle-aged New York woman of mixed race, who has asked that her specific race and age not be shared to protect her privacy, was diagnosed with HIV in 2013 when she was still in the very early stages of infection. She started treatment immediately and quickly achieved an undetectable viral load. An undetectable viral load not only prevents someone from transmitting HIV to others but also reduces or eliminates HIV replication, which means fewer variants and less time for the virus to infiltrate cells where it can hide.

But in 2017, she was diagnosed with leukemia. As a last resort to cure her of the cancer, she received a combination of adult stem cells from a relative’s blood that closely matched her own and umbilical cord blood obtained from a cord blood bank. That particular sample of cord blood was selected for its genetic mutation against the CCR5 receptor on immune cells, CD4 T cells. That mutation makes the immune system resistant to HIV.

The two previous HIV cures, of Berlin Patient Timothy Ray Brown and London Patient Adam Castillejo, also used stem cell transplantation with a CCR5 mutation, but theirs were bone marrow transplants. Bone marrow transplants are more arduous than cord blood transplants, which are commonly used in pediatric cancer treatment.

In this case, the physicians treating her used both.

“This allows the adult cells to accelerate and grow up until the cord blood takes over,” said Dr. Bryson. During her presentation, Dr. Bryson pointed to two types of data: First, she presented data showing the level of HIV in the patient’s blood. Soon after HIV diagnosis and treatment, her viral load dropped to undetectable levels. She had a spike of virus when she received the transplant, but then it went back to undetectable and has stayed that way ever since.

Meanwhile, following the transplant, her immune system started rebuilding itself using the new, HIV-resistant cells provided in the transplant. As her care team watched, no graft-versus-host (GVH) disease, a common side effect of stem cell transplants, emerged. In fact, the transplant went so well that she was discharged early from the hospital.

One hundred days after the transplant, the immune system contained within the cord blood had taken over. Her CD4 immune cells returned to normal levels a little more than a year after the transplant. By 27 months, she decided to stop all HIV treatment to see if the transplant had worked.

This was the real test. But as Dr. Bryson and colleagues continued to watch her HIV viral load and her CD4 counts and search for infectious virus, they didn’t find any. She tested negative for HIV by antibody test. Dr. Bryson grew 75 million of her cells in a lab to look for any HIV. None. Aside from one blip in detectable HIV DNA at 14 weeks, researchers never found HIV in the patient again.

“Her cells are resistant to HIV now – both her own strains and laboratory strains,” Dr. Bryson told this news organization. “It’s been 14 months since then. She has no rebound and no detectable virus.”

The presentation drew as raucous as praise gets in a virtual environment. The comments began pouring in.

“Impressive results,” wrote Jim Hoxie, MD, professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Exciting case,” wrote Allison Agwu, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

And Dennis Copertino, a research specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, wrote: “Thank you so much for translating this important cure strategy to people of color.”

Most donors with CCR5 mutations are White, Dr. Bryson said, suggesting that this approach, in a mixed-race woman, could expand the pool of people living with HIV and cancer who are good candidates for the approach.

But other observers had questions, ones that may require more research to answer. Some asked why this woman’s virus, after transplantation, wasn’t just immune to viruses with CCR5 but also another variant, called CXCR4, that one wouldn’t expect. Luis Montaner, DVM, director of the Immunopathogenesis Laboratory at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, wondered whether it was more than the blood that had cleared HIV. Did it get into the tissue, too? That question has not yet been answered.

For Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the lack of GVH disease was a powerful and hopeful finding.

“There’s been this ongoing hypothesis that maybe graft-versus-host disease was needed at some level to help clear out every last single CD4+ T cell that may or may not have been harboring replication-competent virus,” Dr. Dieffenbach said in an interview. “But there was no GVH disease. That’s incredible. It’s a wonderful thing.”

Now the challenge is to move from a single case to making cure available to other people living with HIV.

The case also got cure researchers thinking.

Dr. Montaner called the case “an encouraging roadmap supporting anti-CCR5 strategies by CRISPR Cas9,” studies that are now underway.

Steven Deeks, MD, called the case “perhaps a model for how we might do this using a person’s own cells. Because we were never really going to be transplanting cells from another person as a scalable cure.”

For people living with HIV, particularly women of color, the results raise hopes and questions. Nina Martinez knows something about being a “first.” In 2019, she was the first American woman of color living with HIV to donate a kidney to another person living with the virus. To her, the excitement over the first woman of color being cured of HIV just shines a light on how very White and male HIV cure studies have been until now.

“For me, I’m not looking for a cure in which the successful step forward is me getting cancer,” she said in an interview. “I’m looking at, what’s going to be sustainable? I want to know what’s going to work for a group of people.”

Gina Marie Brown, a social worker living with HIV in New Orleans, is also thinking of groups of people.

“Every time we get a breakthrough, it’s like the sun is taken from behind the clouds a little more,” said Ms. Brown. “I think about people in the South, who bear a huge burden of HIV. I think about trans women. I think about Black women, and gay, bisexual, and same-gender-loving men. This could really impact HIV – in the same way that PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] has, the same way that one pill once a day has.”

When Ms. Brown was diagnosed with HIV 22 years ago, she started to plan her funeral.

“That’s how much I thought HIV was a death sentence,” she told this news organization. “Oh my goodness! Glad you stuck around, Gina.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Bryson, Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Deeks, and Dr. Montaner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Tosha Rogers, MD, is a one-woman HIV prevention evangelist. For nearly a decade now, the Atlanta-based ob/gyn has been on a mission to increase her gynecological colleagues’ awareness and prescribing of the oral HIV prevention pill. At the same time, she’s been tracking the development of a flexible vaginal ring loaded with a month’s worth of the HIV prevention medication dapivirine. That, she thought, would fit easily into women’s lives and into the toolbox of methods women already use to prevent pregnancy.

But now she’s not sure when – or if – the ring will find its way to her patients. In December, the ring’s maker, the International Partnership for Microbicides (IPM), pulled its application for FDA approval for the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) ring. Now, one year after the World Health Organization recommended the ring for member nations, there appears to be no path forward in the United States for either the dapivirine-only ring or an approach Dr. Rogers said would change the game: a vaginal ring that supplies both contraception and HIV prevention.

“It would take things to a whole other level,” she said. “It sucks that this happened, and I do think it was not anything medical. I think it was everything political.”

That leaves cisgender women – especially the Black and Latinx women who make up the vast majority of women who acquire HIV every year – with two HIV prevention options. One is the daily pill, first approved in 2012. It’s now generic but previously sold as Truvada by Gilead Sciences. The other is monthly injectable cabotegravir long-acting (Apretude). Another HIV prevention pill, tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (Descovy), is approved for gay men and transgender women but not cisgender women.
 

Vagina-specific protection from HIV

The WHO recommendation for the vaginal ring was followed last July by a positive opinion from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for women in low- and middle-income countries outside the European Union.

The flexible silicone ring, similar to the hormonal NuvaRing contraceptive, works by slowly releasing the antiretroviral dapivirine directly into the vaginal canal, thereby protecting women who might be exposed to the virus through vaginal sex only. Because the medicine stays where it’s delivered and doesn’t circulate through the body, it has been found to be extremely safe with few adverse events.

However, in initial studies, the ring was found to be just 27% effective overall. Later studies, where scientists divided women by how much drug was missing from the ring – a proxy for use – found that higher use was associated with higher protection (as much as 54%). By comparison, Truvada has been found to be up to 99% effective when used daily, though it can take up to 21 days to be available in the vagina in high enough concentrations to protect women from vaginal exposure. And the HIV prevention shot was found to be 90% more effective than that in a recent trial of the two methods conducted by the HIV Prevention Trials Network.

This, and an orientation away from topical HIV prevention drugs and toward systemic options, led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to discontinue funding for such projects under its Microbicide Trials Network.

“Clearly you want to counsel women to use the highest efficacy method, and that is part of our label,” Zeda Rosenberg, ScD, IPM’s founder and chief executive officer, told this news organization. “Women should not choose the ring if they can and will use oral PrEP, and I would argue it should be the same thing for [cabotegravir shots]. But if they can’t or don’t want to – and we know that especially many young women don’t want to use systemic methods – then the dapivirine ring is a great option.”

Still, Dr. Rosenberg said that the gap in efficacy, the relatively small number of women affected by HIV in the U.S. compared with gay and bisexual men, and the emergence of products like the HIV prevention shot cabotegravir, made it “very unlikely” that FDA regulators would approve the ring. And rather than be “distracted” by the FDA process, Dr. Rosenberg said IPM chose to concentrate on the countries where the ring has already been approved or where women make up the vast majority of people affected by HIV.

Zimbabwe publicly announced it has approved the ring, and three other countries may have approved it, according to Dr. Rosenberg. She declined to name them, saying they had requested silence while they formulate their new HIV prevention guidelines. Aside from Zimbabwe, the other countries where women participated in the ring clinical trials were South Africa, Malawi, and Uganda.

“The U.S. population ... has widespread access to oral PrEP, which is unlike countries in Africa, and which would have widespread access to injectable cabotegravir,” she said. “The U.S. FDA may not see choice in the same way that African women and African activists and advocates see the need for choice.”

But women’s rates of accessing HIV prevention medications in the U.S. continues to be frustratingly low. At the end of 2018, just 7% of women who could benefit from HIV prevention drugs were taking them, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

New CDC guidelines recommend clinicians talk to every sexually active adult and adolescent about HIV prevention medications at least once and prescribe it to anyone who asks for it, whether or not they understand their patients’ HIV risks. However, research continues to show that clinicians struggle with willingness to prescribe PrEP to Black women, and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s committee opinion on managing women using HIV prevention drugs has not been updated to reflect the new guidelines. And while the HIV prevention shot is approved for women and its maker ViiV Healthcare is already initiating postmarket studies of the ring in key populations including women, there are lots of things that need to line up in order for clinicians to be willing to stock it and prescribe it to women.

From where Dázon Dixon Diallo, executive director of the nonprofit SisterLove, sits, the decision to withdraw the ring from FDA consideration and the FDA’s seeming argument that the epidemiology in the U.S. doesn’t warrant the ring’s approval is a slap in the face to the Black women who have led the movement to end HIV in the U.S. for decades.

“No matter how you slice it, we’re talking about Black women, and then we’re talking about brown women,” said Ms. Diallo. “The value [they place on us] from a government standpoint, from a political standpoint, from a public health standpoint is just woeful. It’s woeful and it’s disrespectful and it’s insulting and I’m sick of it.”
 

‘America sneezes and Africa catches a cold’

When she first heard the decision to pull the ring from FDA consideration, Yvette Raphael, the South Africa-based executive director of Advocates for the Prevention of HIV in Africa, started asking, “What can we do to help our sisters in America get this ring?” And then she started worrying about other women in her own country and those nearby.

“The FDA plays a big role,” she said. “You know, America sneezes and Africa catches a cold.”

She worries that IPM’s decision to withdraw the ring from FDA consideration will signal to regulators in other countries either (a) that they should not approve it or (b) in countries where it’s already been approved but guidelines have not been issued, that they won’t invest money in rolling it out to women in those countries – especially now with the U.S. approval of the prevention shot. In much of Africa, ministries of health prefer to provide injectable contraception, often giving women few or no other options. But women, she said, think about more than administration of the drug. They look at if it’s an easier option for them to manage.

“This is a long journey, an emotional one too, for women in South Africa, because the idea of a microbicide is one of the ideas that came directly from women in South Africa,” she said. “[The jab] can be seen as a solution to all. We can just give jabs to all the women. And after all, we know that women don’t adhere, so we can just grab them.”

Dr. Rosenberg pointed to the positive opinion from the EMA as another “rigorous review” process that she said ought to equally influence ministries of health in countries where women tested the ring. And she pointed to the WHO statement released last month, the same day as IPM’s announcement that it was withdrawing the ring from FDA considerations, recommitting the ring as a good option in sub-Saharan Africa: “The U.S. FDA decision is not based on any new or additional data on efficacy and safety,” it stated. “WHO will continue to support countries as they consider whether to include the [dapivirine vaginal ring]. WHO recognizes that country decisionmaking will vary based on their context and that women’s voices remain central to discussions about their prevention choices.”
 

Dual action ring on the horizon, but not in U.S.

What this means, though, is that the next step in the ring’s development – the combination dapivirine ring with contraceptive levonorgestrel (used in the Mirena intrauterine device) – may not come to the U.S., at least for a long while.

“It’s not out of the question,” Dr. Rosenberg said of conducting HIV/pregnancy prevention ring trials in the U.S. “But without the approval of the dapivirine-only ring by FDA, I imagine they would want to see new efficacy data on dapivirine. That is a very difficult hill to climb. There would have to be an active control group [using oral PrEP or injectable cabotegravir], and it would be very difficult for the dapivirine ring to be able to go head-to-head for either noninferiority and certainly for superiority.”

The study would need to be quite large to get enough results to prove anything, and IPM is a research organization, not a large pharmaceutical company with deep enough pockets to fund that, she said. Raising those funds “would be difficult.”

In addition to NIAID discontinuing its funding for the Microbicides Trials Network, a new 5-year, $85 million research collaboration through USAID hasn’t slated any money to fund trials of the combination HIV prevention and contraceptive ring, according to Dr. Rosenberg.

But that doesn’t mean avenues for its development are closed. NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) is currently funding a phase 1/2 trial of the combination ring, and IPM continues to receive funding from research agencies in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Ireland. And this means, she said, that the E.U. – not the U.S. – is where they would seek approval for a combination ring first.

That leaves Ms. Rafael and Ms. Diallo debating how to work together to push the FDA – and maybe IPM – to reconsider the ring. For instance, Ms. Diallo suggested that instead of seeking an indication for all women, the FDA might consider the ring for women with very high risk of HIV, such as sex workers or women with HIV positive partners not on treatment. And she said that this has to be bigger than HIV prevention. It has to be about the ways in which women’s health issues in general lag at the FDA. For instance, she pointed to the movement to get contraceptive pills available over the counter, fights against FDA rulings on hormone replacement therapy, and fights for emergency contraception.

In the meantime, ob/gyn Dr. Rogers is expecting access to the ring to follow a similar path as the copper IUD, which migrated to the U.S. from Europe, where it has been among the most popular contraceptive methods for women.

“Contrary to what we may think, we are not innovators, especially for something like this,” she said. “Once we see it is working and doing a good job – that women in Europe love it – then someone here is going to pick it up and make it as if it’s the greatest thing. But for now, I think we’re going to have to take a back seat to Europe.”

Ms. Diallo reports receiving fees from Johnson & Johnson, ViiV Healthcare, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Rosenberg and Dr. Rogers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Tosha Rogers, MD, is a one-woman HIV prevention evangelist. For nearly a decade now, the Atlanta-based ob/gyn has been on a mission to increase her gynecological colleagues’ awareness and prescribing of the oral HIV prevention pill. At the same time, she’s been tracking the development of a flexible vaginal ring loaded with a month’s worth of the HIV prevention medication dapivirine. That, she thought, would fit easily into women’s lives and into the toolbox of methods women already use to prevent pregnancy.

But now she’s not sure when – or if – the ring will find its way to her patients. In December, the ring’s maker, the International Partnership for Microbicides (IPM), pulled its application for FDA approval for the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) ring. Now, one year after the World Health Organization recommended the ring for member nations, there appears to be no path forward in the United States for either the dapivirine-only ring or an approach Dr. Rogers said would change the game: a vaginal ring that supplies both contraception and HIV prevention.

“It would take things to a whole other level,” she said. “It sucks that this happened, and I do think it was not anything medical. I think it was everything political.”

That leaves cisgender women – especially the Black and Latinx women who make up the vast majority of women who acquire HIV every year – with two HIV prevention options. One is the daily pill, first approved in 2012. It’s now generic but previously sold as Truvada by Gilead Sciences. The other is monthly injectable cabotegravir long-acting (Apretude). Another HIV prevention pill, tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (Descovy), is approved for gay men and transgender women but not cisgender women.
 

Vagina-specific protection from HIV

The WHO recommendation for the vaginal ring was followed last July by a positive opinion from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for women in low- and middle-income countries outside the European Union.

The flexible silicone ring, similar to the hormonal NuvaRing contraceptive, works by slowly releasing the antiretroviral dapivirine directly into the vaginal canal, thereby protecting women who might be exposed to the virus through vaginal sex only. Because the medicine stays where it’s delivered and doesn’t circulate through the body, it has been found to be extremely safe with few adverse events.

However, in initial studies, the ring was found to be just 27% effective overall. Later studies, where scientists divided women by how much drug was missing from the ring – a proxy for use – found that higher use was associated with higher protection (as much as 54%). By comparison, Truvada has been found to be up to 99% effective when used daily, though it can take up to 21 days to be available in the vagina in high enough concentrations to protect women from vaginal exposure. And the HIV prevention shot was found to be 90% more effective than that in a recent trial of the two methods conducted by the HIV Prevention Trials Network.

This, and an orientation away from topical HIV prevention drugs and toward systemic options, led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to discontinue funding for such projects under its Microbicide Trials Network.

“Clearly you want to counsel women to use the highest efficacy method, and that is part of our label,” Zeda Rosenberg, ScD, IPM’s founder and chief executive officer, told this news organization. “Women should not choose the ring if they can and will use oral PrEP, and I would argue it should be the same thing for [cabotegravir shots]. But if they can’t or don’t want to – and we know that especially many young women don’t want to use systemic methods – then the dapivirine ring is a great option.”

Still, Dr. Rosenberg said that the gap in efficacy, the relatively small number of women affected by HIV in the U.S. compared with gay and bisexual men, and the emergence of products like the HIV prevention shot cabotegravir, made it “very unlikely” that FDA regulators would approve the ring. And rather than be “distracted” by the FDA process, Dr. Rosenberg said IPM chose to concentrate on the countries where the ring has already been approved or where women make up the vast majority of people affected by HIV.

Zimbabwe publicly announced it has approved the ring, and three other countries may have approved it, according to Dr. Rosenberg. She declined to name them, saying they had requested silence while they formulate their new HIV prevention guidelines. Aside from Zimbabwe, the other countries where women participated in the ring clinical trials were South Africa, Malawi, and Uganda.

“The U.S. population ... has widespread access to oral PrEP, which is unlike countries in Africa, and which would have widespread access to injectable cabotegravir,” she said. “The U.S. FDA may not see choice in the same way that African women and African activists and advocates see the need for choice.”

But women’s rates of accessing HIV prevention medications in the U.S. continues to be frustratingly low. At the end of 2018, just 7% of women who could benefit from HIV prevention drugs were taking them, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

New CDC guidelines recommend clinicians talk to every sexually active adult and adolescent about HIV prevention medications at least once and prescribe it to anyone who asks for it, whether or not they understand their patients’ HIV risks. However, research continues to show that clinicians struggle with willingness to prescribe PrEP to Black women, and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s committee opinion on managing women using HIV prevention drugs has not been updated to reflect the new guidelines. And while the HIV prevention shot is approved for women and its maker ViiV Healthcare is already initiating postmarket studies of the ring in key populations including women, there are lots of things that need to line up in order for clinicians to be willing to stock it and prescribe it to women.

From where Dázon Dixon Diallo, executive director of the nonprofit SisterLove, sits, the decision to withdraw the ring from FDA consideration and the FDA’s seeming argument that the epidemiology in the U.S. doesn’t warrant the ring’s approval is a slap in the face to the Black women who have led the movement to end HIV in the U.S. for decades.

“No matter how you slice it, we’re talking about Black women, and then we’re talking about brown women,” said Ms. Diallo. “The value [they place on us] from a government standpoint, from a political standpoint, from a public health standpoint is just woeful. It’s woeful and it’s disrespectful and it’s insulting and I’m sick of it.”
 

‘America sneezes and Africa catches a cold’

When she first heard the decision to pull the ring from FDA consideration, Yvette Raphael, the South Africa-based executive director of Advocates for the Prevention of HIV in Africa, started asking, “What can we do to help our sisters in America get this ring?” And then she started worrying about other women in her own country and those nearby.

“The FDA plays a big role,” she said. “You know, America sneezes and Africa catches a cold.”

She worries that IPM’s decision to withdraw the ring from FDA consideration will signal to regulators in other countries either (a) that they should not approve it or (b) in countries where it’s already been approved but guidelines have not been issued, that they won’t invest money in rolling it out to women in those countries – especially now with the U.S. approval of the prevention shot. In much of Africa, ministries of health prefer to provide injectable contraception, often giving women few or no other options. But women, she said, think about more than administration of the drug. They look at if it’s an easier option for them to manage.

“This is a long journey, an emotional one too, for women in South Africa, because the idea of a microbicide is one of the ideas that came directly from women in South Africa,” she said. “[The jab] can be seen as a solution to all. We can just give jabs to all the women. And after all, we know that women don’t adhere, so we can just grab them.”

Dr. Rosenberg pointed to the positive opinion from the EMA as another “rigorous review” process that she said ought to equally influence ministries of health in countries where women tested the ring. And she pointed to the WHO statement released last month, the same day as IPM’s announcement that it was withdrawing the ring from FDA considerations, recommitting the ring as a good option in sub-Saharan Africa: “The U.S. FDA decision is not based on any new or additional data on efficacy and safety,” it stated. “WHO will continue to support countries as they consider whether to include the [dapivirine vaginal ring]. WHO recognizes that country decisionmaking will vary based on their context and that women’s voices remain central to discussions about their prevention choices.”
 

Dual action ring on the horizon, but not in U.S.

What this means, though, is that the next step in the ring’s development – the combination dapivirine ring with contraceptive levonorgestrel (used in the Mirena intrauterine device) – may not come to the U.S., at least for a long while.

“It’s not out of the question,” Dr. Rosenberg said of conducting HIV/pregnancy prevention ring trials in the U.S. “But without the approval of the dapivirine-only ring by FDA, I imagine they would want to see new efficacy data on dapivirine. That is a very difficult hill to climb. There would have to be an active control group [using oral PrEP or injectable cabotegravir], and it would be very difficult for the dapivirine ring to be able to go head-to-head for either noninferiority and certainly for superiority.”

The study would need to be quite large to get enough results to prove anything, and IPM is a research organization, not a large pharmaceutical company with deep enough pockets to fund that, she said. Raising those funds “would be difficult.”

In addition to NIAID discontinuing its funding for the Microbicides Trials Network, a new 5-year, $85 million research collaboration through USAID hasn’t slated any money to fund trials of the combination HIV prevention and contraceptive ring, according to Dr. Rosenberg.

But that doesn’t mean avenues for its development are closed. NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) is currently funding a phase 1/2 trial of the combination ring, and IPM continues to receive funding from research agencies in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Ireland. And this means, she said, that the E.U. – not the U.S. – is where they would seek approval for a combination ring first.

That leaves Ms. Rafael and Ms. Diallo debating how to work together to push the FDA – and maybe IPM – to reconsider the ring. For instance, Ms. Diallo suggested that instead of seeking an indication for all women, the FDA might consider the ring for women with very high risk of HIV, such as sex workers or women with HIV positive partners not on treatment. And she said that this has to be bigger than HIV prevention. It has to be about the ways in which women’s health issues in general lag at the FDA. For instance, she pointed to the movement to get contraceptive pills available over the counter, fights against FDA rulings on hormone replacement therapy, and fights for emergency contraception.

In the meantime, ob/gyn Dr. Rogers is expecting access to the ring to follow a similar path as the copper IUD, which migrated to the U.S. from Europe, where it has been among the most popular contraceptive methods for women.

“Contrary to what we may think, we are not innovators, especially for something like this,” she said. “Once we see it is working and doing a good job – that women in Europe love it – then someone here is going to pick it up and make it as if it’s the greatest thing. But for now, I think we’re going to have to take a back seat to Europe.”

Ms. Diallo reports receiving fees from Johnson & Johnson, ViiV Healthcare, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Rosenberg and Dr. Rogers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Tosha Rogers, MD, is a one-woman HIV prevention evangelist. For nearly a decade now, the Atlanta-based ob/gyn has been on a mission to increase her gynecological colleagues’ awareness and prescribing of the oral HIV prevention pill. At the same time, she’s been tracking the development of a flexible vaginal ring loaded with a month’s worth of the HIV prevention medication dapivirine. That, she thought, would fit easily into women’s lives and into the toolbox of methods women already use to prevent pregnancy.

But now she’s not sure when – or if – the ring will find its way to her patients. In December, the ring’s maker, the International Partnership for Microbicides (IPM), pulled its application for FDA approval for the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) ring. Now, one year after the World Health Organization recommended the ring for member nations, there appears to be no path forward in the United States for either the dapivirine-only ring or an approach Dr. Rogers said would change the game: a vaginal ring that supplies both contraception and HIV prevention.

“It would take things to a whole other level,” she said. “It sucks that this happened, and I do think it was not anything medical. I think it was everything political.”

That leaves cisgender women – especially the Black and Latinx women who make up the vast majority of women who acquire HIV every year – with two HIV prevention options. One is the daily pill, first approved in 2012. It’s now generic but previously sold as Truvada by Gilead Sciences. The other is monthly injectable cabotegravir long-acting (Apretude). Another HIV prevention pill, tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (Descovy), is approved for gay men and transgender women but not cisgender women.
 

Vagina-specific protection from HIV

The WHO recommendation for the vaginal ring was followed last July by a positive opinion from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for women in low- and middle-income countries outside the European Union.

The flexible silicone ring, similar to the hormonal NuvaRing contraceptive, works by slowly releasing the antiretroviral dapivirine directly into the vaginal canal, thereby protecting women who might be exposed to the virus through vaginal sex only. Because the medicine stays where it’s delivered and doesn’t circulate through the body, it has been found to be extremely safe with few adverse events.

However, in initial studies, the ring was found to be just 27% effective overall. Later studies, where scientists divided women by how much drug was missing from the ring – a proxy for use – found that higher use was associated with higher protection (as much as 54%). By comparison, Truvada has been found to be up to 99% effective when used daily, though it can take up to 21 days to be available in the vagina in high enough concentrations to protect women from vaginal exposure. And the HIV prevention shot was found to be 90% more effective than that in a recent trial of the two methods conducted by the HIV Prevention Trials Network.

This, and an orientation away from topical HIV prevention drugs and toward systemic options, led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to discontinue funding for such projects under its Microbicide Trials Network.

“Clearly you want to counsel women to use the highest efficacy method, and that is part of our label,” Zeda Rosenberg, ScD, IPM’s founder and chief executive officer, told this news organization. “Women should not choose the ring if they can and will use oral PrEP, and I would argue it should be the same thing for [cabotegravir shots]. But if they can’t or don’t want to – and we know that especially many young women don’t want to use systemic methods – then the dapivirine ring is a great option.”

Still, Dr. Rosenberg said that the gap in efficacy, the relatively small number of women affected by HIV in the U.S. compared with gay and bisexual men, and the emergence of products like the HIV prevention shot cabotegravir, made it “very unlikely” that FDA regulators would approve the ring. And rather than be “distracted” by the FDA process, Dr. Rosenberg said IPM chose to concentrate on the countries where the ring has already been approved or where women make up the vast majority of people affected by HIV.

Zimbabwe publicly announced it has approved the ring, and three other countries may have approved it, according to Dr. Rosenberg. She declined to name them, saying they had requested silence while they formulate their new HIV prevention guidelines. Aside from Zimbabwe, the other countries where women participated in the ring clinical trials were South Africa, Malawi, and Uganda.

“The U.S. population ... has widespread access to oral PrEP, which is unlike countries in Africa, and which would have widespread access to injectable cabotegravir,” she said. “The U.S. FDA may not see choice in the same way that African women and African activists and advocates see the need for choice.”

But women’s rates of accessing HIV prevention medications in the U.S. continues to be frustratingly low. At the end of 2018, just 7% of women who could benefit from HIV prevention drugs were taking them, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

New CDC guidelines recommend clinicians talk to every sexually active adult and adolescent about HIV prevention medications at least once and prescribe it to anyone who asks for it, whether or not they understand their patients’ HIV risks. However, research continues to show that clinicians struggle with willingness to prescribe PrEP to Black women, and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s committee opinion on managing women using HIV prevention drugs has not been updated to reflect the new guidelines. And while the HIV prevention shot is approved for women and its maker ViiV Healthcare is already initiating postmarket studies of the ring in key populations including women, there are lots of things that need to line up in order for clinicians to be willing to stock it and prescribe it to women.

From where Dázon Dixon Diallo, executive director of the nonprofit SisterLove, sits, the decision to withdraw the ring from FDA consideration and the FDA’s seeming argument that the epidemiology in the U.S. doesn’t warrant the ring’s approval is a slap in the face to the Black women who have led the movement to end HIV in the U.S. for decades.

“No matter how you slice it, we’re talking about Black women, and then we’re talking about brown women,” said Ms. Diallo. “The value [they place on us] from a government standpoint, from a political standpoint, from a public health standpoint is just woeful. It’s woeful and it’s disrespectful and it’s insulting and I’m sick of it.”
 

‘America sneezes and Africa catches a cold’

When she first heard the decision to pull the ring from FDA consideration, Yvette Raphael, the South Africa-based executive director of Advocates for the Prevention of HIV in Africa, started asking, “What can we do to help our sisters in America get this ring?” And then she started worrying about other women in her own country and those nearby.

“The FDA plays a big role,” she said. “You know, America sneezes and Africa catches a cold.”

She worries that IPM’s decision to withdraw the ring from FDA consideration will signal to regulators in other countries either (a) that they should not approve it or (b) in countries where it’s already been approved but guidelines have not been issued, that they won’t invest money in rolling it out to women in those countries – especially now with the U.S. approval of the prevention shot. In much of Africa, ministries of health prefer to provide injectable contraception, often giving women few or no other options. But women, she said, think about more than administration of the drug. They look at if it’s an easier option for them to manage.

“This is a long journey, an emotional one too, for women in South Africa, because the idea of a microbicide is one of the ideas that came directly from women in South Africa,” she said. “[The jab] can be seen as a solution to all. We can just give jabs to all the women. And after all, we know that women don’t adhere, so we can just grab them.”

Dr. Rosenberg pointed to the positive opinion from the EMA as another “rigorous review” process that she said ought to equally influence ministries of health in countries where women tested the ring. And she pointed to the WHO statement released last month, the same day as IPM’s announcement that it was withdrawing the ring from FDA considerations, recommitting the ring as a good option in sub-Saharan Africa: “The U.S. FDA decision is not based on any new or additional data on efficacy and safety,” it stated. “WHO will continue to support countries as they consider whether to include the [dapivirine vaginal ring]. WHO recognizes that country decisionmaking will vary based on their context and that women’s voices remain central to discussions about their prevention choices.”
 

Dual action ring on the horizon, but not in U.S.

What this means, though, is that the next step in the ring’s development – the combination dapivirine ring with contraceptive levonorgestrel (used in the Mirena intrauterine device) – may not come to the U.S., at least for a long while.

“It’s not out of the question,” Dr. Rosenberg said of conducting HIV/pregnancy prevention ring trials in the U.S. “But without the approval of the dapivirine-only ring by FDA, I imagine they would want to see new efficacy data on dapivirine. That is a very difficult hill to climb. There would have to be an active control group [using oral PrEP or injectable cabotegravir], and it would be very difficult for the dapivirine ring to be able to go head-to-head for either noninferiority and certainly for superiority.”

The study would need to be quite large to get enough results to prove anything, and IPM is a research organization, not a large pharmaceutical company with deep enough pockets to fund that, she said. Raising those funds “would be difficult.”

In addition to NIAID discontinuing its funding for the Microbicides Trials Network, a new 5-year, $85 million research collaboration through USAID hasn’t slated any money to fund trials of the combination HIV prevention and contraceptive ring, according to Dr. Rosenberg.

But that doesn’t mean avenues for its development are closed. NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) is currently funding a phase 1/2 trial of the combination ring, and IPM continues to receive funding from research agencies in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Ireland. And this means, she said, that the E.U. – not the U.S. – is where they would seek approval for a combination ring first.

That leaves Ms. Rafael and Ms. Diallo debating how to work together to push the FDA – and maybe IPM – to reconsider the ring. For instance, Ms. Diallo suggested that instead of seeking an indication for all women, the FDA might consider the ring for women with very high risk of HIV, such as sex workers or women with HIV positive partners not on treatment. And she said that this has to be bigger than HIV prevention. It has to be about the ways in which women’s health issues in general lag at the FDA. For instance, she pointed to the movement to get contraceptive pills available over the counter, fights against FDA rulings on hormone replacement therapy, and fights for emergency contraception.

In the meantime, ob/gyn Dr. Rogers is expecting access to the ring to follow a similar path as the copper IUD, which migrated to the U.S. from Europe, where it has been among the most popular contraceptive methods for women.

“Contrary to what we may think, we are not innovators, especially for something like this,” she said. “Once we see it is working and doing a good job – that women in Europe love it – then someone here is going to pick it up and make it as if it’s the greatest thing. But for now, I think we’re going to have to take a back seat to Europe.”

Ms. Diallo reports receiving fees from Johnson & Johnson, ViiV Healthcare, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Rosenberg and Dr. Rogers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting Dec. 8, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends all clinicians talk to their sexually active adolescent and adult patients about HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) at least once and prescribe the prevention pills to anyone who asks for them, whether or not you understand their need for it.

“PrEP is a part of good primary care,” Demetre Daskalakis, MD, CDC’s director of the division of HIV/AIDS prevention, said in an interview. “Listening to people and what they need, as opposed to assessing what you think they need, is a seismic shift in how PrEP should be offered.”

The expanded recommendation comes as part of the 2021 update to the U.S. Public Health Service’s PrEP prescribing guidelines. It’s the third iteration since the Food and Drug Administration approved the first HIV prevention pill in 2012, and the first to include guidance on how to prescribe and monitor an injectable version of PrEP, which the FDA may approve as early as December 2021.

There are currently two pills, Truvada (emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, Gilead Sciences and generic) and Descovy (emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, Gilead Sciences). The pills have been found to be up to 99% effective in preventing HIV acquisition. The new injectable cabotegravir appears to be even more effective.

The broadened guidance is part of an effort from the country’s top health officials to expand PrEP prescribing from infectious disease specialists and sexual health clinics to health care professionals, including gynecologists, internal medicine physicians, and family practice clinicians. It appears to be necessary. In 2020, just 25% of the 1.2 million Americans who could benefit from PrEP were taking it, according to CDC data.

But those rates belie stark disparities in PrEP use by race and gender. The vast majority of those using PrEP are White Americans and men. About 66% of White Americans who could benefit from PrEP used it in 2020, and more than a quarter of the men who could benefit used it. By contrast, just 16% of Latinx people who could benefit had a prescription. And fewer than 1 in 10 Black Americans, who make up nearly half of those with indications for PrEP, had a prescription. The same was true for the women who could benefit.

Researchers and data from early PrEP demonstration projects have documented that clinicians are less likely to refer or prescribe the HIV prevention pills to Black people, especially the Black cisgender and transgender women and same-gender-loving men who bear the disproportionate burden of new cases in the United States, as well as fail to prescribe the medication to people who inject drugs.
 

Normalizing PrEP in primary care

When Courtney Sherman, DNP, APRN, first heard about PrEP in the early 2010s, she joked that her reaction was: “You’re ridiculous. You’re making that up. That’s not real.”

Ms. Sherman is now launching a tele-PrEP program from CAN Community Health, a nonprofit network of community health centers in southern Florida. The tele-PrEP program is meant to serve people in Florida and beyond, to increase access to the pill in areas with few health care professionals, or clinicians unwilling to prescribe it.

“When I go other places, I can’t do what I do for a living without getting some sort of bizarre comment or look,” she said. But the looks don’t just come from family, friends, or her children’s teachers. They come from colleagues, too. “What I’ve learned is that anybody – anybody – can be impacted [by HIV] and the illusion that ‘those people who live over there do things that me and my kind don’t do’ is just garbage.”

That’s the PrEP stigma that the universal PrEP counseling in the guidelines is meant to override, said Dr. Daskalakis. Going forward, he said that informing people about PrEP should be treated as normally as counseling people about smoking.

“You can change the blank: You talk to all adolescents and adults about not smoking,” he said. “This is: ‘Tell adolescents and adults about ways you can prevent HIV, and PrEP is one of them.’ ”

The guidelines also simplify for monitoring lab levels for the current daily pills, checking creatinine clearance levels twice a year in people older than age 50 and once a year in those younger than 50 taking the oral pills. Dr. Daskalakis said that should ease the burden of monitoring PrEP patients for health care professionals with busy caseloads.

It’s a move that drew praise from Shawnika Hull, PhD, assistant professor of health communications at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.. Dr. Hull’s recent data showed that clinicians who espoused more biased racial views were also less likely to prescribe PrEP to Black women who asked for it.

“Public health practitioners and scientists have been advocating for this as a strategy, as one way to address several ongoing barriers to PrEP specifically but also equity in PrEP,” said Dr. Hull. “This sort of universal provision of information is really an important strategy to try to undo some of the deeply intertwined barriers to uptake.”
 

‘Don’t grill them’

The updated guidelines keep the number and proportion of Americans who could benefit from PrEP the same: 1.2 million Americans, with nearly half of those Black. And the reasons people would qualify for PrEP remain the same: inconsistent condom use, sharing injection drug equipment, and a STI diagnosis in the last 6 months. There are also 57 jurisdictions, including seven rural states, where dating and having sex carries an increased risk of acquiring HIV because of high rates of untreated HIV in the community.

That’s why the other big change in the update is guidance to prescribe PrEP to whoever asks for it, whether the patient divulges their risk or not. Or as Dr. Daskalakis puts it: “If someone asks for PrEP, don’t grill them.”

There are lots of reasons that someone might ask for PrEP without divulging their risk behaviors, said Dr. Daskalakis, who was an infectious disease doctor in New York back in 2012 (and a member of the FDA committee) when the first pill for PrEP was approved. He said he’s seen this particularly with women who ask about it. Asking for PrEP ends up being an “ice breaker” to discussing the woman’s sexual and injection drug use history, which can then improve the kinds of tests and vaccinations clinicians suggest for her.

“So many women will open the door and say, ‘I want to do this,’ and not necessarily want to go into the details,” he said. “Now, will they go into the details later? Absolutely. That’s how you create trust and connection.”
 

A mandate and a guideline

Leisha McKinley-Beach, MPH, a member of the U.S. Women and PrEP Working Group, has been urging greater funding and mandates to expand PrEP to women since the first pill was approved. And still, Ms. McKinley-Beach said she recently met a woman who worked for a community group scheduling PrEP appointments for gay men. But the woman didn’t know that she, too, could take it. 

The American Academy of Family Physicians recommends health care professionals offer PrEP to those who can benefit. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have a 2014 committee opinion stating that PrEP “may be a useful tool for women at highest risk of HIV acquisition.”

But the ACOG opinion is not a recommendation, stating that it “should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed.” Ms. McKinley-Beach said she hopes that the new CDC guidelines will prompt ACOG and other professional organizations to issue statements to include PrEP education in all health assessments. A spokesperson for ACOG said that the organization had not seen the new CDC guidelines and had no statement on them, but pointed out that the 2014 committee opinion is one of the “highest level of documents we produce.

“We have failed for nearly a decade to raise awareness that PrEP is also a prevention strategy for women,” Ms. McKinley-Beach said in an interview. “In many ways, we’re still back in 2012 as it relates to women.”

Dr. Hull reported having done previous research funded by Gilead Sciences and having received consulting fees from Gilead Sciences in 2018. Ms. McKinley-Beach reported receiving honoraria from ViiV Healthcare. Ms. Sherman and Dr. Daskalakis disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting Dec. 8, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends all clinicians talk to their sexually active adolescent and adult patients about HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) at least once and prescribe the prevention pills to anyone who asks for them, whether or not you understand their need for it.

“PrEP is a part of good primary care,” Demetre Daskalakis, MD, CDC’s director of the division of HIV/AIDS prevention, said in an interview. “Listening to people and what they need, as opposed to assessing what you think they need, is a seismic shift in how PrEP should be offered.”

The expanded recommendation comes as part of the 2021 update to the U.S. Public Health Service’s PrEP prescribing guidelines. It’s the third iteration since the Food and Drug Administration approved the first HIV prevention pill in 2012, and the first to include guidance on how to prescribe and monitor an injectable version of PrEP, which the FDA may approve as early as December 2021.

There are currently two pills, Truvada (emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, Gilead Sciences and generic) and Descovy (emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, Gilead Sciences). The pills have been found to be up to 99% effective in preventing HIV acquisition. The new injectable cabotegravir appears to be even more effective.

The broadened guidance is part of an effort from the country’s top health officials to expand PrEP prescribing from infectious disease specialists and sexual health clinics to health care professionals, including gynecologists, internal medicine physicians, and family practice clinicians. It appears to be necessary. In 2020, just 25% of the 1.2 million Americans who could benefit from PrEP were taking it, according to CDC data.

But those rates belie stark disparities in PrEP use by race and gender. The vast majority of those using PrEP are White Americans and men. About 66% of White Americans who could benefit from PrEP used it in 2020, and more than a quarter of the men who could benefit used it. By contrast, just 16% of Latinx people who could benefit had a prescription. And fewer than 1 in 10 Black Americans, who make up nearly half of those with indications for PrEP, had a prescription. The same was true for the women who could benefit.

Researchers and data from early PrEP demonstration projects have documented that clinicians are less likely to refer or prescribe the HIV prevention pills to Black people, especially the Black cisgender and transgender women and same-gender-loving men who bear the disproportionate burden of new cases in the United States, as well as fail to prescribe the medication to people who inject drugs.
 

Normalizing PrEP in primary care

When Courtney Sherman, DNP, APRN, first heard about PrEP in the early 2010s, she joked that her reaction was: “You’re ridiculous. You’re making that up. That’s not real.”

Ms. Sherman is now launching a tele-PrEP program from CAN Community Health, a nonprofit network of community health centers in southern Florida. The tele-PrEP program is meant to serve people in Florida and beyond, to increase access to the pill in areas with few health care professionals, or clinicians unwilling to prescribe it.

“When I go other places, I can’t do what I do for a living without getting some sort of bizarre comment or look,” she said. But the looks don’t just come from family, friends, or her children’s teachers. They come from colleagues, too. “What I’ve learned is that anybody – anybody – can be impacted [by HIV] and the illusion that ‘those people who live over there do things that me and my kind don’t do’ is just garbage.”

That’s the PrEP stigma that the universal PrEP counseling in the guidelines is meant to override, said Dr. Daskalakis. Going forward, he said that informing people about PrEP should be treated as normally as counseling people about smoking.

“You can change the blank: You talk to all adolescents and adults about not smoking,” he said. “This is: ‘Tell adolescents and adults about ways you can prevent HIV, and PrEP is one of them.’ ”

The guidelines also simplify for monitoring lab levels for the current daily pills, checking creatinine clearance levels twice a year in people older than age 50 and once a year in those younger than 50 taking the oral pills. Dr. Daskalakis said that should ease the burden of monitoring PrEP patients for health care professionals with busy caseloads.

It’s a move that drew praise from Shawnika Hull, PhD, assistant professor of health communications at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.. Dr. Hull’s recent data showed that clinicians who espoused more biased racial views were also less likely to prescribe PrEP to Black women who asked for it.

“Public health practitioners and scientists have been advocating for this as a strategy, as one way to address several ongoing barriers to PrEP specifically but also equity in PrEP,” said Dr. Hull. “This sort of universal provision of information is really an important strategy to try to undo some of the deeply intertwined barriers to uptake.”
 

‘Don’t grill them’

The updated guidelines keep the number and proportion of Americans who could benefit from PrEP the same: 1.2 million Americans, with nearly half of those Black. And the reasons people would qualify for PrEP remain the same: inconsistent condom use, sharing injection drug equipment, and a STI diagnosis in the last 6 months. There are also 57 jurisdictions, including seven rural states, where dating and having sex carries an increased risk of acquiring HIV because of high rates of untreated HIV in the community.

That’s why the other big change in the update is guidance to prescribe PrEP to whoever asks for it, whether the patient divulges their risk or not. Or as Dr. Daskalakis puts it: “If someone asks for PrEP, don’t grill them.”

There are lots of reasons that someone might ask for PrEP without divulging their risk behaviors, said Dr. Daskalakis, who was an infectious disease doctor in New York back in 2012 (and a member of the FDA committee) when the first pill for PrEP was approved. He said he’s seen this particularly with women who ask about it. Asking for PrEP ends up being an “ice breaker” to discussing the woman’s sexual and injection drug use history, which can then improve the kinds of tests and vaccinations clinicians suggest for her.

“So many women will open the door and say, ‘I want to do this,’ and not necessarily want to go into the details,” he said. “Now, will they go into the details later? Absolutely. That’s how you create trust and connection.”
 

A mandate and a guideline

Leisha McKinley-Beach, MPH, a member of the U.S. Women and PrEP Working Group, has been urging greater funding and mandates to expand PrEP to women since the first pill was approved. And still, Ms. McKinley-Beach said she recently met a woman who worked for a community group scheduling PrEP appointments for gay men. But the woman didn’t know that she, too, could take it. 

The American Academy of Family Physicians recommends health care professionals offer PrEP to those who can benefit. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have a 2014 committee opinion stating that PrEP “may be a useful tool for women at highest risk of HIV acquisition.”

But the ACOG opinion is not a recommendation, stating that it “should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed.” Ms. McKinley-Beach said she hopes that the new CDC guidelines will prompt ACOG and other professional organizations to issue statements to include PrEP education in all health assessments. A spokesperson for ACOG said that the organization had not seen the new CDC guidelines and had no statement on them, but pointed out that the 2014 committee opinion is one of the “highest level of documents we produce.

“We have failed for nearly a decade to raise awareness that PrEP is also a prevention strategy for women,” Ms. McKinley-Beach said in an interview. “In many ways, we’re still back in 2012 as it relates to women.”

Dr. Hull reported having done previous research funded by Gilead Sciences and having received consulting fees from Gilead Sciences in 2018. Ms. McKinley-Beach reported receiving honoraria from ViiV Healthcare. Ms. Sherman and Dr. Daskalakis disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting Dec. 8, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends all clinicians talk to their sexually active adolescent and adult patients about HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) at least once and prescribe the prevention pills to anyone who asks for them, whether or not you understand their need for it.

“PrEP is a part of good primary care,” Demetre Daskalakis, MD, CDC’s director of the division of HIV/AIDS prevention, said in an interview. “Listening to people and what they need, as opposed to assessing what you think they need, is a seismic shift in how PrEP should be offered.”

The expanded recommendation comes as part of the 2021 update to the U.S. Public Health Service’s PrEP prescribing guidelines. It’s the third iteration since the Food and Drug Administration approved the first HIV prevention pill in 2012, and the first to include guidance on how to prescribe and monitor an injectable version of PrEP, which the FDA may approve as early as December 2021.

There are currently two pills, Truvada (emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, Gilead Sciences and generic) and Descovy (emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, Gilead Sciences). The pills have been found to be up to 99% effective in preventing HIV acquisition. The new injectable cabotegravir appears to be even more effective.

The broadened guidance is part of an effort from the country’s top health officials to expand PrEP prescribing from infectious disease specialists and sexual health clinics to health care professionals, including gynecologists, internal medicine physicians, and family practice clinicians. It appears to be necessary. In 2020, just 25% of the 1.2 million Americans who could benefit from PrEP were taking it, according to CDC data.

But those rates belie stark disparities in PrEP use by race and gender. The vast majority of those using PrEP are White Americans and men. About 66% of White Americans who could benefit from PrEP used it in 2020, and more than a quarter of the men who could benefit used it. By contrast, just 16% of Latinx people who could benefit had a prescription. And fewer than 1 in 10 Black Americans, who make up nearly half of those with indications for PrEP, had a prescription. The same was true for the women who could benefit.

Researchers and data from early PrEP demonstration projects have documented that clinicians are less likely to refer or prescribe the HIV prevention pills to Black people, especially the Black cisgender and transgender women and same-gender-loving men who bear the disproportionate burden of new cases in the United States, as well as fail to prescribe the medication to people who inject drugs.
 

Normalizing PrEP in primary care

When Courtney Sherman, DNP, APRN, first heard about PrEP in the early 2010s, she joked that her reaction was: “You’re ridiculous. You’re making that up. That’s not real.”

Ms. Sherman is now launching a tele-PrEP program from CAN Community Health, a nonprofit network of community health centers in southern Florida. The tele-PrEP program is meant to serve people in Florida and beyond, to increase access to the pill in areas with few health care professionals, or clinicians unwilling to prescribe it.

“When I go other places, I can’t do what I do for a living without getting some sort of bizarre comment or look,” she said. But the looks don’t just come from family, friends, or her children’s teachers. They come from colleagues, too. “What I’ve learned is that anybody – anybody – can be impacted [by HIV] and the illusion that ‘those people who live over there do things that me and my kind don’t do’ is just garbage.”

That’s the PrEP stigma that the universal PrEP counseling in the guidelines is meant to override, said Dr. Daskalakis. Going forward, he said that informing people about PrEP should be treated as normally as counseling people about smoking.

“You can change the blank: You talk to all adolescents and adults about not smoking,” he said. “This is: ‘Tell adolescents and adults about ways you can prevent HIV, and PrEP is one of them.’ ”

The guidelines also simplify for monitoring lab levels for the current daily pills, checking creatinine clearance levels twice a year in people older than age 50 and once a year in those younger than 50 taking the oral pills. Dr. Daskalakis said that should ease the burden of monitoring PrEP patients for health care professionals with busy caseloads.

It’s a move that drew praise from Shawnika Hull, PhD, assistant professor of health communications at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.. Dr. Hull’s recent data showed that clinicians who espoused more biased racial views were also less likely to prescribe PrEP to Black women who asked for it.

“Public health practitioners and scientists have been advocating for this as a strategy, as one way to address several ongoing barriers to PrEP specifically but also equity in PrEP,” said Dr. Hull. “This sort of universal provision of information is really an important strategy to try to undo some of the deeply intertwined barriers to uptake.”
 

‘Don’t grill them’

The updated guidelines keep the number and proportion of Americans who could benefit from PrEP the same: 1.2 million Americans, with nearly half of those Black. And the reasons people would qualify for PrEP remain the same: inconsistent condom use, sharing injection drug equipment, and a STI diagnosis in the last 6 months. There are also 57 jurisdictions, including seven rural states, where dating and having sex carries an increased risk of acquiring HIV because of high rates of untreated HIV in the community.

That’s why the other big change in the update is guidance to prescribe PrEP to whoever asks for it, whether the patient divulges their risk or not. Or as Dr. Daskalakis puts it: “If someone asks for PrEP, don’t grill them.”

There are lots of reasons that someone might ask for PrEP without divulging their risk behaviors, said Dr. Daskalakis, who was an infectious disease doctor in New York back in 2012 (and a member of the FDA committee) when the first pill for PrEP was approved. He said he’s seen this particularly with women who ask about it. Asking for PrEP ends up being an “ice breaker” to discussing the woman’s sexual and injection drug use history, which can then improve the kinds of tests and vaccinations clinicians suggest for her.

“So many women will open the door and say, ‘I want to do this,’ and not necessarily want to go into the details,” he said. “Now, will they go into the details later? Absolutely. That’s how you create trust and connection.”
 

A mandate and a guideline

Leisha McKinley-Beach, MPH, a member of the U.S. Women and PrEP Working Group, has been urging greater funding and mandates to expand PrEP to women since the first pill was approved. And still, Ms. McKinley-Beach said she recently met a woman who worked for a community group scheduling PrEP appointments for gay men. But the woman didn’t know that she, too, could take it. 

The American Academy of Family Physicians recommends health care professionals offer PrEP to those who can benefit. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have a 2014 committee opinion stating that PrEP “may be a useful tool for women at highest risk of HIV acquisition.”

But the ACOG opinion is not a recommendation, stating that it “should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed.” Ms. McKinley-Beach said she hopes that the new CDC guidelines will prompt ACOG and other professional organizations to issue statements to include PrEP education in all health assessments. A spokesperson for ACOG said that the organization had not seen the new CDC guidelines and had no statement on them, but pointed out that the 2014 committee opinion is one of the “highest level of documents we produce.

“We have failed for nearly a decade to raise awareness that PrEP is also a prevention strategy for women,” Ms. McKinley-Beach said in an interview. “In many ways, we’re still back in 2012 as it relates to women.”

Dr. Hull reported having done previous research funded by Gilead Sciences and having received consulting fees from Gilead Sciences in 2018. Ms. McKinley-Beach reported receiving honoraria from ViiV Healthcare. Ms. Sherman and Dr. Daskalakis disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Not that long ago, a man in his mid-20s whom Morgan Farrington calls Kiddo showed up at her house with a fever, chills, and nausea. He was increasingly out of it. These were all signs of an abscess from missing a vein and using someone else’s syringe, said Farrington, founder of Goodworks, in Huntsville, Alabama.

But it wasn’t just an abscess. It was four blood clots and sepsis. He’d been craving his next fix of heroin so hard, and the relief that comes from the act of shooting up itself, that he’d dug a 3-day-old blood shot – a used syringe with someone else’s blood in it – out of the garbage and had used it.

“He was almost dead,” said Farrington. “Another day, maybe two, he would have been dead, for sure, for sure.”

Farrington gets it. She has her own history of injection drug use. She knows the compulsion to, in her words, “shoot up sugar water just to get a hit.” And that’s fine, she said. “I just wish that he would do so with his own safety in mind.”

So when he got out of the hospital a few weeks later, Farrington talked to him about not just clean syringes but also HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the daily HIV prevention pills that have been found to be up to 84% protective against HIV in people who inject drugs. Both approaches – syringe services and PrEP – play a key role in the president’s new National HIV/AIDS Strategy. The strategy calls for expanding access to both services in traditional and nontraditional settings but doesn’t include mechanisms for that to happen.

Of the 1.2 million people in the U.S. who could benefit from PrEP, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 23% are using it. But according to data published in 2020, just 0% and 5% of people who inject drugs who could benefit are using it. And most, like the guy Farrington continues to talk to, don’t even know it exists.
 

People who inject drugs are willing, clinicians may not be

Clinicians have a role to play, but right now, many clinicians act as gatekeepers, picking and choosing whom they’ll offer PrEP to. In 2014, just 1% of PrEP prescribers said they had prescribed the prevention pill to people who inject drugs. And recent data published in AIDS and Behavior showed that clinicians who expressed negative attitudes about people who injected drugs were less likely to offer to prescribe PrEP to a theoretical man who injected drugs asking for PrEP. There was a paradox in there, however: Clinicians were also more likely to think men who inject drugs were at high risk for acquiring HIV. But they also believed those men would be less likely to adhere, less safety conscious, and less responsible than gay and bisexual men. So, the investigators found that despite need, clinicians were more likely to prescribe to men at risk via sex than men at risk via injection drug use.

According to the CDC, to qualify for PrEP, the only requirements for people who inject drugs are testing negative for HIV and not sharing injection equipment – whether their injecting partners have confirmed HIV or whether their HIV status is unknown.

“As long as PrEP is a prescription, medication providers are really going to determine who accesses PrEP and who does not,” said study lead author Sarah Calabrese, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry at George Washington University. “Even if you do anticipate that a patient might have adherence struggles. The solution is not withholding something that could be beneficial to them. The solution is supporting them to take that beneficial medication.”

And it appears that providers and regular people like Farrington have stepped into the access vacuum, with a decidedly harm-reduction approach: syringe services programs. While there’s no national data on how many people receive PrEP through needle exchange programs, those programs are the natural place to offer other health care services, said Hansel Tookes, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Miami and founder of the Infectious Disease Elimination Act (IDEA) Syringe Exchange program and clinic. At the clinic, 80% of the people living with HIV have undetectable viral loads – a sign of good adherence to medication and general health. Previous research suggests that when people who inject drugs find out about PrEP, 57% are game for trying it. But early work suggests that people who inject drugs might need to access PrEP in a different way from other people who use PrEP.

Dr. Tookes is currently conducting a study looking at whether referring people who inject drugs out from needle exchanges to PrEP prescribers is as effective as offering it on site at the exchanges.

“My experience in the past 5 years of being faculty at the university and being a cofounder of a program like IDEA is that we really, if we’re going to be successful with engaging people who inject drugs in things like PrEP, we have to, like all things harm reduction, meet them where they’re at, both physically and mentally, and on their own terms,” said Dr. Tookes. “What better place than a syringe services program?”
 

Where people are: the exchanges

That’s where community health worker Farrington and others come in. More than 400 syringe access programs that exist in North America have PrEP programs, according to the North American Syringe Exchange Network (NASEN), and 86 of them report offering access to PrEP, either directly or through referrals. It’s an HIV prevention one-two punch: PrEP protects a person once they are exposed to HIV, and needle exchanges themselves reduce HIV transmission rates by reducing the odds that people will engage in behavior that exposes them to the virus in the first place.

So far, PrEP access for people who inject drugs looks different everywhere. At Las Vegas’ Huntridge Family Clinic, people can come to the lobby and pick up clean supplies from a syringe exchange vending machine, and while they’re there, talk to nurse practitioner Rob Phoenix, MSN, APRN, about HIV prevention.

In Cincinnati, where Adam Reilly, CDCA, runs a Ryan White–funded PrEP program out of the nonprofit Caracole, PrEP navigators go out with the syringe services vans run by the county health department and can connect them with providers willing to prescribe it. In Alabama, where needle exchanges are illegal, Farrington works as a community health worker through the North Alabama Area Health Education Center to go in to Huntsville’s legal tent cities to offer HIV and hepatitis C testing and tell them about PrEP. In Philadelphia, Drexel University, the city Department of Health, and Prevention Point Philadelphia co-offer PrEP through Prevention Point, which increased the number of people who inject drugs taking PrEP from just two to three a year to 584 times in 2021, according to Andres Freire, director of harm reduction health services at Prevention Point Philadelphia.

“Co-locating a PrEP clinic with our syringe-services program is the most effective means of delivering care to people who use drugs,” he said. “It is a friendly, nonstigmatizing place, as well as a place where individuals are already coming for services.”

At Dr. Tookes’ IDEA clinic and its PrEP study, people who inject drugs can not only get clean supplies, they can get a PrEP prescription on site and store their medications at the exchange so they don’t get stolen or used by others. And that idea didn’t come from him.

“It was one of my patients,” he said. “That person gave me an idea that impacted the health of hundreds of people in Miami.”

Indeed, Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program does the same. New data showed that what really worked for people who injected drugs in the group was not just medication storage on site but also PrEP prescriptions that lasted just a week at a time, or even same-day prescribing, as well as the program’s PrEP nurses showing up in person to their communities. That program managed to get PrEP referrals to 239 people, 152 of whom started taking PrEP. Six months later, 22 people were still using it.

But Dr. Tookes’s is a rare study on PrEP among people who inject drugs. The only data so far on the efficacy of PrEP for this group come from a 2013 study out of Thailand. Angela Bazzi, PhD, an associate professor of family medicine and public health at the University of California, San Diego, who studied the Boston program, said the dearth of research into effective ways of getting PrEP to people who inject drugs is fueling a negative feedback loop, where people who inject drugs and their providers largely don’t know about the HIV prevention pills, don’t see research on it, and therefore think it won’t work in people who inject drugs.

“There’s been a systematic exclusion of people who inject drugs from HIV prevention drug trials,” Dr. Bazzi told this news organization. Together with colleagues she wrote a viewpoint on the issue that was published in the International Journal of Drug Policy. “It really extends into effectiveness research, public health research, and clinical practice. We argued that the stigma surrounding addiction is the key driver of this.”

This is especially important, she said, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had been expected to make an approval decision on an injectable form of PrEP by Jan. 2021. That drug, cabotegravir, has been found to work for a month at a time. Injection drug users were excluded from the primary clinical trial of that drug, though a ViiV Healthcare spokesperson said the company is planning an after-market study in people who inject drugs some time in the future.
 

An incomplete solution

But syringe services aren’t enough, said Mr. Reilly. For one thing, public funding of PrEP programs can limit things like where navigators can send people. For instance, in Ohio, Mr. Reilly’s team can cover the costs of PrEP for people who inject drugs – but only with certain providers. State law prohibits them from contracting with Planned Parenthood.

Also, syringe services aren’t available everywhere. In Pennsylvania, where syringe services are legal only in the counties containing Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the state’s two large cities, funding for basic syringe services precludes expanding services to offer PrEP.

“A lot of our focus has to stay with making sure our folks have access to the harm-reduction supplies they need, because the number of people we are seeing has grown exponentially during the pandemic,” said Katie Houston, a coordinator for Prevention Point Pittsburgh, which tries to address its clients’s PrEP needs by holding syringe-services distribution at a local clinic that provides PrEP. “Getting funding for our core supplies like syringes, crack pipes, and the works is extremely difficult because many grants/foundations don’t want to fund these supplies. And with the growing number of SSPs, the funding that has been available is being spread thin.”

And that means that traditional clinicians still have an important role to play, said Mr. Reilly.

“Syringe services programs are supposed to now provide treatment for hepatitis C and make sure people get on PrEP?” he said. “That seems like medical providers’s job.”

As for Farrington, operating as a solo health worker without the benefit of exchanges to help people like the young man who came to her house that night, she’ll keep going in to tent city and inviting sick people who inject drugs into her home to offer them what she can. She can’t legally offer syringe services. But she can keep checking in on people and offering them the help that’s available.

Recently, she saw that young man again. He was in a better place. He had found a place to live for the winter, so he wouldn’t have to stay in the hammock in someone’s yard when the temperatures dipped. And that was going a long way to stabilize everything else in his life. He’s still shooting up, she said, but having housing is making it easier for him to moderate his use. As for PrEP, he hasn’t started on that, either. But Farrington hasn’t given up hope.

“Not yet,” she said.

Dr. Tookes reports receiving research funding from Gilead Sciences. Dr. Calabrese reports receiving conference travel funding from Gilead Sciences. Farrington, Dr. Bazzi, Ms. Houston, Mr. Freire, and Mr. Reilly reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Not that long ago, a man in his mid-20s whom Morgan Farrington calls Kiddo showed up at her house with a fever, chills, and nausea. He was increasingly out of it. These were all signs of an abscess from missing a vein and using someone else’s syringe, said Farrington, founder of Goodworks, in Huntsville, Alabama.

But it wasn’t just an abscess. It was four blood clots and sepsis. He’d been craving his next fix of heroin so hard, and the relief that comes from the act of shooting up itself, that he’d dug a 3-day-old blood shot – a used syringe with someone else’s blood in it – out of the garbage and had used it.

“He was almost dead,” said Farrington. “Another day, maybe two, he would have been dead, for sure, for sure.”

Farrington gets it. She has her own history of injection drug use. She knows the compulsion to, in her words, “shoot up sugar water just to get a hit.” And that’s fine, she said. “I just wish that he would do so with his own safety in mind.”

So when he got out of the hospital a few weeks later, Farrington talked to him about not just clean syringes but also HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the daily HIV prevention pills that have been found to be up to 84% protective against HIV in people who inject drugs. Both approaches – syringe services and PrEP – play a key role in the president’s new National HIV/AIDS Strategy. The strategy calls for expanding access to both services in traditional and nontraditional settings but doesn’t include mechanisms for that to happen.

Of the 1.2 million people in the U.S. who could benefit from PrEP, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 23% are using it. But according to data published in 2020, just 0% and 5% of people who inject drugs who could benefit are using it. And most, like the guy Farrington continues to talk to, don’t even know it exists.
 

People who inject drugs are willing, clinicians may not be

Clinicians have a role to play, but right now, many clinicians act as gatekeepers, picking and choosing whom they’ll offer PrEP to. In 2014, just 1% of PrEP prescribers said they had prescribed the prevention pill to people who inject drugs. And recent data published in AIDS and Behavior showed that clinicians who expressed negative attitudes about people who injected drugs were less likely to offer to prescribe PrEP to a theoretical man who injected drugs asking for PrEP. There was a paradox in there, however: Clinicians were also more likely to think men who inject drugs were at high risk for acquiring HIV. But they also believed those men would be less likely to adhere, less safety conscious, and less responsible than gay and bisexual men. So, the investigators found that despite need, clinicians were more likely to prescribe to men at risk via sex than men at risk via injection drug use.

According to the CDC, to qualify for PrEP, the only requirements for people who inject drugs are testing negative for HIV and not sharing injection equipment – whether their injecting partners have confirmed HIV or whether their HIV status is unknown.

“As long as PrEP is a prescription, medication providers are really going to determine who accesses PrEP and who does not,” said study lead author Sarah Calabrese, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry at George Washington University. “Even if you do anticipate that a patient might have adherence struggles. The solution is not withholding something that could be beneficial to them. The solution is supporting them to take that beneficial medication.”

And it appears that providers and regular people like Farrington have stepped into the access vacuum, with a decidedly harm-reduction approach: syringe services programs. While there’s no national data on how many people receive PrEP through needle exchange programs, those programs are the natural place to offer other health care services, said Hansel Tookes, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Miami and founder of the Infectious Disease Elimination Act (IDEA) Syringe Exchange program and clinic. At the clinic, 80% of the people living with HIV have undetectable viral loads – a sign of good adherence to medication and general health. Previous research suggests that when people who inject drugs find out about PrEP, 57% are game for trying it. But early work suggests that people who inject drugs might need to access PrEP in a different way from other people who use PrEP.

Dr. Tookes is currently conducting a study looking at whether referring people who inject drugs out from needle exchanges to PrEP prescribers is as effective as offering it on site at the exchanges.

“My experience in the past 5 years of being faculty at the university and being a cofounder of a program like IDEA is that we really, if we’re going to be successful with engaging people who inject drugs in things like PrEP, we have to, like all things harm reduction, meet them where they’re at, both physically and mentally, and on their own terms,” said Dr. Tookes. “What better place than a syringe services program?”
 

Where people are: the exchanges

That’s where community health worker Farrington and others come in. More than 400 syringe access programs that exist in North America have PrEP programs, according to the North American Syringe Exchange Network (NASEN), and 86 of them report offering access to PrEP, either directly or through referrals. It’s an HIV prevention one-two punch: PrEP protects a person once they are exposed to HIV, and needle exchanges themselves reduce HIV transmission rates by reducing the odds that people will engage in behavior that exposes them to the virus in the first place.

So far, PrEP access for people who inject drugs looks different everywhere. At Las Vegas’ Huntridge Family Clinic, people can come to the lobby and pick up clean supplies from a syringe exchange vending machine, and while they’re there, talk to nurse practitioner Rob Phoenix, MSN, APRN, about HIV prevention.

In Cincinnati, where Adam Reilly, CDCA, runs a Ryan White–funded PrEP program out of the nonprofit Caracole, PrEP navigators go out with the syringe services vans run by the county health department and can connect them with providers willing to prescribe it. In Alabama, where needle exchanges are illegal, Farrington works as a community health worker through the North Alabama Area Health Education Center to go in to Huntsville’s legal tent cities to offer HIV and hepatitis C testing and tell them about PrEP. In Philadelphia, Drexel University, the city Department of Health, and Prevention Point Philadelphia co-offer PrEP through Prevention Point, which increased the number of people who inject drugs taking PrEP from just two to three a year to 584 times in 2021, according to Andres Freire, director of harm reduction health services at Prevention Point Philadelphia.

“Co-locating a PrEP clinic with our syringe-services program is the most effective means of delivering care to people who use drugs,” he said. “It is a friendly, nonstigmatizing place, as well as a place where individuals are already coming for services.”

At Dr. Tookes’ IDEA clinic and its PrEP study, people who inject drugs can not only get clean supplies, they can get a PrEP prescription on site and store their medications at the exchange so they don’t get stolen or used by others. And that idea didn’t come from him.

“It was one of my patients,” he said. “That person gave me an idea that impacted the health of hundreds of people in Miami.”

Indeed, Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program does the same. New data showed that what really worked for people who injected drugs in the group was not just medication storage on site but also PrEP prescriptions that lasted just a week at a time, or even same-day prescribing, as well as the program’s PrEP nurses showing up in person to their communities. That program managed to get PrEP referrals to 239 people, 152 of whom started taking PrEP. Six months later, 22 people were still using it.

But Dr. Tookes’s is a rare study on PrEP among people who inject drugs. The only data so far on the efficacy of PrEP for this group come from a 2013 study out of Thailand. Angela Bazzi, PhD, an associate professor of family medicine and public health at the University of California, San Diego, who studied the Boston program, said the dearth of research into effective ways of getting PrEP to people who inject drugs is fueling a negative feedback loop, where people who inject drugs and their providers largely don’t know about the HIV prevention pills, don’t see research on it, and therefore think it won’t work in people who inject drugs.

“There’s been a systematic exclusion of people who inject drugs from HIV prevention drug trials,” Dr. Bazzi told this news organization. Together with colleagues she wrote a viewpoint on the issue that was published in the International Journal of Drug Policy. “It really extends into effectiveness research, public health research, and clinical practice. We argued that the stigma surrounding addiction is the key driver of this.”

This is especially important, she said, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had been expected to make an approval decision on an injectable form of PrEP by Jan. 2021. That drug, cabotegravir, has been found to work for a month at a time. Injection drug users were excluded from the primary clinical trial of that drug, though a ViiV Healthcare spokesperson said the company is planning an after-market study in people who inject drugs some time in the future.
 

An incomplete solution

But syringe services aren’t enough, said Mr. Reilly. For one thing, public funding of PrEP programs can limit things like where navigators can send people. For instance, in Ohio, Mr. Reilly’s team can cover the costs of PrEP for people who inject drugs – but only with certain providers. State law prohibits them from contracting with Planned Parenthood.

Also, syringe services aren’t available everywhere. In Pennsylvania, where syringe services are legal only in the counties containing Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the state’s two large cities, funding for basic syringe services precludes expanding services to offer PrEP.

“A lot of our focus has to stay with making sure our folks have access to the harm-reduction supplies they need, because the number of people we are seeing has grown exponentially during the pandemic,” said Katie Houston, a coordinator for Prevention Point Pittsburgh, which tries to address its clients’s PrEP needs by holding syringe-services distribution at a local clinic that provides PrEP. “Getting funding for our core supplies like syringes, crack pipes, and the works is extremely difficult because many grants/foundations don’t want to fund these supplies. And with the growing number of SSPs, the funding that has been available is being spread thin.”

And that means that traditional clinicians still have an important role to play, said Mr. Reilly.

“Syringe services programs are supposed to now provide treatment for hepatitis C and make sure people get on PrEP?” he said. “That seems like medical providers’s job.”

As for Farrington, operating as a solo health worker without the benefit of exchanges to help people like the young man who came to her house that night, she’ll keep going in to tent city and inviting sick people who inject drugs into her home to offer them what she can. She can’t legally offer syringe services. But she can keep checking in on people and offering them the help that’s available.

Recently, she saw that young man again. He was in a better place. He had found a place to live for the winter, so he wouldn’t have to stay in the hammock in someone’s yard when the temperatures dipped. And that was going a long way to stabilize everything else in his life. He’s still shooting up, she said, but having housing is making it easier for him to moderate his use. As for PrEP, he hasn’t started on that, either. But Farrington hasn’t given up hope.

“Not yet,” she said.

Dr. Tookes reports receiving research funding from Gilead Sciences. Dr. Calabrese reports receiving conference travel funding from Gilead Sciences. Farrington, Dr. Bazzi, Ms. Houston, Mr. Freire, and Mr. Reilly reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Not that long ago, a man in his mid-20s whom Morgan Farrington calls Kiddo showed up at her house with a fever, chills, and nausea. He was increasingly out of it. These were all signs of an abscess from missing a vein and using someone else’s syringe, said Farrington, founder of Goodworks, in Huntsville, Alabama.

But it wasn’t just an abscess. It was four blood clots and sepsis. He’d been craving his next fix of heroin so hard, and the relief that comes from the act of shooting up itself, that he’d dug a 3-day-old blood shot – a used syringe with someone else’s blood in it – out of the garbage and had used it.

“He was almost dead,” said Farrington. “Another day, maybe two, he would have been dead, for sure, for sure.”

Farrington gets it. She has her own history of injection drug use. She knows the compulsion to, in her words, “shoot up sugar water just to get a hit.” And that’s fine, she said. “I just wish that he would do so with his own safety in mind.”

So when he got out of the hospital a few weeks later, Farrington talked to him about not just clean syringes but also HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the daily HIV prevention pills that have been found to be up to 84% protective against HIV in people who inject drugs. Both approaches – syringe services and PrEP – play a key role in the president’s new National HIV/AIDS Strategy. The strategy calls for expanding access to both services in traditional and nontraditional settings but doesn’t include mechanisms for that to happen.

Of the 1.2 million people in the U.S. who could benefit from PrEP, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 23% are using it. But according to data published in 2020, just 0% and 5% of people who inject drugs who could benefit are using it. And most, like the guy Farrington continues to talk to, don’t even know it exists.
 

People who inject drugs are willing, clinicians may not be

Clinicians have a role to play, but right now, many clinicians act as gatekeepers, picking and choosing whom they’ll offer PrEP to. In 2014, just 1% of PrEP prescribers said they had prescribed the prevention pill to people who inject drugs. And recent data published in AIDS and Behavior showed that clinicians who expressed negative attitudes about people who injected drugs were less likely to offer to prescribe PrEP to a theoretical man who injected drugs asking for PrEP. There was a paradox in there, however: Clinicians were also more likely to think men who inject drugs were at high risk for acquiring HIV. But they also believed those men would be less likely to adhere, less safety conscious, and less responsible than gay and bisexual men. So, the investigators found that despite need, clinicians were more likely to prescribe to men at risk via sex than men at risk via injection drug use.

According to the CDC, to qualify for PrEP, the only requirements for people who inject drugs are testing negative for HIV and not sharing injection equipment – whether their injecting partners have confirmed HIV or whether their HIV status is unknown.

“As long as PrEP is a prescription, medication providers are really going to determine who accesses PrEP and who does not,” said study lead author Sarah Calabrese, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry at George Washington University. “Even if you do anticipate that a patient might have adherence struggles. The solution is not withholding something that could be beneficial to them. The solution is supporting them to take that beneficial medication.”

And it appears that providers and regular people like Farrington have stepped into the access vacuum, with a decidedly harm-reduction approach: syringe services programs. While there’s no national data on how many people receive PrEP through needle exchange programs, those programs are the natural place to offer other health care services, said Hansel Tookes, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Miami and founder of the Infectious Disease Elimination Act (IDEA) Syringe Exchange program and clinic. At the clinic, 80% of the people living with HIV have undetectable viral loads – a sign of good adherence to medication and general health. Previous research suggests that when people who inject drugs find out about PrEP, 57% are game for trying it. But early work suggests that people who inject drugs might need to access PrEP in a different way from other people who use PrEP.

Dr. Tookes is currently conducting a study looking at whether referring people who inject drugs out from needle exchanges to PrEP prescribers is as effective as offering it on site at the exchanges.

“My experience in the past 5 years of being faculty at the university and being a cofounder of a program like IDEA is that we really, if we’re going to be successful with engaging people who inject drugs in things like PrEP, we have to, like all things harm reduction, meet them where they’re at, both physically and mentally, and on their own terms,” said Dr. Tookes. “What better place than a syringe services program?”
 

Where people are: the exchanges

That’s where community health worker Farrington and others come in. More than 400 syringe access programs that exist in North America have PrEP programs, according to the North American Syringe Exchange Network (NASEN), and 86 of them report offering access to PrEP, either directly or through referrals. It’s an HIV prevention one-two punch: PrEP protects a person once they are exposed to HIV, and needle exchanges themselves reduce HIV transmission rates by reducing the odds that people will engage in behavior that exposes them to the virus in the first place.

So far, PrEP access for people who inject drugs looks different everywhere. At Las Vegas’ Huntridge Family Clinic, people can come to the lobby and pick up clean supplies from a syringe exchange vending machine, and while they’re there, talk to nurse practitioner Rob Phoenix, MSN, APRN, about HIV prevention.

In Cincinnati, where Adam Reilly, CDCA, runs a Ryan White–funded PrEP program out of the nonprofit Caracole, PrEP navigators go out with the syringe services vans run by the county health department and can connect them with providers willing to prescribe it. In Alabama, where needle exchanges are illegal, Farrington works as a community health worker through the North Alabama Area Health Education Center to go in to Huntsville’s legal tent cities to offer HIV and hepatitis C testing and tell them about PrEP. In Philadelphia, Drexel University, the city Department of Health, and Prevention Point Philadelphia co-offer PrEP through Prevention Point, which increased the number of people who inject drugs taking PrEP from just two to three a year to 584 times in 2021, according to Andres Freire, director of harm reduction health services at Prevention Point Philadelphia.

“Co-locating a PrEP clinic with our syringe-services program is the most effective means of delivering care to people who use drugs,” he said. “It is a friendly, nonstigmatizing place, as well as a place where individuals are already coming for services.”

At Dr. Tookes’ IDEA clinic and its PrEP study, people who inject drugs can not only get clean supplies, they can get a PrEP prescription on site and store their medications at the exchange so they don’t get stolen or used by others. And that idea didn’t come from him.

“It was one of my patients,” he said. “That person gave me an idea that impacted the health of hundreds of people in Miami.”

Indeed, Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program does the same. New data showed that what really worked for people who injected drugs in the group was not just medication storage on site but also PrEP prescriptions that lasted just a week at a time, or even same-day prescribing, as well as the program’s PrEP nurses showing up in person to their communities. That program managed to get PrEP referrals to 239 people, 152 of whom started taking PrEP. Six months later, 22 people were still using it.

But Dr. Tookes’s is a rare study on PrEP among people who inject drugs. The only data so far on the efficacy of PrEP for this group come from a 2013 study out of Thailand. Angela Bazzi, PhD, an associate professor of family medicine and public health at the University of California, San Diego, who studied the Boston program, said the dearth of research into effective ways of getting PrEP to people who inject drugs is fueling a negative feedback loop, where people who inject drugs and their providers largely don’t know about the HIV prevention pills, don’t see research on it, and therefore think it won’t work in people who inject drugs.

“There’s been a systematic exclusion of people who inject drugs from HIV prevention drug trials,” Dr. Bazzi told this news organization. Together with colleagues she wrote a viewpoint on the issue that was published in the International Journal of Drug Policy. “It really extends into effectiveness research, public health research, and clinical practice. We argued that the stigma surrounding addiction is the key driver of this.”

This is especially important, she said, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had been expected to make an approval decision on an injectable form of PrEP by Jan. 2021. That drug, cabotegravir, has been found to work for a month at a time. Injection drug users were excluded from the primary clinical trial of that drug, though a ViiV Healthcare spokesperson said the company is planning an after-market study in people who inject drugs some time in the future.
 

An incomplete solution

But syringe services aren’t enough, said Mr. Reilly. For one thing, public funding of PrEP programs can limit things like where navigators can send people. For instance, in Ohio, Mr. Reilly’s team can cover the costs of PrEP for people who inject drugs – but only with certain providers. State law prohibits them from contracting with Planned Parenthood.

Also, syringe services aren’t available everywhere. In Pennsylvania, where syringe services are legal only in the counties containing Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the state’s two large cities, funding for basic syringe services precludes expanding services to offer PrEP.

“A lot of our focus has to stay with making sure our folks have access to the harm-reduction supplies they need, because the number of people we are seeing has grown exponentially during the pandemic,” said Katie Houston, a coordinator for Prevention Point Pittsburgh, which tries to address its clients’s PrEP needs by holding syringe-services distribution at a local clinic that provides PrEP. “Getting funding for our core supplies like syringes, crack pipes, and the works is extremely difficult because many grants/foundations don’t want to fund these supplies. And with the growing number of SSPs, the funding that has been available is being spread thin.”

And that means that traditional clinicians still have an important role to play, said Mr. Reilly.

“Syringe services programs are supposed to now provide treatment for hepatitis C and make sure people get on PrEP?” he said. “That seems like medical providers’s job.”

As for Farrington, operating as a solo health worker without the benefit of exchanges to help people like the young man who came to her house that night, she’ll keep going in to tent city and inviting sick people who inject drugs into her home to offer them what she can. She can’t legally offer syringe services. But she can keep checking in on people and offering them the help that’s available.

Recently, she saw that young man again. He was in a better place. He had found a place to live for the winter, so he wouldn’t have to stay in the hammock in someone’s yard when the temperatures dipped. And that was going a long way to stabilize everything else in his life. He’s still shooting up, she said, but having housing is making it easier for him to moderate his use. As for PrEP, he hasn’t started on that, either. But Farrington hasn’t given up hope.

“Not yet,” she said.

Dr. Tookes reports receiving research funding from Gilead Sciences. Dr. Calabrese reports receiving conference travel funding from Gilead Sciences. Farrington, Dr. Bazzi, Ms. Houston, Mr. Freire, and Mr. Reilly reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It sounds like a fairy tale steeped in HIV stigma: A woman wakes up one morning and, poof, the HIV she’s been living with for 8 years is gone. But for a 30-year-old Argentinian woman from the aptly named village of Esperanza, that’s close to the truth, according to an article published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The woman, the so-called Esperanza Patient, appears to be the second person whose immune system cleared the virus without the use of stem cell transplantation. The first was Loreen Willenberg, a California woman who, after living with HIV for 27 years, no longer had replicating HIV in her system. That case was reported last year.

“That’s the beauty of this name, right? Esperanza,” said Xu Yu, MD, principal investigator of the Ragon Institute of Massachusetts General Hospital, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard University, Boston, referring to the Spanish word for “hope.” “This makes us hopeful that a natural cure of HIV is actually possible.”

Two other people appear to have cleared HIV, but only after full replacement of the immune system via stem cell transplantation – the Berlin Patient, Timothy Ray Brown, and the London Patient. Another man, from Brazil, appeared to have an undetectable viral load after receiving intensified antiretroviral treatment plus supplemental vitamin B3.
 

The rarest of the rare

The Esperanza Patient is among a rare group of people living with HIV called elite controllers. These people’s immune systems can control HIV without antiretrovirals. Most elite controllers’ immune systems, however, can’t mount the immune attack necessary to eliminate all replicating HIV from their systems. Instead, their immune systems control the virus without affecting the reservoirs where HIV continues to make copies of itself and can spread.

The Esperanza Patient and Ms. Willenberg, however, appear to be the rarest of the rare. Their own immune systems seem not only to have stopped HIV replication outside of reservoirs but also to have stormed those reservoirs and killed all virus that might have continued to replicate.

The two women are connected in another way: At an HIV conference in 2019, Dr. Yu was presenting data on Ms. Willenberg’s case. At that conference, she met Natalia Laufer, MD, PhD, associate researcher at the Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirs y SIDA at the University of Buenos Aires. Dr. Laufer had been studying the Esperanza Patient at the time and asked Dr. Yu whether she and her team at the Ragon Institute could help her sequence the patient’s HIV genome to see whether, indeed, the virus had been spontaneously cleared from the patient’s system.

So that’s what the pair did, in collaboration with several other researchers into cures for HIV. The Esperanza Patient first acquired HIV in 2013, but in the 8 years that followed, results of 10 conventional viral load tests indicated the virus was undetectable (that is, below the level of quantification for standard technology). During that time, the woman’s boyfriend, from whom she had acquired HIV, died of AIDS-defining illnesses. She subsequently married and had a baby. Both her partner and baby are HIV negative. She only received HIV treatment for 6 months while she was pregnant.
 

A fossil record of HIV

Yet, there was still HIV in the woman’s system. Dr. Laufer and Dr. Yu wanted to know whether that HIV was transmissible or whether it was a relic from when HIV was still replicating and was now defective and incapable of replicating. They performed extensive genome sequencing on nearly 1.2 billion cells that Dr. Laufer had taken from the patient’s blood in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, an additional 503 million cells that were from the placenta of the baby she gave birth to in 2020, and 150 million resting CD4 T cells. Proviral sequencing was undertaken of the full DNA of the HIV to detect whether the virus was still intact. The DNA was then analyzed by use of an algorithm and was tested for mutations. The investigators tested the patient’s CD4 cells to determine whether the cells still harbored any latent HIV.

In this way, they conducted a full viral workup using tests that are far more sensitive than the viral load tests the woman had undergone in the clinic. The investigators then assessed the patient’s immune system to see what the various cells of the immune system could tell them about how well her natural immune system could identify and kill HIV. They isolated the Esperanza Patient’s immune cells and subjected those cells to HIV in the lab to see whether the cells could detect and eliminate the virus.

And just to be safe, they checked to make sure there were no antiretroviral drugs in the patient’s system.

What they found was that without treatment, her CD4 count hovered around 1,000 cells – a sign of a functioning immune system. DNA sequences revealed large chunks of missing DNA, and one sequence had an immune-induced hypermutation. In total, seven proviruses were found, but none were capable of replicating. The CD4 cells they evaluated showed no evidence of latent HIV.

In other words, they had uncovered a fossil record.

“These HIV-1 DNA products clearly indicate that this person was infected with HIV-1 in the past and that active cycles of viral replication had occurred at one point,” Dr. Yu and colleagues write in their recent article.

What may be more useful to researchers looking to turn this spontaneous cure into treatment for millions of people living with active HIV was the evidence that the woman’s immune system had trained itself to attack HIV through a number of genetic mutations. What they found, the researchers write, was evidence of “an incomplete seroconversion” – that is, when the patient was acquiring HIV, the infection was stopped in its tracks.

Yet, Dr. Yu and colleagues say that they can’t prove that the woman is fully cured of HIV.

“Although this might sound unsatisfying, it reflects an intrinsic limitation of scientific research,” they write. “Scientific concepts can never be proved through empirical data collection; they can only be disproved.”
 

There are more out there

Are these women the only ones to have spontaneously cleared HIV? That’s the question, said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. Just like they can’t disprove that the women cured themselves, they can’t prove that she and Ms. Willenberg are the only two people to have experienced this cure.

“We’re all struggling with this,” Dr. Dieffenbach told this news organization. “The goal is to get enough of these people so maybe there’s a road map to how to induce, trigger, change immunity. But this could well be a unique event at the time of initiation of infection. We just don’t know.”

What is needed, Dr. Yu said, is for clinicians to reach out to them regarding cases that could mimic the cases of Ms. Willenberg and the Esperanza Patient. Elaborate testing could then be conducted to see whether these cases are similar to those of Ms. Willenberg and the Esperanza Patient.

“We do think there are more out there,” Dr. Yu said in an interview.

Asked whether we’re still far away from applying these one-off cures to the millions of people taking HIV treatment daily, Dr. Yu responded, “We might be close. That’s the beauty of scientific discovery. We don’t know, but that’s why we need more engagement of the community and care providers to help us.”

The research was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Yu and Dr. Dieffenbach have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It sounds like a fairy tale steeped in HIV stigma: A woman wakes up one morning and, poof, the HIV she’s been living with for 8 years is gone. But for a 30-year-old Argentinian woman from the aptly named village of Esperanza, that’s close to the truth, according to an article published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The woman, the so-called Esperanza Patient, appears to be the second person whose immune system cleared the virus without the use of stem cell transplantation. The first was Loreen Willenberg, a California woman who, after living with HIV for 27 years, no longer had replicating HIV in her system. That case was reported last year.

“That’s the beauty of this name, right? Esperanza,” said Xu Yu, MD, principal investigator of the Ragon Institute of Massachusetts General Hospital, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard University, Boston, referring to the Spanish word for “hope.” “This makes us hopeful that a natural cure of HIV is actually possible.”

Two other people appear to have cleared HIV, but only after full replacement of the immune system via stem cell transplantation – the Berlin Patient, Timothy Ray Brown, and the London Patient. Another man, from Brazil, appeared to have an undetectable viral load after receiving intensified antiretroviral treatment plus supplemental vitamin B3.
 

The rarest of the rare

The Esperanza Patient is among a rare group of people living with HIV called elite controllers. These people’s immune systems can control HIV without antiretrovirals. Most elite controllers’ immune systems, however, can’t mount the immune attack necessary to eliminate all replicating HIV from their systems. Instead, their immune systems control the virus without affecting the reservoirs where HIV continues to make copies of itself and can spread.

The Esperanza Patient and Ms. Willenberg, however, appear to be the rarest of the rare. Their own immune systems seem not only to have stopped HIV replication outside of reservoirs but also to have stormed those reservoirs and killed all virus that might have continued to replicate.

The two women are connected in another way: At an HIV conference in 2019, Dr. Yu was presenting data on Ms. Willenberg’s case. At that conference, she met Natalia Laufer, MD, PhD, associate researcher at the Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirs y SIDA at the University of Buenos Aires. Dr. Laufer had been studying the Esperanza Patient at the time and asked Dr. Yu whether she and her team at the Ragon Institute could help her sequence the patient’s HIV genome to see whether, indeed, the virus had been spontaneously cleared from the patient’s system.

So that’s what the pair did, in collaboration with several other researchers into cures for HIV. The Esperanza Patient first acquired HIV in 2013, but in the 8 years that followed, results of 10 conventional viral load tests indicated the virus was undetectable (that is, below the level of quantification for standard technology). During that time, the woman’s boyfriend, from whom she had acquired HIV, died of AIDS-defining illnesses. She subsequently married and had a baby. Both her partner and baby are HIV negative. She only received HIV treatment for 6 months while she was pregnant.
 

A fossil record of HIV

Yet, there was still HIV in the woman’s system. Dr. Laufer and Dr. Yu wanted to know whether that HIV was transmissible or whether it was a relic from when HIV was still replicating and was now defective and incapable of replicating. They performed extensive genome sequencing on nearly 1.2 billion cells that Dr. Laufer had taken from the patient’s blood in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, an additional 503 million cells that were from the placenta of the baby she gave birth to in 2020, and 150 million resting CD4 T cells. Proviral sequencing was undertaken of the full DNA of the HIV to detect whether the virus was still intact. The DNA was then analyzed by use of an algorithm and was tested for mutations. The investigators tested the patient’s CD4 cells to determine whether the cells still harbored any latent HIV.

In this way, they conducted a full viral workup using tests that are far more sensitive than the viral load tests the woman had undergone in the clinic. The investigators then assessed the patient’s immune system to see what the various cells of the immune system could tell them about how well her natural immune system could identify and kill HIV. They isolated the Esperanza Patient’s immune cells and subjected those cells to HIV in the lab to see whether the cells could detect and eliminate the virus.

And just to be safe, they checked to make sure there were no antiretroviral drugs in the patient’s system.

What they found was that without treatment, her CD4 count hovered around 1,000 cells – a sign of a functioning immune system. DNA sequences revealed large chunks of missing DNA, and one sequence had an immune-induced hypermutation. In total, seven proviruses were found, but none were capable of replicating. The CD4 cells they evaluated showed no evidence of latent HIV.

In other words, they had uncovered a fossil record.

“These HIV-1 DNA products clearly indicate that this person was infected with HIV-1 in the past and that active cycles of viral replication had occurred at one point,” Dr. Yu and colleagues write in their recent article.

What may be more useful to researchers looking to turn this spontaneous cure into treatment for millions of people living with active HIV was the evidence that the woman’s immune system had trained itself to attack HIV through a number of genetic mutations. What they found, the researchers write, was evidence of “an incomplete seroconversion” – that is, when the patient was acquiring HIV, the infection was stopped in its tracks.

Yet, Dr. Yu and colleagues say that they can’t prove that the woman is fully cured of HIV.

“Although this might sound unsatisfying, it reflects an intrinsic limitation of scientific research,” they write. “Scientific concepts can never be proved through empirical data collection; they can only be disproved.”
 

There are more out there

Are these women the only ones to have spontaneously cleared HIV? That’s the question, said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. Just like they can’t disprove that the women cured themselves, they can’t prove that she and Ms. Willenberg are the only two people to have experienced this cure.

“We’re all struggling with this,” Dr. Dieffenbach told this news organization. “The goal is to get enough of these people so maybe there’s a road map to how to induce, trigger, change immunity. But this could well be a unique event at the time of initiation of infection. We just don’t know.”

What is needed, Dr. Yu said, is for clinicians to reach out to them regarding cases that could mimic the cases of Ms. Willenberg and the Esperanza Patient. Elaborate testing could then be conducted to see whether these cases are similar to those of Ms. Willenberg and the Esperanza Patient.

“We do think there are more out there,” Dr. Yu said in an interview.

Asked whether we’re still far away from applying these one-off cures to the millions of people taking HIV treatment daily, Dr. Yu responded, “We might be close. That’s the beauty of scientific discovery. We don’t know, but that’s why we need more engagement of the community and care providers to help us.”

The research was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Yu and Dr. Dieffenbach have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It sounds like a fairy tale steeped in HIV stigma: A woman wakes up one morning and, poof, the HIV she’s been living with for 8 years is gone. But for a 30-year-old Argentinian woman from the aptly named village of Esperanza, that’s close to the truth, according to an article published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The woman, the so-called Esperanza Patient, appears to be the second person whose immune system cleared the virus without the use of stem cell transplantation. The first was Loreen Willenberg, a California woman who, after living with HIV for 27 years, no longer had replicating HIV in her system. That case was reported last year.

“That’s the beauty of this name, right? Esperanza,” said Xu Yu, MD, principal investigator of the Ragon Institute of Massachusetts General Hospital, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard University, Boston, referring to the Spanish word for “hope.” “This makes us hopeful that a natural cure of HIV is actually possible.”

Two other people appear to have cleared HIV, but only after full replacement of the immune system via stem cell transplantation – the Berlin Patient, Timothy Ray Brown, and the London Patient. Another man, from Brazil, appeared to have an undetectable viral load after receiving intensified antiretroviral treatment plus supplemental vitamin B3.
 

The rarest of the rare

The Esperanza Patient is among a rare group of people living with HIV called elite controllers. These people’s immune systems can control HIV without antiretrovirals. Most elite controllers’ immune systems, however, can’t mount the immune attack necessary to eliminate all replicating HIV from their systems. Instead, their immune systems control the virus without affecting the reservoirs where HIV continues to make copies of itself and can spread.

The Esperanza Patient and Ms. Willenberg, however, appear to be the rarest of the rare. Their own immune systems seem not only to have stopped HIV replication outside of reservoirs but also to have stormed those reservoirs and killed all virus that might have continued to replicate.

The two women are connected in another way: At an HIV conference in 2019, Dr. Yu was presenting data on Ms. Willenberg’s case. At that conference, she met Natalia Laufer, MD, PhD, associate researcher at the Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirs y SIDA at the University of Buenos Aires. Dr. Laufer had been studying the Esperanza Patient at the time and asked Dr. Yu whether she and her team at the Ragon Institute could help her sequence the patient’s HIV genome to see whether, indeed, the virus had been spontaneously cleared from the patient’s system.

So that’s what the pair did, in collaboration with several other researchers into cures for HIV. The Esperanza Patient first acquired HIV in 2013, but in the 8 years that followed, results of 10 conventional viral load tests indicated the virus was undetectable (that is, below the level of quantification for standard technology). During that time, the woman’s boyfriend, from whom she had acquired HIV, died of AIDS-defining illnesses. She subsequently married and had a baby. Both her partner and baby are HIV negative. She only received HIV treatment for 6 months while she was pregnant.
 

A fossil record of HIV

Yet, there was still HIV in the woman’s system. Dr. Laufer and Dr. Yu wanted to know whether that HIV was transmissible or whether it was a relic from when HIV was still replicating and was now defective and incapable of replicating. They performed extensive genome sequencing on nearly 1.2 billion cells that Dr. Laufer had taken from the patient’s blood in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, an additional 503 million cells that were from the placenta of the baby she gave birth to in 2020, and 150 million resting CD4 T cells. Proviral sequencing was undertaken of the full DNA of the HIV to detect whether the virus was still intact. The DNA was then analyzed by use of an algorithm and was tested for mutations. The investigators tested the patient’s CD4 cells to determine whether the cells still harbored any latent HIV.

In this way, they conducted a full viral workup using tests that are far more sensitive than the viral load tests the woman had undergone in the clinic. The investigators then assessed the patient’s immune system to see what the various cells of the immune system could tell them about how well her natural immune system could identify and kill HIV. They isolated the Esperanza Patient’s immune cells and subjected those cells to HIV in the lab to see whether the cells could detect and eliminate the virus.

And just to be safe, they checked to make sure there were no antiretroviral drugs in the patient’s system.

What they found was that without treatment, her CD4 count hovered around 1,000 cells – a sign of a functioning immune system. DNA sequences revealed large chunks of missing DNA, and one sequence had an immune-induced hypermutation. In total, seven proviruses were found, but none were capable of replicating. The CD4 cells they evaluated showed no evidence of latent HIV.

In other words, they had uncovered a fossil record.

“These HIV-1 DNA products clearly indicate that this person was infected with HIV-1 in the past and that active cycles of viral replication had occurred at one point,” Dr. Yu and colleagues write in their recent article.

What may be more useful to researchers looking to turn this spontaneous cure into treatment for millions of people living with active HIV was the evidence that the woman’s immune system had trained itself to attack HIV through a number of genetic mutations. What they found, the researchers write, was evidence of “an incomplete seroconversion” – that is, when the patient was acquiring HIV, the infection was stopped in its tracks.

Yet, Dr. Yu and colleagues say that they can’t prove that the woman is fully cured of HIV.

“Although this might sound unsatisfying, it reflects an intrinsic limitation of scientific research,” they write. “Scientific concepts can never be proved through empirical data collection; they can only be disproved.”
 

There are more out there

Are these women the only ones to have spontaneously cleared HIV? That’s the question, said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. Just like they can’t disprove that the women cured themselves, they can’t prove that she and Ms. Willenberg are the only two people to have experienced this cure.

“We’re all struggling with this,” Dr. Dieffenbach told this news organization. “The goal is to get enough of these people so maybe there’s a road map to how to induce, trigger, change immunity. But this could well be a unique event at the time of initiation of infection. We just don’t know.”

What is needed, Dr. Yu said, is for clinicians to reach out to them regarding cases that could mimic the cases of Ms. Willenberg and the Esperanza Patient. Elaborate testing could then be conducted to see whether these cases are similar to those of Ms. Willenberg and the Esperanza Patient.

“We do think there are more out there,” Dr. Yu said in an interview.

Asked whether we’re still far away from applying these one-off cures to the millions of people taking HIV treatment daily, Dr. Yu responded, “We might be close. That’s the beauty of scientific discovery. We don’t know, but that’s why we need more engagement of the community and care providers to help us.”

The research was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Yu and Dr. Dieffenbach have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.