
When an HIV Scientific Breakthrough Isn't Enough
We should be celebrating its arrival.
Instead, aid groups and the countries most affected by HIV are reeling from the Trump administration's relentless attacks on the global health infrastructure. Instead of perfecting plans for a rollout of the medication, they are scrambling to ensure people with HIV have the drugs they need to survive.
Last year, I wrote about the stunning — or as one HIV expert described it, 'spine-chilling'— results from a large study of lenacapavir. None of the women and adolescents who were given the twice-yearly injection in the trial became infected with HIV. In a second study involving men who have sex with men, and transgender individuals who have sex with men, the treatment was 96% effective. Even better, Gilead is working on a newer version that could potentially offer protection for a year or more.
That's about as close to an HIV vaccine we're likely to get — at least for many years. It's also the world's best shot of achieving the goal of ending HIV by 2030.
For low- and middle-income countries that continue to face frustratingly stubborn infection rates, a twice-yearly drug could be a game-changer. Although existing treatments of daily pills do an excellent job at preventing infection, getting people to use them consistently has been difficult.
There is the stigma attached to the pills. Ensuring patients return for frequent testing and refills is also challenging — as is simply remembering to take them daily. Consider the typical day of a mom with a newborn and it's easy to understand how six months of protection could make a real difference in lowering HIV cases in women and infants.
Some experts have even suggested lenacapavir is our best chance of wiping out new infections in children.
That was before the Trump administration abruptly shut down USAID, the lead agency behind Pepfar. The global initiative to combat HIV/AIDS is credited with saving an estimated 26 million lives since its inception in 2003. Although the administration granted a limited waiver to allow some HIV services to continue, funding is significantly restrained.
As health workers grapple with fewer resources, their focus has shifted to people living with HIV. 'When the chips are down, you safeguard treatment because those people will die if they don't get their antiretroviral,' says Linda-Gail Bekker, director of the Desmund Tutu HIV Centre at the University of Cape Town. And yet, she said, 'prevention we know is an absolute cornerstone to bringing this epidemic under control.'
Because the situation is so dynamic, it's been difficult to capture what's happening on the ground. The best current model suggests the administration's actions could result in at least 70,000 additional new infections, and another 5,000 deaths in the next five years.
UCLA infectious disease epidemiologist Dvora Joseph Davey says that in 2024, the eight public health clinics in Cape Town — where she is based — saw three infants who were HIV-positive at birth. In the first five months of this year, they've already seen three babies born with the infection.
She knows there will be more. One pregnant woman with HIV recently came into the clinic and, at 37 weeks, her viral load was dauntingly high. She'd skipped picking up her last three-month supply of pills. The nurse she'd been seeing was let go as part of the funding cuts, and no one was available to do a blood draw at her last visit, Davey says.
If the people who, in theory, should still be benefiting from global aid are falling through the cracks, what hope do we have for prevention?
Prevention efforts have already been severely disrupted in some countries. Supply is responsible for some of the upheaval, but the more complicated problem is getting the drugs to the people who need them most. 'We need low-cost product and also a low-cost delivery mode,' says Carmen Pérez Casas, senior strategy lead at Unitaid, a global health initiative hosted by the World Health Organization. The situation for the latter 'has changed radically,' she says.
HIV prevention is not as simple as just handing out a prescription. It's first identifying those most at risk of infection, getting them tested to confirm they are negative, and offering counseling about their options. It's ensuring they return for more testing and the next dose of their medication. That requires a vast support network ranging from doctors and nurses to counselors, pharmacists, lab technicians, data scientists and more.
Pepfar supported all of that infrastructure. In South Africa, for example, cuts have resulted in lost jobs for some 8,000 health workers focused on HIV.
Aid groups are doing their best to ensure the breakthrough's promise is not entirely lost. Their first hurdle is bridging the gap to the arrival of low-cost generic lenacapavir, which isn't expected until sometime in 2027. (Gilead is allowing a handful of drug companies to make and sell generic forms of lenacapavir in the countries most heavily impacted by HIV.) Global health agencies are anxiously awaiting the company's price tag for those countries to understand how far their funding can be stretched.
Then they need to get the drug to patients. Experts tell me they've scaled back their expectations given the upheaval with Pepfar. The Trump administration's termination of National Institutes of Health grants to foreign countries has created additional hurdles. It's been particularly devastating in South Africa, where the NIH supported a significant chunk of research related to HIV. That means less money to conduct so-called implementation studies for lenacapavir, which are crucial for understanding how to improve the drug's use in the real world. One simple thing the Trump administration could do is free up funding for prevention. Pepfar continues to operate under a waiver that only allows PrEP money to be spent for those who are pregnant or breastfeeding.
Groundbreaking science alone won't end HIV. It must be paired with affordability and access. The Trump administration's callous cuts to global health efforts put all of those things at risk — including the promising future where HIV is brought to heel.
More From Bloomberg Opinion:
This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, health care and the pharmaceutical industry. Previously, she was executive editor of Chemical & Engineering News.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com/opinion
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Mint
6 hours ago
- Mint
When an HIV Scientific Breakthrough Isn't Enough
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- A landmark breakthrough in HIV prevention — a scientific feat decades in the making — received final approval from the Food and Drug Administration last month. Gilead Sciences' lenacapavir is so effective that global health leaders had started to cautiously talk about the end of an epidemic that continues to kill more than 600,000 people each year. We should be celebrating its arrival. Instead, aid groups and the countries most affected by HIV are reeling from the Trump administration's relentless attacks on the global health infrastructure. Instead of perfecting plans for a rollout of the medication, they are scrambling to ensure people with HIV have the drugs they need to survive. Last year, I wrote about the stunning — or as one HIV expert described it, 'spine-chilling'— results from a large study of lenacapavir. None of the women and adolescents who were given the twice-yearly injection in the trial became infected with HIV. In a second study involving men who have sex with men, and transgender individuals who have sex with men, the treatment was 96% effective. Even better, Gilead is working on a newer version that could potentially offer protection for a year or more. That's about as close to an HIV vaccine we're likely to get — at least for many years. It's also the world's best shot of achieving the goal of ending HIV by 2030. For low- and middle-income countries that continue to face frustratingly stubborn infection rates, a twice-yearly drug could be a game-changer. Although existing treatments of daily pills do an excellent job at preventing infection, getting people to use them consistently has been difficult. There is the stigma attached to the pills. Ensuring patients return for frequent testing and refills is also challenging — as is simply remembering to take them daily. Consider the typical day of a mom with a newborn and it's easy to understand how six months of protection could make a real difference in lowering HIV cases in women and infants. Some experts have even suggested lenacapavir is our best chance of wiping out new infections in children. That was before the Trump administration abruptly shut down USAID, the lead agency behind Pepfar. The global initiative to combat HIV/AIDS is credited with saving an estimated 26 million lives since its inception in 2003. Although the administration granted a limited waiver to allow some HIV services to continue, funding is significantly restrained. As health workers grapple with fewer resources, their focus has shifted to people living with HIV. 'When the chips are down, you safeguard treatment because those people will die if they don't get their antiretroviral,' says Linda-Gail Bekker, director of the Desmund Tutu HIV Centre at the University of Cape Town. And yet, she said, 'prevention we know is an absolute cornerstone to bringing this epidemic under control.' Because the situation is so dynamic, it's been difficult to capture what's happening on the ground. The best current model suggests the administration's actions could result in at least 70,000 additional new infections, and another 5,000 deaths in the next five years. UCLA infectious disease epidemiologist Dvora Joseph Davey says that in 2024, the eight public health clinics in Cape Town — where she is based — saw three infants who were HIV-positive at birth. In the first five months of this year, they've already seen three babies born with the infection. She knows there will be more. One pregnant woman with HIV recently came into the clinic and, at 37 weeks, her viral load was dauntingly high. She'd skipped picking up her last three-month supply of pills. The nurse she'd been seeing was let go as part of the funding cuts, and no one was available to do a blood draw at her last visit, Davey says. If the people who, in theory, should still be benefiting from global aid are falling through the cracks, what hope do we have for prevention? Prevention efforts have already been severely disrupted in some countries. Supply is responsible for some of the upheaval, but the more complicated problem is getting the drugs to the people who need them most. 'We need low-cost product and also a low-cost delivery mode,' says Carmen Pérez Casas, senior strategy lead at Unitaid, a global health initiative hosted by the World Health Organization. The situation for the latter 'has changed radically,' she says. HIV prevention is not as simple as just handing out a prescription. It's first identifying those most at risk of infection, getting them tested to confirm they are negative, and offering counseling about their options. It's ensuring they return for more testing and the next dose of their medication. That requires a vast support network ranging from doctors and nurses to counselors, pharmacists, lab technicians, data scientists and more. Pepfar supported all of that infrastructure. In South Africa, for example, cuts have resulted in lost jobs for some 8,000 health workers focused on HIV. Aid groups are doing their best to ensure the breakthrough's promise is not entirely lost. Their first hurdle is bridging the gap to the arrival of low-cost generic lenacapavir, which isn't expected until sometime in 2027. (Gilead is allowing a handful of drug companies to make and sell generic forms of lenacapavir in the countries most heavily impacted by HIV.) Global health agencies are anxiously awaiting the company's price tag for those countries to understand how far their funding can be stretched. Then they need to get the drug to patients. Experts tell me they've scaled back their expectations given the upheaval with Pepfar. The Trump administration's termination of National Institutes of Health grants to foreign countries has created additional hurdles. It's been particularly devastating in South Africa, where the NIH supported a significant chunk of research related to HIV. That means less money to conduct so-called implementation studies for lenacapavir, which are crucial for understanding how to improve the drug's use in the real world. One simple thing the Trump administration could do is free up funding for prevention. Pepfar continues to operate under a waiver that only allows PrEP money to be spent for those who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Groundbreaking science alone won't end HIV. It must be paired with affordability and access. The Trump administration's callous cuts to global health efforts put all of those things at risk — including the promising future where HIV is brought to heel. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, health care and the pharmaceutical industry. Previously, she was executive editor of Chemical & Engineering News. More stories like this are available on


Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Is a common worm medication the cure for aggressive cancer?
Researchers at the University of Arizona Cancer Center find a possible new treatment for Merkel cell carcinoma. This aggressive skin cancer may respond to pyrvinium pamoate. The Food and Drug Administration approved this drug in 1955 for pinworm infections. Lab tests show the medication can stop cancer cell growth. It also reverses the cancer's neuroendocrine features. Cancer treatment has come a long way. From therapies like chemotherapy, radiation, targeted drugs, and immunotherapy, modern medicine offers different treatment options that can significantly improve survival rates and also the quality of life for many patients. Yet, for some rare and aggressive cancers, effective treatments remain limited. A medication originally developed to treat pinworm infections could offer a new line of defense against one of the aggressive cancers, according to a study. A new study led by University of Arizona Cancer Center researchers found that pinworm medication has the potential to treat aggressive skin cancer. The findings are published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation . Pinworm medication to treat skin cancer Merkel cell carcinoma is an aggressive form of skin cancer. It is a rare but fast-growing neuroendocrine cancer that is three to five times more likely than melanoma to be deadly. Response rates to current therapies such as surgery, radiation, and immunotherapy are limited, resulting in a need for effective and broadly applicable therapeutics. 'Merkel cell carcinoma is increasing in incidence. Even though it's a rare cancer type, it mimics a lot of properties that other cancers have,' senior author Megha Padi, PhD, a U of A Cancer Center member and an assistant professor in the U of A College of Science, said in a statement. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like One plan. Total peace of mind. ICICI Pru Life Insurance Plan Get Quote Undo The researchers found that a common pinworm medication may stop and reverse cancer growth in Merkel cell carcinoma. The medication is pyrvinium pamoate, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1955 to treat pinworms. This drug has been shown to have antitumor potential in several different cancers, including breast, colorectal, pancreatic, and bladder cancers. However, this is the first time it has been studied in models of Merkel cell carcinoma. The study (Pic courtesy: iStock) To understand if the pinworm medication is effective in treating Merkel cell carcinoma, the researchers tested it in laboratory models. They found that pyrvinium pamoate inhibited cancer cell growth and reversed the cancer's neuroendocrine features. This medication helped to reduce tumour growth in mouse models of Merkel cell carcinoma. Top Supplements for Men's Health Over 30 'This is a hypothesis, but some people think the reason an antiparasitic agent could be effective against cancers is because tumors are a little bit like parasites in our body. Parasites and tumors must develop ways to use scarce resources in their host to feed themselves and allow for unlimited multiplication. If the pathways that they have hijacked to feed themselves are the same, then you get lucky, and you have a tumor type that could be amenable to killing by these antiparasitic drugs,' Padi said. The researchers decided to test pyrvinium pamoate after discovering the Wnt signaling pathway as one of the molecular mechanisms that drives the transition of normal cells into Merkel cell carcinoma. Pyrvinium pamoate is a known Wnt pathway inhibitor. While the pinworm medication has shown promise in treating aggressive forms of cancer, the researchers added that further research is needed to optimize treatment protocols for the development of pyrvinium pamoate as a clinically useful medication for Merkel cell carcinoma.


Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
Trump's domestic policy bill draws fire over Medicaid cuts, as democrats begin campaign blitz
President Donald Trump's wide-ranging domestic policy bill, passed by Congress this week, is facing growing criticism over its planned cuts to Medicaid. The bill, which is is now just hours away from becoming law, includes nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid reductions over a decade, a move Democrats are using to launch early attacks ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. For months, some Republican lawmakers had raised concerns. North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis said the cuts were 'inescapable,' while Missouri Senator Josh Hawley said targeting Medicaid was 'a mistake.' Nebraska Representative Don Bacon had earlier said he would not back a bill with over $500 billion in cuts but explained he ended up supporting it due to other tax and defence provisions. Democrats are now highlighting those Republican warnings. 'It's 2018 all over again,' said Democratic Representative Jared Golden of Maine, who holds a seat in a pro-Trump district. 'I would never vote for these Medicaid cuts. Never,' Golden told CNN. A June poll by Quinnipiac University found that 53% of voters opposed the bill. While Republicans argue the cuts mostly involve new work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, Democrats say millions could eventually lose coverage. The Congressional Budget Office estimates around 12 million people could lose health insurance by 2034 due to changes in Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. Trump praised the bill at an event in Iowa, while House Speaker Mike Johnson called it one of the most complex and significant pieces of legislation in US history. Speaking after signing the bill, Johnson said it was among 'the top two or three' bills ever passed in Congress, according to CNN.