Building
African AIDS Care from the Ground Up
Jennifer Fisher Wilson
15
July 2003 | Volume 139 Issue 2 | Pages 157-160
The
epicenter of AIDS activity in the early 1980s was San
Francisco General Hospital, where Merle Sande, MD,
was chief of medicine. The mystifying disease
appeared at higher rates there than any place else
in the United States, and Sande and his staff helped pioneer
its clinical treatment. Within the next decade, physicians
in the United States learned how to treat HIV infection
and AIDS as pharmaceutical companies launched drugs
that controlled the infection without curing it.
Triple combination antiretroviral therapy,
introduced in 1996, led to a 70% decrease in deaths from
HIV/AIDS. But at the same time as these successes in the United
States, AIDS was ravaging many other countries, particularly
in Africa.
Almost 25 years later, Sande, now professor of medicine at
the University of Utah, is again working at the
epicenter of AIDS activity. Along with Ugandan and
North American colleagues, he is running an
HIV/AIDS clinic at Mulago Hospital in Kampala, Uganda,
and teaching local physicians advanced techniques to manage
the disease. Uganda was hit early and hard by HIV/AIDS. At
one time, the virus infected as many as 1 in 3 people in some
regions, and more than 100 000 Ugandans died of AIDS every
year throughout the 1990s. Furthermore, Uganda sits
squarely in sub-Saharan Africa, the region of the
world most affected by HIV/AIDS.
Even though HIV/AIDS is much better understood now, Sande’s
work in Kampala is in many ways even more challenging
than his earlier work in San Francisco: The
national health care system of Uganda is
rudimentary by comparison, especially outside of the
urban centers, and only 1% of the people with HIV can afford
to pay for antiretroviral therapy, which costs about $1
a day. But Sande, who has worked in Kampala on and
off since the late 1980s, is already seeing signs
of progress. In 2 years, the HIV/AIDS clinic at
Mulago Hospital has grown to treat more than 2000
patients, about 150 of whom are receiving antiretroviral therapy.
The training program has graduated 100 clinicians who are
dispersed throughout Africa. Sande is opening an AIDS
information center funded by the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation and staffed by two pharmacists and
a physician on standby to answer questions about
HIV/AIDS from clinicians throughout sub-Saharan Africa.
And by the end of 2003, he hopes to open the doors on the
country’s—indeed the continent’s—first state-of-the-art,
large-scale HIV/AIDS clinic, which is being built
with funds from an $11 million Alternative Treatments from Pfizer, Inc.
"We’re trying to re-create here what we did in
San Francisco, and we’re making fantastic
progress," said Sande.
Such progress, though, is really just a small drop in a very
large bucket. Consider the following. In western
nations, about 500 000 people were using
antiretroviral agents and 25 000 people died of
AIDS in 2001. At the same time in sub-Saharan Africa, only
25 000 people were using antiretroviral agents and 2.2 million
people died of AIDS. Uganda is actually far better off than
many other African countries: A long-term, government-led
health education effort has resulted in a decrease in
the prevalence of HIV infection to about 8%. In
Botswana, on the other hand, prevalence of HIV
infection increased from 18% in 1992 to 35% in 2002
in some areas. In Zambia, life expectancy dropped to 33
years from 44 a decade ago as a result of a 20% HIV
prevalence. In Zimbabwe, deaths from HIV infection
have orphaned more than 780 000 children. In South
Africa alone, 4.7 million people—a quarter of the
population—are infected with HIV. And these figures
provide only a glimpse of the staggering HIV/AIDS toll in
Africa.
Luckily—if there is any bright side to the AIDS crisis
in Africa—an expanding group of people are focused on
limiting the continent’s spread of infections and on
reducing suffering and mortality from HIV/AIDS.
Furthermore, efforts to bring modern HIV/AIDS
treatment to Africa appear to be supported by a
wide range of international factors that, together, might
prevent millions of deaths from HIV/AIDS in the coming
years. Funding has grown exponentially in the past
few years, and includes the new U.S. Emergency Plan
for AIDS Relief, a 5-year, $15 billion global
initiative signed into law by President Bush. The World Bank
has committed $1 billion through its Multi-Country HIV-AIDS
Programs for Africa. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies
have slashed prices of antiretroviral agents to
developing countries and in some cases have
cooperated with manufacturers of generic drugs.
Finally, more and more African political leaders are addressing
the HIV/AIDS epidemic and working to improve care.
"Over the past year, we have moved into a situation
where internationally, there’s the political will
and momentum to transform HIV/AIDS care. Now we
need to turn that into a reality," said Badara Samb,
MD, a consultant with UNAIDS (Joint United Nations Programme
on HIV/AIDS) and director of the Accelerating Access
Initiative, a partnership between the United
Nations and five pharmaceutical companies to
increase access to HIV/AIDS care, treatment, and support.
|
A Model of Universal Drug Access
|
Outside of Africa, one country has already turned political
will and momentum into a reality and, in doing so, has
energized the international AIDS community to act
more boldly in Africa. Brazil stunned the world in
1996 by mandating universal access to free
antiretroviral agents as part of its national AIDS program.
To provide such access, Brazil not only negotiated
reduced drug prices from pharmaceutical companies
but also decided to make generic versions of some
antiretroviral drugs domestically. The patents for
antiretroviral agents were not specifically protected
in Brazil, so Brazilians weren’t breaking the law.
However, the practice began a still-active international controversy
over drug patents. According to the latest reports, Brazil
produces 7 of the 15 antiretroviral agents that it uses to
treat people with HIV/AIDS, and the government purchases the
rest on the international market, typically at reduced prices.
In supplying drugs and other medical care to the more
than 100 000 people with HIV/AIDS, the country
spends more than $200 million annually, or about
$2000 per person. Although this program is costly,
Brazil spends less than one fifth of the amount spent on
antiretroviral therapy in the United States.
"The program is difficult in many ways. In particular,
it’s expensive. There are a lot of other diseases
in Brazil, like malaria and tuberculosis, and they
also need money. But the AIDS program works. And it
shows something really important to the rest of the
world: that this kind of mobilization is possible,"
said Jane Galvão, PhD, who worked with the Brazilian
national AIDS program before taking a fellowship with the
Fogarty Institute at University of California, Berkeley, in
2001 and then becoming affiliated with the Institute for Global
Health in San Francisco. Since Brazil’s treatment access
program began, average survival time for a patient with AIDS
has increased from 6 months to 5 years. The mortality rate
from AIDS has declined by 50%. And the Brazilian health
minister estimates that the country is saving more
than $1 billion by keeping HIV-infected people out
of the hospital. Galvão attributed Brazil’s
success to a combination of factors: adequate
funding, political leadership, strong community involvement,
and a health care system that incorporates education
about HIV prevention, HIV counseling and testing,
and treatment of sexually transmitted infections.
Brazil’s bold AIDS program proved for the first time that
a developing country could deliver widespread HIV/AIDS
care that included antiretroviral agents. It
inspired the international AIDS community to call
for universal antiretroviral access for other
developing nations as well. AIDS activists in South Africa
coalesced around the issue and jointly called for a
program like Brazil’s in their own country. South
Africa is one of the few countries in Africa with
sufficient resources and medical infrastructure to
mimic the Brazil model, but its political leaders
have consistently ignored HIV/AIDS, to the point of denying
that HIV causes AIDS and that AIDS could be treated. Now,
a sophisticated, 4-year lobby by the Treatment Action Campaign
(TAC) has pressured the South African government to
address HIV/AIDS at last. After TAC organized a
series of acts of civil disobedience earlier this
year, the government met with TAC and agreed to
craft a national AIDS program that includes support for
drug treatment.
"Politically, there’s no going back in South Africa.
Putting a public provision care model into place
would hurt, but they could do it," said Josef
Decosas, MD, the regional health advisor for Plan
International in West Africa, who has worked with AIDS issues
throughout Africa for the past 13 years. Decosas estimated
that an AIDS program would cost about 2% of South
Africa’s gross national product but that improved
health, decreased mortality, and increased
productivity in HIV-infected individuals would partly
allay these costs.
Most other African countries lack the resources to
successfully replicate the Brazilian model.
Moreover, the number of people with HIV in many
African countries is much larger than in Brazil. The
main hope for these countries rests on sustained assistance
from international sources. "In these countries,
the most important thing right now is to really
push toward strengthening the primary care
infrastructure to the point where you could possibly support
ARVs [antiretroviral agents]. Before you even think
about providing ARVs in most countries, just some
treatment for oral candidiasis—which can cause
starvation in people with AIDS—would make such a
difference in reducing suffering. I mean, if you can’t get
chloroquine to people with malaria, you can’t even think
about getting people antiretroviral drugs," Decosas said.
|
Adherence Remains a Concern
|
Decosas is not the only person to suggest that the current
focus on antiretroviral access for Africa may be
premature. While the benefits of antiretroviral
therapy are clear—widespread use would save
hundreds of thousands of African lives almost immediately—many
African countries need a coherent primary health
care system in which to administer antiretroviral therapy
over the long term. A primary barrier to effective
antiretroviral treatment is not only the cost of
drugs but also the necessary oversight by trained
physicians who specialize in HIV/AIDS care.
"There’s a need for a medical infrastructure that can
handle HIV/AIDS in many countries in Africa. We’re
developing a prototype now in Uganda, and we hope
to take it to other countries," said Sande,
who, along with co-director Nelson Sewankambo, MD, dean
of the Makerere University School of Medicine, formed the
Academic Alliance to AIDS Care and Prevention in Africa,
a coalition composed of a dozen professors of
medicine, pediatrics, and public health from North
America and Uganda. "We’re preparing so that
there will be a health care infrastructure for treating HIV
and AIDS patients when the money eventually comes in to pay
for antiretrovirals," Sande said.
Even with a good health care infrastructure, adherence to
antiretroviral treatment regimens remains a crucial
issue in international AIDS care. In places such as
Uganda, even drugs purchased at a substantial
discount are still expensive compared with wages. Moreover,
many of the individuals receiving antiretroviral agents take
unscheduled treatment breaks when they run out of money, resuming
treatment once they receive another paycheck. The uncontrolled
drug market in some West African countries means that
antiretroviral agents will soon be available from
any pharmacy, but few people will be able to afford
them, and even fewer will follow an effective treatment
regimen, Decosas said. Even in Brazil, where the public health
care system oversees distribution of free medications, adherence
to antiretroviral therapy remains a challenge. "We have
a good basic health care system, but it’s not like it’s
paradise," Galvão said.
Still, with a vaccine for HIV/AIDS apparently still decades
in the future, drug access is the primary goal of many
people who work in the field. "The main issue
is that now that drugs are more affordable, why
aren’t we making more headway in regards to
making them available for the people who need them
so badly. We can’t let any obstacles get in our way,"
said Mark Wainberg, PhD, director of the McGill AIDS
Centre in Montreal, Canada, and past president of
the International AIDS Society. Wainberg’s
microbiology laboratory at McGill University has
studied the effects of intermittent antiretroviral therapy.
While hardly ideal, intermittent therapy is not as dangerous
as once believed. "One of the great lessons that we’ve
learned is that it is better to have drug access even
under conditions of non-100% adherence than to have
no drug access at all," Wainberg said.
People who aren’t consistently following an antiretroviral
regimen might develop resistant viruses, and those
resistant viruses may be sexually transmitted to
others, he said. His research suggests, however,
that some forms of resistant viruses may be less
virulent. "Getting a drug-resistant virus is never a
good thing, but that might be a silver lining in the
cloud," he said.
|
Stopping 6000 Deaths a Day
|
Preventing HIV infection in the first place is the ultimate
goal of the international AIDS community. But for the
time being, at least, their focus is on a
multipronged approach that emphasizes treatment as
well as prevention, according to Wainberg. Without treatment,
more than 6000 people, mostly in Africa, die of HIV/AIDS every
day.
Money for antiretroviral agents may be available more quickly
than anyone could have hoped. Sande noted that the
Global Fund recently committed $36 million to
Uganda’s HIV/AIDS program in February 2003, and
various other organizations, such as the World
Bank, are also expected to contribute soon. Some of that funding
will go toward the purchase of antiretroviral agents. The
outlook is similarly promising throughout sub-Saharan Africa.
Meanwhile, Brazil continues to provide leadership in
AIDS care. Last summer, it committed to sharing its
expertise by pledging $1 million—10 grants of
$100 000 each—to assist governments in their
AIDS programs, including transfer of technology for
those that wish to follow Brazil’s lead by learning how
to produce antiretroviral agents domestically.
|
Clarifying the Complex Antiretroviral Pricing System
|
Many pharmaceutical companies have reduced the price of
antiretroviral agents for developing countries, but
no uniform preferential pricing system exists. This
has resulted in a confusing pricing system wherein
countries may qualify for some price reductions but
not others. Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières
[MSF]) publishes "Untangling the Web of Price Reductions"
in an effort to provide clear information on antiretroviral
pricing on the international market. In particular, the
publication provides data on antiretroviral prices
offered by originator companies and some generic
companies in low- and middle-income countries. The
goal of the price guide is to help governments and
other bulk purchasers access antiretroviral agents.
Except for Merck & Co. and Roche, most originator
companies do not have a policy on antiretroviral
price reductions for countries that are outside
sub-Saharan Africa or that are not classified as
Least Developed Countries, according to MSF. To determine
whether a country is eligible for reductions, Merck &
Co. uses the Human Development Index, a criteria related to
resources, and HIV/AIDS prevalence statistics; according to
these sources, an estimated 120 countries would theoretically
qualify. GlaxoSmithKline uses the criteria of Least
Developed Country classification and the geographic
classification of sub-Saharan countries; an
estimated 63 countries would qualify according to
these sources. Various countries, such as some Central
American countries, that do not fall into these categories
but are considered needy may benefit from price
reductions negotiated by the Accelerated Access
Initiative, a collaborative effort of UNAIDS and
the major pharmaceutical industries. Various other factors,
such as national distribution and handling charges, mark-up
rates, and taxes, may ultimately change the cost of medications
to patients.
In "Untangling the Web of Price Reductions," MSF
notes that equity pricing has been the most
effective method for pushing prices down. MSF’s
definition of equity pricing incorporates three
simultaneous strategies: 1) stimulation of generic
competition; 2) differential pricing, which
addresses all developing countries, according to
clearly defined policies or voluntary licensing of
proprietary products; and 3) government readiness to override
patents by issuing compulsory licenses or making
government use of a patent when affordable prices
are not offered for patented products. During the
past 3 years, generic competition has been the most
effective means of reducing prices of antiretroviral agents,
MSF notes. (According to an international agreement, Least
Developed Countries are not obligated to patent drugs until
2016.)
To illustrate how generic competition has resulted in cheaper
antiretroviral agents, MSF has tracked the lowest world
price of a typical combination therapy. In May
2000, the combination of stavudine plus lamivudine
plus nevirapine cost a total of $10 439 per
patient per year, and only the original, patent-holding pharmaceutical
companies made the drugs. By July 2000, Brazil had
started making some antiretroviral agents domestically and
offered a version of the triple-drug therapy for $2767
per patient per year. Just a few months later, the
Indian drug maker Cipla offered a generic version
of the combination therapy for $350 per patient per
year. Shortly thereafter, the prices charged by the
originator companies for the antiretroviral agents fell dramatically
to $931. By March 2001, the originator price had dropped
again, to $727. Since then, this amount has remained stable
while the generic cost has dropped somewhat further, to
$201 in April 2003 (Source: "Untangling the Web of Price
Reductions: A Pricing Guide for the Purchase of ARVs for
Developing Countries." 4th ed. Médecins sans
Frontières; 15 May 2003).
|