Getting to Zero: HIV by the numbers


  • 25 million: number of deaths caused by HIV/AIDS since 1981
  • 2.5 million: number of HIV-related deaths averted by antiretroviral treatment (ART) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) since 1995
  • 34 million: number of people living with HIV worldwide at the end of 2010
  • 3.4 million: number of children under 15 years living with HIV
  • 68%: percentage of HIV-positive persons living in sub-Saharan Africa
  • 2.7 million: number of new HIV infections worldwide in 2010, a 21% decrease from 1997
  • 50%: worldwide percentage of HIV-infected persons who aware of their status
  • 96%: reduction in sexual transmission of HIV between serodiscordant partners with antiretroviral therapy observed in the HPTN052 trial
  • 61%: percentage of new HIV infections in the United States occurring among men who have sex with men (MSMs) as of 2009
  • 44%: percentage of new HIV infections in the United States occurring among Blacks as of 2009
  • 2%: Adult HIV prevalence in Baltimore city in 2009; adult HIV prevalence in Haiti in 2009
  • 5%: Adult HIV prevalence in Baltimore zip code 21205, directly northeast of the Johns Hopkins medical campus, in 2009; adult HIV prevalence in Gabon in 2009
  • 37.5%: HIV prevalence among MSMs in Baltimore city; the proportion of new HIV infections among MSMs in Baltimore has increased to nearly the same levels as in 1985
  • 76.9%: percentage of HIV-infected MSMs in Baltimore city who are unaware of their status
  • 312: Median CD4 count at HIV diagnosis in the Baltimore-Towson metropolitan area (current guidelines recommend initiating ART at CD4 counts 350-500)
  • 6,411: Number of HIV-positive people in the United States currently on AIDS drugs assistance program (ADAP) waiting lists
  • 6.65 million: number of HIV-infected people currently receiving ART in low- and middle-income countries
  • 3.3 million: number of people currently receiving ART through Global Fund grants
  • $2.2 billion: unfulfilled pledges to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria
  • 2: number of countries (USA and UK) that have honored their pledges to the Global Fund
  • ZERO: number of new grants that will be awarded by the Global Fund for the next two years in response to budget shortfall; UNAIDS goal by 2015 (0 new infections, 0 discrimination, 0 AIDS-related deaths)

2011 Global Health Conference recap

Hi all,

November 13-15 marked the 2011 Global Health Conference, co-hosted for the first time by the Global Health Education Consortium, the http://www.cugh.org/, and the Canadian Society for International Health. Many of the sessions focused on issues surrounding education and research/healthcare workforce, but the range of topics was very broad, from a rousing presentation of scientific breakthroughs in HIV prevention and treatment featuring Tom Quinn (JHU/NIH) and Myron Cohen (UNC) to discussions on how to approach the ethical challenges often faced in international projects.

For those who couldn’t make the trip up north, do not despair, the folks at CUGH have put together a great blog with summaries of all the sessions, as well as videos of all the plenary sessions and a few breakouts as well. Enjoy!

 

Where do we go from here?

This year again, we observe World AIDS Day with perhaps more questions than answers. Although the past year has brought some small successes, with the first evidence of efficacy for vaginal microbicides. UNAIDS estimates that the rates of new infections have decreased by 20% from 1999, but they still outpace treatment capacity, and with donors cutting back promised funds, incertitude rules the day.

The theme of this year’s World AIDS Day is universal access and human rights, areas in which there is a long, long way to go. Africa still accounts for over 60% of total HIV infections, and 90% of infections among children. Although millions of people in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART), only 37% of adults and 28% of children in LMICs who need ART were receiving it as of December 2009. Tellingly, the regions where progress has been slowest are those where prevention and treatment interventions are still not widely accessible to vulnerable groups such as sex workers, injecting drug users, and men who have sex with men, populations whose rights are all too often ignored and violated. But it’s not all gloom and doom. Some 20 years ago HIV was still a death sentence for most, and few dared to imagine that millions of poor people would get access to ART. The road ahead is a bit rockier than we would like, but not as steep as it once was.

Learning from the past (or not?)

Another round of comments from the FPH Global Health Selective, this time on the history of global health and how it arose from what was once more commonly known as “international health”. A rose by any other name…?

I was highly intrigued by Dr. Packard’s presentation on the history of global health, mainly because I hadn’t realized the amount of influence that politics, specifically those of the cold war, exerted on the progress of global health initiatives. I was also interested by how many global health projects had focused more on “technological” solutions to health problems, such as vaccines and pest control, then “social” solutions, such as improving health care education and infrastructure. As Dr. Packard pointed out, this trend seems to have continued to the present, with multi-billion dollar campaigns focused on researching cures or vaccines for diseases such as HIV or TB, but little money going towards developing desperately needed medical infrastructure in third world countries. Perhaps we have been harmed by our own success in eliminating smallpox through a vaccination-based technological approach, in that we now devote too much of our limited resources towards technological instead of social solutions? Certainly, we are much better off now that smallpox has been eliminated, but the malaria eradication campaign around the same time period turned out to be an utter failure. Maybe we need to look more into treatment and control of global diseases, rather then spending all our resources on researching cures that may be many years down the line?

*****

Dr. Packard’s talk inspired me to meditate on what the future of global health might look like. Although the term “global health” brings up images of rural villages and people living on the margins of society, I feel like this scene will become less common in the future. In a few decades a greater percentage of the world’s population will shift from living in rural areas to urban centers. As this trend towards urban demographics continues to rise, the way we respond to public health crises must change. Theoretically, technology will continue to advance and keep up with the increasingly urbanized world.

*****

Dr. Packard’s presentation on the history of international health highlighted two paradigms for the delivery of global health services. One involves focused campaigns to eradicate a particular disease (i.e. HIV or malaria) or target health care towards a particular subpopulation (i.e. women or children). Another involves the development of comprehensive health care infrastructure that considers the social determinants of health. Historical trends and strategies have vacillated between these two paradigms, and there are advantages and disadvantages to each. Comprehensive strategies are more sustainable, tend to address the root causes of health care disparities, and build capacity for future development. Targeted approaches have more tangible goals and may be easier to implement successfully. One factor that should be shared between the two strategies, however, is that global health interventions must involve substantive collaboration between foreign partners and community members. The contributions and perspectives of local community experts must not be underestimated

Neglected diseases or neglected people?

During Saturday’s UAEM workshop on neglected diseases, one speaker brought up the point that perhaps we should not be talking about neglected diseases, but rather diseases that affect neglected people. HIV was neglected when it was thought to affect only gay men in San Francisco and it was neglected again when Africans were dying in troves even as HAART was dramatically extending lives in developed countries. Today, it remains neglected among such populations as African-Americans in Washington DC, who account for ~80% of HIV/AIDS cases in the city. And so not only do dengue, leprosy, Buruli and all the terrible “iases” remain neglected because they affect the types of people whom our society seems not to value, so do ailments that we would not intuitively place within the “neglected” category: heart disease, cancer, diabetes, which are increasing at alarming rates in the developing world. Sure, at least there is a prospect of advances in biomedical science against the diseases that affect people in developed countries, but this also means that we are restricting our efforts to interventions that are designed for the developed world and may be inappropriate/unaffordable, in other settings. There is little to no market incentive to develop interventions that specifically target the needs and constraints of poor/powerless people.

I think that the terminology of “neglected people” rather than “neglected diseases” forces us to face the underlying reason why we invest in certain diseases over others–not because they are less common or less amenable to intervention, but simply because the people who suffer from them do not have the requisite economic or political power to motivate a response. It also forces us to recognize the full scope of the neglect: it is not just disease, but also nutrition, access to education, simple interventions like ORT, civil protections… When we neglect entire classes of people, we neglect their every need, their every right, their every aspiration to “a life worth living”.

Hopkins’s drug problem

Hey y’all, I have been totally delinquent in posting this, but here’s brief shout-out to our friends at the Hopkins chapter of Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, whose October 14, 2010 Op-Ed in the  Baltimore Sun highlights our university’s lagging leadership in promoting access to the medical technologies developed by its researchers. With President Ron Daniels touting the university’s commitment and achievements in global health, the piece points to a significant gap in that commitment.

I would love to know what you think about the article and universities’ role in promoting access to medicines. Should this even be a university’s concern/mission? How far should can/should universities go in defining and fulfilling their responsibilities to global communities? Holla back!

Global Health events this week!

Hello global health folks,

Just wanted to keep you abreast of some events taking place this week. If you know of anything else that would be of interest, please share!

Tuesday September 14, 3:30pm (yes, TOMORROW!!!)

What: Accordia 2010 Celebration of Partnership–Student volunteers needed to help with set-up!
Who: U.S. Ambassador-At-Large and U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator John Goosby, 3 senators, health experts, etc…
Where: US Capitol Visitor Center, Washington, DC
Also: Please get in touch with Megan Buresh (MS2) if you can make it

Wednesday September 15

10am
What: Live webcast, “Patient Safety: Progress and Dilemmas”
Who: Sir Liam Donaldson, Chairperson of the WHO Patient Safety Programme
Where: Webcast link
Also: More info on the WHO’s patient safety initiatives here

Noon
What: Seminar, “Indo-US collaboration on science and technology” (Hopefully some insight into implications for access to medicines and medical technologies?)
Who: Meera Shankar, Indian Ambassador to the US, and Michael Klag, Dean of the Bloomberg School of Public Health
Where: Bloomberg School of Public Health, Sheldon Hall, W1214

Thursday September 16

Noon
What: Seminar, “Tuberculosis Drug Discovery: New Inhibitors for an Old Disease”
Who: Ronon O’Toole, Victoria University of Wellington.
Where: Bloomberg School of Public Health, CRBII, Conference Room 111

Also at noon
What: Research seminar, “Structural Biology and Tropical Diseases”
Who: Wim G.J. Hol, University of Washington
Where: Bloomberg School of Public Health Wolfe St. building, W1020 Becton Dickinson Hall

2:30pm to 4:30pm
What: Another webcast! “Fault lines in Global Health; Resolved: that the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria should be transformed to become the Global Fund Health”
Who: Mark Dybul, Georgetown University and former US Global AIDS Coordinator vs. Julian Schweitzer, Results for Development Institute
Where: Here’s the link!

Running on hope

Just like Lakshmi (and, I am sure, many others), my summer research efforts came with a hefty dose of frustration. The lab samples I needed weren’t ready, there was no backup, everyone seemed to be on vacation, and, try as I might, I could not get across that, no, we couldn’t just put things off until tomorrow because I only had so many tomorrows left. A few days in, I was already panicking that my summer would be a waste, and nearly regretting not staying in Baltimore. With all the logistical, political and cultural issues that can make it so difficult to do global health work, why do we insist upon going halfway across the globe, not knowing whether our efforts will be worthwhile at all?

For me, the answer came, at least in part, towards the end of my stay in Morocco. My initial project was to run genotyping assays for a study of TB transmission, but as the obstacles piled up, I applied the first cardinal rule of global health: be flexible!!! I decided to devote my time instead to the logistics and patient recruitment aspects of the study and got the opportunity to meet with a group of migrants living in northern Morocco as they awaited an opportunity to cross the straits to Europe. They were the lucky ones. That very same week, 12 people had died of thirst in the desert, trying to reach northern Africa and a passage to Europe. Having lived an undeniably privileged life, one in which my daily worries and fears are pretty much limited to staying on the “P” side of Pass/Fail and taming my recurrent cravings for Chipotle, I could not imagine the depths of despair in which these men and women must be to take such tremendous risks, entrusting their lives to strangers and fate as they cross borders, deserts and seas.

The tragedy of the lives lost everyday in the deserts of North Africa and Central America, on the seas that separate Third World from First, reminds of just how important it is that we keep working towards better standards of living and human dignity for all, starting with better health. It is true that health is inextricably linked to issues of poverty, education, etc…, but it remains a critical starting point because of the powerful effects that it has on every aspect of the lives of people and societies; at its worst, disease not only debilitates the mind and the body, but also erodes the capacity for hope. When the death of relatives, friends, and colleagues become a fact of daily life, hope simply cannot be sustained, and neither can dignity. Societies in which disease and death abound will accord less value to human life loses its value, leading to the kind of social neglect, repression, and human rights violations that are the daily bread of so many in this world.

How, then, can we not justify going to the other end of the world and sparring with as many bureaucrats and corrupt officials as it takes to bring some measure of improvement? Bringing better health to every corner of the world is a daunting challenge and it may seem at times that we are fighting alone and for little reward, but it is a challenge well worth facing. For at the end of the road, lies the chance to restore not only health, but hope.

Live from Hopkins: Secretary Clinton on the US Global Health Initiative

For those of you who are in Baltimore, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be paying you a visit on Monday to discuss the Obama administration’s Global Health Initiative. That the Secretary of State is giving this talk underlines the important role of aid in the US’s foreign policy and diplomacy strategy in the developing world. Recently we have seen how various groups are competing for “the hearts and mind” of the populations devastated by the floods in Pakistan by offering the desperately needed aid that, many complain, the government is incapable or unwilling to provide.

But of course, the union of aid and diplomacy is a double-edged sword. The diplomatic fringe benefits can motivate the governments of developed nations to invest more in aid, and to shift this aid towards health and education efforts that have a more direct impact on communities (as opposed to say, massive infrastructure projects that tend to create the perfect opportunity for corrupt officials and businesspeople–not that global health efforts are immune from corruption!), but if diplomacy is the primary motivation, there is a significant risk that most decisions will be based not on the best interest of the communities in need, but rather on the political interests of those in power.

Unfortunately only SAIS students and staff will be allowed to attend the event in person, but there will be a live webcast accessible at http://www.sais-jhu.edu/.

Blurb from the Center for Global Health:

Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, will speak at the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) on Monday, August 16 at 11:30 a.m.

Secretary Clinton will speak about “The Global Health Initiative: The Next Phase of American Leadership in Health Around the World.” The Global Health Initiative is a centerpiece of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy and an expression of U.S. values and leadership in the world. Secretary Clinton will describe the Global Health Initiative’s core principles, and call on governments, organizations and individuals to join the United States in pursuing a sustainable approach for delivering essential health services to more people in more places.


International AIDS Conference

The 18th International AIDS Conference began yesterday in Vienna. A great opportunity to take a step back and reflect upon the road ahead in the context of stagnant funding and ever greater challenges in the prevention of transmission. If you can’t afford the flight, there are live webcasts on the Kaiser Family Foundation website.