Amir Attaran

Community-based approaches to HIV treatment in resource-poor settings

Last year, HIV surpassed other pathogens to become the world’s leading infectious cause of adult death. More than 90% of deaths occur in poor countries, yet new antiretroviral therapies have only led to a drop in AIDS deaths in industrialised countries. The main objections to the use of these agents in less-developed countries have been their high cost and the lack of health infrastructure necessary to use them. We have shown that it is possible to carry out an HIV treatment programme in a poor community in rural Haiti, the poorest country in the western hemisphere. Relying on an already existing tuberculosis-control infrastructure, we have been able to provide directly observed therapy with highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) to about 60 patients with advanced HIV disease. Inclusion criteria and clinical follow-up were based on basic laboratory data available in most rural clinics. Serious side-effects have been rare and readily managed by community-health workers and clinic staff. We discuss objections to the widespread use of HAART, and suggest that directly-observed therapy of chronic infectious disease with multidrug regimens can be highly effective in settings of great privation as long as there is sustained commitment to uninterrupted care that is free to the patient. Why AIDS prevention alone is insufficient The dimensions of the global HIV crisis are such that predictions termed alarmist a decade ago are now revealed as sober projections. 1

Defining and refining international donor support for combating the AIDS pandemic

The international aid effort against AIDS is greatly incommensurate with the severity of the epidemic. Drawing on the data that international aid donors self-reported to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), we find that, between 1996 and 1998, finance from all rich countries to sub-Saharan Africa for projects designated as AIDS control averaged US

Roll Back Malaria? The scarcity of international aid for malaria control

69 million annually, and, assuming a safe margin for under-reporting and misreporting, we estimate that total donor spending on HIV/AIDS control was perhaps twice that at most. Since the late 1980s, aid levels have dropped relative to the prevalence of HIV infection, and stood recently at about

Doctoring malaria, badly: the global campaign to ban DDTDDT for malaria control should not be bannedCommentary: Reduction and elimination of DDT should proceed slowly

3 per HIV-infected person. Lack of finance is now the primary constraint on progress against AIDS, notwithstanding the widespread belief that a lack of interest from the goveements of poor countries is limiting. We argue that to produce a meaningful response to the pandemic, international assistance must be based on grants, not loans, for the poorest countries; be increased within the next 3 years to a minimum of

Trading ideology for dialogue: an opportunity to fix international aid for health?

7.5 billion or more; be directed toward funding projects which are proposed and desired by the affected countries themselves, and which are judged as having epidemiological merit against the pandemic by a panel of independent scientific experts; and fund concurrent needs, including prevention, drug treatment (such as highly active antiretroviral therapy), and blocking mother-to-child HIV transmission. An effort of this scope and scale will both radically alter the prospects for intervention against AIDS in poor countries, and together with comparable efforts to control other infectious diseases, is easily afforded by the OECD donor economies, whose aggregate national income recently surpassed

Ethical debate: doctoring malaria, badly: the global campaign to ban DDT.

21 trillion annually.

Out-licensing: a practical approach for improvement of access to medicines in poor countries

The WHO announced the Roll Back Malaria (RBM) movement in 1998, with the goal of halving malaria deaths by 2010, and halving again by 2015. It is widely agreed that reaching this goal requires a major increase in international aid funding for malaria control, to a budget of perhaps

DDT AND UROGENITAL MALFORMATIONS IN NEWBORN BOYS IN A MALARIAL AREA. Authors' reply

1.5 –

Doctoring malaria, badly : the global campaign to ban DDT

2.5 billion annually. To ascertain whether progress is being made, we compiled data self-reported by the donors to the Development Assistance Committee of OECD, and also to ourselves directly. We find that, in fact, the total amount of international aid dedicated to malaria control, from the 23 richest donor countries plus the World Bank, remains in the range of

International funding for AIDS care in poor countries should be increased

100 million annually – a figure that is virtually unchanged since the start of RBM. This lack of progress toward increasing funding very seriously threatens RBM and demands that WHO regularly audit and report on malaria control funding, with the certainty that RBM will fail to meet its deadline of 2010 if this is not done.