BY JESSICA REAVES
DENIS DOYLE/AP

AIDS activists march in Barcelona demanding treatments for developing
countries
Thursday, Jul. 11, 2002 After 21 years as the world's most elusive
and mysterious killer, the AIDS virus has ended 24 million lives.
It's likely to get worse: the United Nations predicts that as many
as 70 million could die from AIDS over the next 20 years, leaving
25 million orphans behind by 2010. These are the grim headlines from
the14th Annual International AIDS Conference in Barcelona, where world
leaders in research and advocacy gathered this week to celebrate the
small victories in the battle against AIDS — and to pool artillery
for the coming onslaught. The highlights:
The current climate
The most vocal and angry group of activists anyone's seen in the
last five years appeared at the conference. "This meeting was
tinged with fear, anger and a great deal of concern over what's happening
in Africa and what could happen in other parts of the world,"
says Dr. Robert Gallo, director of the Institute of Human Virology
at the University of Maryland's Biotechnology Institute. Gallo is
credited, along with French scientist Luc Montagnier, with pinpointing
the link between HIV and AIDS. "I don't want to say there was
pessimism, but there was a realization that a lot of the critical
issues — like providing follow-up studies and continuing care
to the neediest countries — are about policy, and are out of
the realm of AIDS scientists."
The conference also marked a shift away from looking for cure and
toward finding new ways of prevention "We're going back to the
original goal in this fight, which was the preventative vaccine,"
says Dr. Ronald Kennedy, chair of the department of microbiology and
immunology at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, and an
expert on the spread of AIDS and the search for a vaccine. The fight
against AIDS is no longer about wiping out all traces of the virus
in the bloodstream, says Dr. Kennedy. Now scientists are focusing
on the development of an HIV/AIDS vaccine that behaves like most other
vaccines: the virus is purposefully introduced into the body in order
to boost immune response, which doctors hope will lower the viral
load and prevent AIDS from taking hold in the first place.
While new drug cocktails make living with HIV more of a reality than
ever before, millions continue to die, either because they cannot
afford that life-extending cocktail, or because they've developed
a new form of AIDS that's resistant or non-responsive to existing
drugs. Many others will die because they don't believe AIDS is still
a deadly disease: recent breakthroughs in treatment means the gut-wrenching
fear of the late 1980s has evaporated — and with it, obsessive
(and lifesaving) condom use. Today, young people in many developed
countries, including the U.S. have seen people live symptom-free for
years with an HIV-positive diagnosis. As a result, many are not particularly
worried about HIV and AIDS. Rates of youth infection are skyrocketing;
the UN estimates as many as half of all new infections occur in young
people aged 15 to 24.
Following the money
The big question is money for research and prevention programs, and
who should provide the funds. Many activists believe the richest nations
should fill up the collection plate. And they made their point loud
and clear Tuesday when U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy
Thompson was booed off the stage mid-speech by protesters angry over
what they perceive as the U.S.'s lack of commitment to fighting the
spread of HIV and AIDS.
In April of 2001, Secretary General Kofi Annan established the U.N.
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The initial goal
was set at $10 billion a year, with contributions pledged by countries
around the world. As activists and economists have noted, those contributions
are not coming in as fast as might have been hoped — the 2002
figure stands at $3 billion — and some protestors are targeting
the European Union and the U.S. for not giving enough. (The U.S. has
pledged $500 million to the fund.)
The geopolitics of treatment
The prognosis is worst for residents of Caribbean nations and of
sub-Saharan Africa, including Botswana, which has the world's highest
caseload. But rates of infection are also on the rise in Russia and
China, both of which are predicted to become the next hot spots of
the disease. Earlier this month, 15 Caribbean nations agreed to purchase
desperately needed AIDS drugs from major pharmaceutical companies
— at discounts of up to 90 percent. The companies, including
Abbot Laboratories, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck decided it was
more expedient to strike a deal with the Caribbean as a region, rather
than wrangle with the individual countries. Local leaders called the
agreement a "major victory" in the fight against AIDS.
This is one happy example of what can happen when drug companies
move to assist countries in need. Sadly, there are many countries
left without this kind of aid. And until a reasonable compromise can
be reached between the financial responsibilities of pharmaceutical
companies and the economic realities of AIDS-stricken nations, the
best hope appears to lie in the manufacture and distribution of cut-price
"copycat" drugs, like those created in India and sold to
Uganda's government at drastically reduced prices. Since the introduction
of these drugs in Uganda, a country devastated by AIDS, prices for
treatments have fallen by 97 percent, according to Oxfam, an international
aid organization.
In Brazil, the government has sidestepped drug companies' patent
claims by actively promoting generic drugs. Today, Brazilians comprise
more than half the 230,000 citizens of poor countries currently taking
retroviral drugs. Dr. Kennedy believes this trend will spill over
into other countries, including China, creating a surging generic
market. It's also quite possible, he adds, that scientists in those
countries will simply use samples of the drugs to create their own,
far less expensive versions.
There was good news for patients struggling with drug-resistant AIDS;
Roche's
Enfuvirtide, or T-20, has had great success in two large
late-stage trials. The drug is a so-called "fusion inhibitor,"
which, when added to a patient's larger drug cocktail, reduces the
HIV levels found in the blood. T-20's trial performance was better
than what researchers had hoped for. But even amidst this positive
development, some AIDS experts expressed concern that the drug might
have unknown long-term side effects. (The trials lasted just 24 weeks).
T-20 is more effective when used in combination with an existing
regimen. Does this rule out T-20 for anyone who cannot afford a very
expensive cocktail? "Not necessarily," says Dr. Kennedy.
"They will start testing the drug on its own." But for now,
T-20 serves little purpose for those in countries without access to
costly AIDS drugs.
Meanwhile, American pharmaceutical company VaxGen created quite a
controversy by announcing early in the conference that its AIDS vaccine,
currently in trials, could come to market as early as 2005. While
many activists leapt at the news, scientists and journalists were
more skeptical. "Until the trial results are available in 2003,"
wrote Mark Henderson of the London Times, "we have only the company's
word to go on, which is not enough to convince that this is the breakthrough
it claims to be." Dr. Kennedy agrees: "I think we've seen
a lot of exaggerated claims surrounding this vaccine," he says.
That's not to say there won't be a vaccine some day, says Dr. Gallo.
"We'll solve this problem. I will never again make specific predictions,
but I believe that despite what some scientists think, we will find
a vaccine. And I'll take on anyone with that bet."