Viral load monitoring enters the mainstream

Last night I attended a dinner in Stockholm hosted by the Swedish Ministry for International Development & Cooperation. I was fortunate to have the chance to chat with Dr. Mark Dybul, Executive Director of the Global Fund. The subject of HIV viral load monitoring came up. As you might imagine, this topic has been a central theme of my dinner conversations for several years. But last night’s discussion took on a very different tone. 

Viral load monitoring officially endorsed by the world’s most respected public health authority

With almost ten million people in developing nations currently receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART) for HIV, it’s fair to say that great progress has been made in addressing the HIV pandemic. However, one area has remained well behind the curve when comparing treatment standards in developed nations to those in the developing world. That deficiency is most strikingly evident in HIV viral load monitoring. Antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) can be used much more effectively when combined with viral load monitoring. Conversely, administering ARVs in the absence of viral load monitoring means replacing data with guesswork, which puts patients at risk and can waste resources. That is why every HIV patient in the developed world receives regular viral load monitoring as a central part of treatment. And, why it’s a shame that this diagnostic has not been widely regarded as a critical component of routine practice in the areas hardest hit by the HIV pandemic.

Which brings me back to my dinner with Dr. Dybul…During our discussion it suddenly occurred to me that I no longer felt like a radical evangelist advocating viral load monitoring from the sidelines of the war on HIV. It felt more like preaching to the choir. That’s because, for the first time, routine viral load monitoring has been officially endorsed by the world’s most respected public health authority. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently revised their guidelines for HIV treatment and now strongly recommends implementing routine viral load monitoring in resource-limited settings. 

WHO recognized the importance of viral load monitoring as early as 2003, but fell short of including the test in its official HIV treatment guidelines for developing nations. Priorities back then were focused on getting ARVs into resource-limited countries. Now that the ARVs have arrived, viral load monitoring takes on much more significance. The revised WHO guidelines call for developing countries to roll out routine virological monitoring, with viral load tests at both six and twelve months after treatment initiation, and then at least every twelve months thereafter. In this way, treatment adherence problems are corrected more quickly and patient treatment can be adjusted immediately as indications arise.

WHO Consolidated ARV guidelines 2013

A recent report from Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) highlighted the importance of routine viral load monitoring for a number of reasons, some of which include confirmation of treatment failure, prevention of HIV mother-to-child transmission, and improvement in HIV treatment outcomes in low-income countries. MSF currently provides treatment for 285,000 HIV patients in 21 countries. Today, most clinics in resource-limited settings try to monitor disease progression with CD4 tests alone. This research provides ten specific benefits that programs in developing nations can hope to achieve by adopting the WHO recommendation for routine viral load testing. These include:

• Support of treatment adherence
• Confirmation of treatment failure early, before CD4 decline
• Revelation of previously hidden viral loads, then help reducing them
• Enablement of program decentralization and task shifting
• Improvement of treatment efficacy
• Help meeting programwide goals
• Improvement of early infant diagnosis
• Delivery of systemic benefits, from the individual to the institution
• Cost benefits for programs by reducing:
  • cost of drugs by preserving first-line therapy
  • costs associated with redundant testing
  • cost for viral load equipment and operations
  • testing costs through the use of pooled samples
• Prolongation of treatment options for patients

Clearly, the addition of routine viral load testing offers significant gains for both programs and patients in resource-limited settings. Now that WHO has endorsed viral load monitoring, the biggest barricade to access will be ensuring that we provide viral load tests at an affordable cost. Our own viral load monitoring product, ExaVir™Load, was purposely designed with that aim in mind. It is an RT-based ELISA test that measures viral load with comparable sensitivity and reliability to standard DNA-based tests. The difference is that ExaVir™Load can be run in simple and/or rural laboratory environments with low initial investment. An automated version of the test is currently in development, as outlined in the recent UNITAID HIV Diagnostic Landscape report.

Viral load monitoring is no longer a fringe consideration when treating HIV in resource-limited settings. That’s great news for people with HIV in the developing world. The revised WHO guidelines have helped viral load monitoring enter the mainstream. On behalf of Cavidi, I promise to keep it there with tests that are both reliable and affordable. I am proud that Cavidi can play a central role in carrying out the WHO’s recommendation. Moreover, I’m pleased to see that leadership in organizations such as WHO and the Global Fund are all in agreement that the time for viral load monitoring is now. 

John Reisky de Dubnic

CEO

Cavidi

”Getting to Zero” will require more than funding to succeed

Observations on the role of innovation in the battle against HIV/AIDS

Getting to Zero is the theme of this year’s World AIDS Day:  Zero HIV/AIDS-related new infections, deaths and discrimination by 2015.  I wholeheartedly endorse the idea and admire the ambition level. But this World AIDS Day falls on the heels of some bittersweet news.  

 On one hand we have last week’s report from the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) telling us that 2011 has been a “game-changing” year in the fight against HIV/AIDS with unprecedented progress in science, political leadership and results.  On the other hand the Global Fund had a “getting to zero” announcement of a different sort. Last week they announced there would be zero funding for new HIV/AIDS-related initiatives until 2014.  A statement from Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) summed up the situation: “The dramatic resource shortfall comes at a time when the latest HIV science shows that HIV treatment itself not only saves lives, but is also a critical form of preventing the spread of the virus, and governments are making overtures that there could be an end to the AIDS epidemic.”   The statement goes on to urge governments to step up and find the money required by the Global Fund. A second statement issued two days later went further asserting that “The international community must recognize that we are at a critical crossroads: we either use the science, tools, and policies already at our disposal to save lives and prevent new infections; or see the hard-fought gains of the last decade lost.”

No doubt, fundraisers will need to work hard to stimulate giving in the current global economy.  When they succeed, I hope they will turn their attention to a much less publicized but equally important issue: stimulating competition and innovation in the markets where those funds will be disbursed. Because that is what will be needed to get to zero in the countries hardest hit by HIV/AIDS — particularly if funds are frozen and we find ourselves in a catch-up situation one, two or more years down the road. 

I have complete confidence in the ability of the biotech industry to accelerate progress in the war against HIV. But to do that they will need a balanced playing field on which to compete. Currently, that is not case in several critical and underserved areas of HIV diagnostics.  For instance, a 2008 report from the Global AIDS Alliance (themselves the victim of funding woes in 2010) cites one company that “controls roughly 80% of the overall NAT [nucleic-acid-based tests] market share, which gives the company a near monopoly on global diagnostics and even greater domination in the area of EID.”   

More recently, at the IAS in Rome this past summer, Maurine Murtagh reported that the market conditions in resource-limited settings for three of the most critical and under-served areas on HIV management are monopolized by a few large companies.  One company controls 80% of all CD4 testing.  Two companies have 70% market share in viral load testing. And one company has 90% market share in early infant diagnosis (EID).

At the same time Ms. Murtagh highlights the inadequacies of the solutions provided under these monopolies. “Diagnostic delivery of EID, CD4 and viral load testing is generally via large and relatively expensive laboratory-based systems that require well-trained technicians and good sample transport networks to provide access to testing for those in some urban, and virtually all peri-urban and rural settings.”  

I have spent most of my career in the private sector where monopolies are frowned upon if not banned outright.  As we all know, monopolies create huge barriers of entry for new products, stifle innovation, discourage investment and keep prices inflated. When I became CEO of Cavidi, a biotech firm specialized in HIV diagnostics, I was surprised to discover how monopolies are a fact of life in the very markets that are most in need of innovation and investment. I was equally surprised at how resistant to change these resource-limited markets are despite the clear limitations of the current diagnostic solutions. 

This is not to slight the contributions made by the companies who dominate these markets. In Cavidi’s diagnostic area, imbedded technology can be credited with contributing to the progress detailed in last week’s UNAIDS report. However much of this technology was created for use in developed nations and has changed little over the past 20 years to adapt to the very different environment we see in resource-limited settings.  This is the predictable result of any monopoly — stagnation.  In the case of HIV diagnostics, stagnation means that many of the people who need the tests most cannot access them for the reasons cited by Ms. Murtagh. 

This situation is not the byproduct of a market that lacks innovative solutions from creative companies. A look at the UNITAID HIV/AIDS Diagnostic Landscape publication gives you an idea of the vast number of more effective solutions including our own RT-based diagnostic assay which, in addition to lab-based viral load monitoring in resource-limited settings, has the potential to provide a viable, cost-effective solution to elusive problems like EID and near-patient viral load monitoring. 

Of course these solutions need financing to scale up. But they also need an efficient market that promotes competition and encourages new ideas and better solutions.  Until those conditions exist very few new ideas from smaller, entrepreneurial companies like ours will ever be allowed to contribute on par with their potential. So with regard to diagnostics, the real challenge in getting to zero by 2015 isn’t,  “Where can we find the next big idea?” It is, “How can we hasten the uptake of ideas we already have in the presence of a monopoly?”

The benefits of such competition and ingenuity in places like Sub-Saharan Africa, India and Southeast Asia don’t stop there. The solutions developed for resource-limited settings are often just as applicable in developed nations. For instance our ExaVir™ viral load test is as sensitive as the gold standard but it can also detect all known HIV subtypes.  This is something that the gold standard cannot do and the reason why our test is also being used in some of the world’s most prestigious medical institutions, such as the Royal Free Hospital in London and the University of Maryland School of Medicine IHV (Institute of Human Virology) in the U.S.  Further, given the burden felt by most healthcare systems in developed nations the need for more cost-effective diagnostic solutions is not limited to developing nations. 

Today, the science exists to address some of the most pressing challenges in getting to zero but is often confounded by a market that clearly does not welcome new entrants gladly. This is not the type of problem that is solved by money alone. It’s also a matter of mindset. So on this World AIDS Day I join the plea for donor nations to ensure that their pledges to the Global Fund are honored. And to that I would add a plea for recipient nations to ensure that the entire HIV treatment spectrum, including diagnostics, is allowed to evolve and thrive under market conditions that encourage competition and innovation. With both funding and innovation nothing can stop us from getting to zero in record time.  That is my wish today, and my colleagues and I are honored to be part of this historic endeavor.

John Reisky de Dubnic

CEO

Cavidi

A Viral Load Monitoring Success Story from Zambia

I’ve heard a lot of great stories about how viral load monitoring has helped doctors in resource-limited settings. One in particular always jumps to mind. A Dutch physician named Dr. Piet van Hasselt was working at the Kara Clinic in Lusaka, Zambia when he decided to give viral load testing a try to see if it made a significant difference in his treatment practice.

Up until that point, he only had access to CD4 tests. For his trial, he tested 40 patients with low CD4 counts. He intended to switch them to second-line therapy, assuming their treatment was no longer effective. The viral load tests showed that 60% of them had undetectable viral loads, and as such could remain on first-line treatment.

This gave the patients more time on effective therapy and kept more treatment options open in the future. It also saved the clinic a lot of money as second-line therapy is many times more expensive than first line – money which could then be used to provide more patients with treatment.

These are the kinds of results I believe all clinics should be entitled to and why I push for universal accessibility to viral load monitoring. When you look at stories like this, the medical and financial implications of universal accessibility are staggering.