Obviously Global Fund are gonna emphasise the importance of this, but this quote stood out:
For the first time, we have a tool that can fundamentally change the trajectory of the HIV epidemic — but only if we get it to the people who need it most
I don’t really have any knowledge on HIV, but my assumption is that if it’s cheap to deliver high volumes of 6-month protection, you can essentially end the spread of the virus, and if it can be widely funded and generically manufactured, we might be able to permanently end it within a generation. (Would be happy to stand corrected!)
Yeah his statement is incorrect (unless maybe quoted out of context). ARVs have already fundamentally changed the trajectory of the HIV epidemic in incredible ways—even if this drug did as well, it would not be a first.
In terms of whether this can “change the trajectory of the HIV pandemic”, it depends on how we interpret that. I would say its also a misleading statement. Spread of HIV has already been plummeting over the last 30 years due to ARVs—at best Lenacapavir could continue the current trajectory (see graphs below) which I think it has great potential to do.
There’s no way a non-cure non-vaccine drug can “end the epidemic in a generation.” The nature of HIV is that if its treated well, people stay alive with fairly normal life expectancies. This means even if there’s very little spread, prevalence doesn’t change much and it is VERY difficult to end the epidemic within a short time. Its a little paradoxical that when HIV is well tracked and controlled, prevalence drops very slowly.
Most HIV is spread through unprotected sex between regular people in the community. Obviously we’re not going to give the whole population the injection, only high risk groups so many will still catch HIV that way. Even if we target vulnerable populations like transporters, sex workers and those in discordant couples, that won’t come close to “ending the spread of the virus” completely, there will likely always be low level spread.
So yes the drug is a big deal, but I think the Global Fund head is hyping it with a little dishonesty. Not the biggest deal though.
Obviously Global Fund are gonna emphasise the importance of this, but this quote stood out:
I don’t really have any knowledge on HIV, but my assumption is that if it’s cheap to deliver high volumes of 6-month protection, you can essentially end the spread of the virus, and if it can be widely funded and generically manufactured, we might be able to permanently end it within a generation. (Would be happy to stand corrected!)
Yeah his statement is incorrect (unless maybe quoted out of context). ARVs have already fundamentally changed the trajectory of the HIV epidemic in incredible ways—even if this drug did as well, it would not be a first.
In terms of whether this can “change the trajectory of the HIV pandemic”, it depends on how we interpret that. I would say its also a misleading statement. Spread of HIV has already been plummeting over the last 30 years due to ARVs—at best Lenacapavir could continue the current trajectory (see graphs below) which I think it has great potential to do.
There’s no way a non-cure non-vaccine drug can “end the epidemic in a generation.” The nature of HIV is that if its treated well, people stay alive with fairly normal life expectancies. This means even if there’s very little spread, prevalence doesn’t change much and it is VERY difficult to end the epidemic within a short time. Its a little paradoxical that when HIV is well tracked and controlled, prevalence drops very slowly.
Most HIV is spread through unprotected sex between regular people in the community. Obviously we’re not going to give the whole population the injection, only high risk groups so many will still catch HIV that way. Even if we target vulnerable populations like transporters, sex workers and those in discordant couples, that won’t come close to “ending the spread of the virus” completely, there will likely always be low level spread.
So yes the drug is a big deal, but I think the Global Fund head is hyping it with a little dishonesty. Not the biggest deal though.