PrEP acceptable to gay men and few report that it would change their risk behaviour

via aidsmap, by Michael Carter.

Approximately 50% of gay men said they were likely to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), but few reported that it would lead to a change in their risk behaviour, according to data presented to the International AIDS Society conference in Rome.

Nevertheless, the investigators were concerned that even minor increases in rates of unprotected anal sex could offset the benefits of pre-exposure prophylaxis.

The IPrEX study showed that PrEP significantly reduced the risk of infection with HIV for gay and bisexual men. Overall, men who took PrEP had their risk of HIV reduced by 44%. If adherence was high, the risk was reduced by 73%.

“PrEP offers much promise as the first biomedical intervention to have success in at-risk men who have sex with men,” comment the researchers.

They therefore undertook further analysis to see how likely the men who participated in the study were to use PrEP and if its availability would change their HIV risk behaviour.

They undertook a survey in December 2010, immediately following the release of the IPrEX results, using Facebook and Black Gay Chat to recruit participants. A total of 1155 gay and other men who have sex with men were recruited to the study.

Participants completed a questionnaire about their knowledge and willingness to use PrEP; perceptions of the risk of HIV infection from unprotected anal sex with or without PrEP; perceptions of sexual pleasure; and perception of likelihood to experience sexual pleasure with or without a condom and with or without PrEP.

The men had an average age of 33 years, 75% were white, and 51% reported unprotected anal sex at least once in the last twelve months.

Only a third of men had heard of PrEP before the release of the study results. Just under half of individuals reported that they were “very” or “extremely” likely to use PrEP.

Unprotected anal sex without a condom was widely considered to involve a high risk of HIV.

The availability of PrEP did not alter the perception of the risk associated with HIV in the majority of men, regardless of whether they were the insertive (75%) or receptive (60%) partner in anal sex.

Three-quarters of men stated that the 44% efficacy of PrEP in the IPrEX study would not affect their use of condoms. However, 7% reported that they would use condoms less frequently.

Read the rest here.

[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]

Antiretroviral prevention methods 'not in competition' with each other

Via AIDSMap, by Keith Alcorn.

Antiretroviral prevention methods are not in competition, and policy makers and providers need to start to thinking about how antiretrovirals, pre-exposure prophylaxis and microbicides will be provided as part of a combination prevention package – and who will benefit most from each method, delegates heard at a satellite meeting on the opening day of the Sixth International AIDS Society Conference (IAS 2011) in Rome.

“You don’t want to have the family planning clinic here, the pills clinic here, the injections clinic here, and the microbicides clinic over here,“ said Dr Stephen Becker of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Delegates were discussing the rapidly changing landscape of HIV prevention methods that use antiretroviral drugs. One year ago, at the International AIDS Conference in Vienna, the world heard the results of the CAPRISA study, which showed that a microbicide gel containing tenofovir halved the risk of HIV infection in women who used the vaginal gel consistently.

Since then results from four studies have added to the array of prevention methods that exploit antiretroviral drugs to prevent transmission or acquisition of HIV infection:

• The iPrEx study showed that taking the antiretroviral combination Truvada (tenofovir and emtricitabine (also known as FTC) reduced the risk of HIV infection in men who have sex with men by 44%.
• The HPTN 052 study showed that early treatment reduced the risk of HIV transmission to an uninfected regular partner by at least 96%.
• The Partners study showed pre-exposure prophylaxis with Truvada or with tenofovir alone reduced the risk of HIV infection by between 62% and 73%.
• The TDF2 study showed that  pre-exposure prophylaxis with Truvada reduced the risk of infection by between 62% and 78%.

The first tenofovir-containing microbicide could receive regulatory approval by the end of 2013, subject to positive results from a confirmatory trial now taking place in South Africa. That study is testing exactly the same dosing regimen as that used in the CAPRISA study, the so-called BAT 24 dosing schedule: one dose Before, one After, and no more than Two doses in 24 hours.

A second CAPRISA study (008) is testing the roll-out of tenofovir gel through family planning clinics in KwaZulu-Natal, comparing the monthly testing and follow-up schedule used in the original CAPRISA study with a three-monthly schedule, in order to examine the feasibility and acceptability of providing a microbicide through existing health services that target sexually active women.

Although the South African government has already begun investing in the scale-up of production facilities to manufacture the gel, the extent of demand for the microbicide is still unclear. Studies of women’s’ attitudes towards the microbicide will be needed to gauge demand, but a lot of work will also be needed to develop demand – and to make sure that women understand how they could benefit from using the microbicide.

“We need to reach out to women who don’t perceive themselves to be at risk, and we should be getting communities to rally round to be early adopters of tenofovir gel,” said Samu Dube of the Global Campaign for MIcrobicides.

“We need to get the product to the places where women are: the family planning clinics, the immunisation centres, antenatal clinics. We also need to target the school health system.”

However, work will also be needed to convince the providers of those services that they have a role to play in expanding women’s opportunities to protect themselves from HIV infection.

Read the rest here.

[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]

Models: Tools to Improve Decision Making about HIV

Via AIDS.gov, by Ronald Valdiserri, M.D., M.P.H.

For those of us who work in the HIV/AIDS field, the month of July was dominated by exciting HIV prevention news coming out of the International AIDS Society meeting in Rome. Results from the HPTN 052 study showed that early, compared to delayed, antiretroviral treatment resulted in a 96% reduction in HIV transmission to uninfected partners. The TDF2 study conducted by CDC in partnership with the Botswana Ministry of Health, found that a once-daily pill containing two anti-HIV drugs reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by about 63% in a study population of healthy, heterosexual men and women. These and other study findings continue to add weight to the notion that HIV treatment is prevention. All of us are encouraged when we think about how these findings could be translated into real world settings in a way that would bring us closer to achieving the goals of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy.

Without minimizing the tremendous enthusiasm that rightly attends the prevention breakthroughs that were presented in Rome, I would like to talk about another scientific discussion that took place in July. As it turns out, this meeting was also held in a world capital, although to a much smaller audience. And while the results of this two-day meeting didn’t garner media attention the same way as the Rome meeting did, the topics under discussion were no less consequential.  In mid-July, I was very fortunate to attend a two-day workshop on “Modeling and Evidence-Based Decision Making” sponsored by amfAR, the Foundation for AIDS Research and cosponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, and the Urban Coalition for HIV/AIDS Prevention Services. Meeting participants included colleagues from state and local departments of health, academia, federal government, and professional and community-based organizations.

Colleagues from Los Angeles, San Francisco, Maryland, and New York City shared with us their experiences with using various models to assist in making decisions about “optimizing” HIV prevention investments. Using different approaches, each of these health departments was trying to answer the same question, “What combination of prevention services and activities will result in the greatest reduction of the number of new HIV infections?”

At the onset of the meeting, we were reminded that modeling is used in other areas of health and public policy decision-making, especially when leaders are trying to combine diverse information from a variety of sources in order to make sound decisions at a population level.  However, even the biggest fans of modeling reminded us that a model is not a “crystal ball” nor is it infallible.  Instead, what models do is provide a tool to help us make better decisions about complex realities. Good models should always be clear about the inputs and assumptions that were used to generate the results. And perhaps most importantly, they should be used to guide rather than to conclude any discussions about how best to allocate resources.

Read the rest here.

[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]

Treatment As Prevention: We Urgently Need Policy Guidance

Via PLoS, by Nathan Ford.

The International AIDS Society conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention in Rome has been hailed as a landmark conference for HIV prevention. Just as the AIDS conference in Vancouver in 1996 marked the beginning of the international effort to roll out antiretroviral therapy globally, so Rome will likely be remembered as the beginning of a new era in biomedical prevention.

The results of the HTPN 052 discordant couples trial, which found the greatest incidence reduction of any prevention intervention evaluated to date, were met with a standing ovation. This trial found a 96% reduction in HIV transmission and a 40% reduction in serious complications, in particular tuberculosis (TB), among patients starting ART early, at CD4 350-550 cells/mm³.

Implementation of this strategy is, however, hampered by lack of guidance from the World Health Organization. Draft guidelines for the provision of ART in discordant couples have been in process for many months, and their release was first announced in May, and then again July. However, by the end of the conference it remained unclear when the guidelines would be released, or what they would say.
Rumours spread in the conference corridors that WHO had been pressured to delay the release. Some suggested the issue at stake was to find the right balance in investment between the results of HTPN 052 and those of the recently completed pre-exposure prophylaxis trials that also reported a substantial prevention benefit.

There are at least three reasons why such a trade off is wrong.

First, providing ART earlier is desirable for more reasons than reduced HIV transmission: the HIV-positive individual receives treatment at a stage in their disease that developed country guidelines already consider therapeutically beneficial; their risk of developing incident diseases, in particular TB, is substantially reduced; reducing TB incidences confers the additional public health benefit of reducing the risk of TB transmission.

Second, discussions about whether to give ART to HIV-positive or HIV-negative individuals are ethically problematic. Economics has long been described as the ‘dismal science’, but it is hard to think of a more dismal economic proposition than to delay giving ART to people already infected with the pathogenic HIV virus in order to give the drugs to HIV-negative individuals instead.

Third, there are fundamental practical differences to the two approaches. Implementing the results of HTPN 052 means further extending what is already happening (giving ART to HIV-infected individuals); in contrast, giving ART to HIV-negative, at-risk individuals requires extensive operational research to help define what is essentially an entirely new programmatic approach.

Read the rest here.

[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]

From 'what if' to 'what now': implementing the new prevention technologies

Via AIDSMap, by Gus Cairns.

 

Two consecutive sessions at the sixth International AIDS Society conference in Rome yesterday were devoted, now we have convincing scientific data on the benefits of treatment as prevention and PrEP, to putting these new prevention methods into practice.

“We have moved from ‘What if?’ to ‘What now?’” was the comment of Mitchell Warren, Executive Director of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (AVAC), on what else we need to know, what barriers need to be addressed , and what resources might be required, to maximise the promise of antiretroviral-based prevention.

Anthony Fauci, Director of the US National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), said: “We now have a solid scientific foundation to say that even in the absence of a vaccine we have the capacity to end the epidemic. I can’t go to the US President and say: 'We can cure HIV.’ But I can say ‘Ending the epidemic is scientifically doable’.”

Earlier, however, Nancy Padian from the Office of the US Global AIDS Coordinator had outlined formidable challenges still to be answered if antiretroviral treatment could bring about this goal.

She said that questions still needing answers include whether antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) really are a durable and reliable means of viral load suppression over a period of years and whether increasing the proportion of people on treatment would lead to increased levels of resistance. The biggest practical question, however, was whether treatment as prevention would work in situations where a high proportion of transmissions came from people with acute, recent HIV infections.

The biggest barriers to treatment as prevention, however, are stigma and lack of resources. Implementing ARV-based prevention would not only be expensive in terms of drugs; it would require added human resources and increased training and task-shifting for prevention counsellors so they can deal with biomedical data. There would also be added costs in terms of tests and monitoring.

The other big barrier will be the stigma of being tested, she said, particularly for at-risk populations in societies where injecting drug use, male-male sex, or sex work were criminalised and stigmatised. Treatment as prevention would require people not simply to test and then go to more supportive community organisations for prevention advice; it required a much closer relationship with medical personnel who might be prejudiced or feared to be so.

Mitchell Warren issued a call to action to implement the new strategies, but his presentation was tempered by realism. “We have evidence, we have data, and we now need to make decisions,” he said.

Read the rest here

[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]

ARV Access Fears Across the World

A slew of recent articles have appeared in the news lately which express concern over the availability and accessability of many countries including Swaziland (PlusNews), Indonesia (Jakarta Globe), and middle-income countries around the world (below). This comes on the heels of the Ranbaxy-Gilead deal which has the potential to greatly increase the supply of these life-saving drugs.

Bad News for Drug Prices in Middle-Income Countries

Middle-income countries with large numbers of people living with HIV will no longer benefit from preferential pricing when buying antiretroviral drugs from large pharmaceutical companies, according to the annual Médecins Sans Frontières drug pricing report, Untangling the Web of ARV Price Reductions.

“The main bad news in the study is the fact that a number of pharmaceutical companies will no longer be providing preferential pricing to middle-income countries like Brazil, China, India and Thailand,” Nathan Ford, medical director at MSF’s Campaign for Access to Affordable Medicines, said at the launch of the report at the 6th International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention in Rome.

According to the report, pharmaceutical firm ViiV Healthcare – owned by Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline – no longer offers reduced prices to middle-income countries, even when their programmes are fully funded by the Global Fund to fight HIV, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

Merck has also ceased to offer discounted prices to all lower middle- and upper middle-income countries, proposing instead to negotiate discounts on a case-by-case basis. Previously, Merck offered middle-income countries discounts that were still up to 10 times the price of generic versions. Of particular concern is the price of UN World Health Organization-recommended third-line drug, raltegravir – an integrase inhibitor that blocks retroviral replication – which costs up to US$5,870 per person per year in Brazil, compared with $675 in sub-Saharan Africa.

Janice Lee, pharmacist at MSF’s Campaign for Access to Essential Medicine, noted that drug company discount programmes were not a long-term solution, and governments would have to start using trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) measures to override patents; in the past, Brazil and Thailand have used compulsory licences – when a government allows someone else to produce the patented product or process without the consent of the patent owner – to lower prices in their countries.

The report notes that Abbott excludes low- and middle-income countries from differential prices for the standalone heat-stable ritonavir 100mg tablet. It blocks the enzyme protease, required by HIV to make new viruses. A spokesman for Abbott said the company’s long-standing pricing policy would protect the poorest people living with HIV.

"Abbott’s preferential pricing policy for ritonavir has been in place, unchanged, for a decade,” Dirk van Eeden, director of HIV communication and policy at Abbott, told IRIN/PlusNews via email. “It includes all African and least developed countries, where the outright majority of patients with HIV live.”

ViiV Healthcare also defended its pricing policy, saying it was committed to ensuring access to its medicines.

Read the rest here.

Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]

Capitalizing on Scientific Progress

A report released this morning by HIV Vaccines and Microbicides Resource Tracking Working Group at the IAS conference in Rome "found that overall investment in HIV prevention R&D had actually increased, with the modest exception of a one percent decline in vaccine R&D. The report documented a total US$1.19 billion investment in research and development (R&D) for four key HIV prevention options: preventive vaccines, microbicides, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) using antiretroviral drugs, and operations research related to medical male circumcision.":

"2010 has been a year of retrospection, a time for looking back over the 30 years since the first published report of the mysterious illness that would come to be known as AIDS. As sobering as this anniversary has been, it has also been a time for some optimism and calls to end the epidemic. These calls may not be simply wishful thinking, fueled as they have been by promising research results over the past two years in vaccines, microbicides, pre-exposure prophylaxis using antiretrovirals (PrEP), and antiretroviral treatment as prevention—results that have energized the entire HIV prevention field.

The first good news came at the end of 2009, when researchers in the RV 144 Thai vaccine trial reported that a vaccine combination had reduced risk of infection by 31 percent—the first clinical evidence that a preventive AIDS vaccine would be possible. Then, in July 2010, the CAPRISA 004 trial team announced its findings–that use of 1% tenofovir (TDF, also known as Viread®) vaginal gel reduced women’s risk of HIV infection by 39 percent—providing the first proof that a microbicide would be possible. This news was followed in November 2010 by the announcement from the iPrEx trial team that daily oral tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC, also known as Truvada®) had reduced risk of HIV infection by an estimated 44 percent overall in men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women, and proved for the first time that HIV prevention using PrEP would be possible. And finally, in early 2011, the HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 052 trial established that use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) by HIV-positive individuals reduced transmission to their partners"

Source: HIV Vaccines and Microbicides Resource Tracking Working Group

[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]

IAS 2011: The Conference So Far

As you probably know, Mapping Pathways is in Rome this weekend for IAS 2011, the 6th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention. We are very excited to be there, but in case you couldn't join us here is what has been happening the last few days:

Every day the conference is in session, the International AIDS Society releases a press release describing details and highlights from each day. The first three can be found here, here, and here. Another important press release from the conference discusses treatment as prevention.

Lancet has published several articles about the conference and treatment as prevention as well.

Science Speaks: HIV & TB News along with several other sources including IAS itself are live-blogging the event or publishing frequent updates. Keep an eye out here and elsewhere for more exciting news from Rome.

[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]

Roll Out Treatment as Prevention

Via the International AIDS Society.

The Lancet, a leading global medical journal, published an editorial comment today that emphasizes the critical role of expanding access to HIV treatment under a “Treatment as Prevention” strategy to stop the HIV pandemic.

The publication of the editorial comment coincides with the opening of the 6^th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention (IAS 2011) taking place in Rome, Italy from July 17-20. The conference, the biggest open scientific AIDS conference in the world, will feature numerous presentations on Treatment as Prevention.

The commentary – by Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS (BC-CfE) and Past President of the International AIDS Society (IAS) – strongly reinforces the view that the benefits of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) extend beyond the remarkable effectiveness of the treatment to prevent the onset of AIDS and prolong life, to dramatically reduce HIV transmission.

Based on HAART’s effectiveness in reducing transmission, Dr. Montaner is calling on the international community to support an immediate and expanded roll out of HAART under the Treatment as Prevention strategy, as pioneered by the BC-CfE in British Columbia, Canada.

“Treatment as Prevention is one of the most important and promising additions to the range of prevention strategies available to us today,” said Dr. Elly Katabira, President of the IAS and Chair of IAS 2011. “Dr. Montaner’s column is a rallying call for the universal endorsement and funding of this approach for the benefit of our future generations.”

The Treatment as Prevention strategy advocates for widespread HIV testing and facilitated access to free HIV treatment for all medically eligible HIV-positive individuals. Current HIV treatment reduces the level of HIV in the blood to undetectable levels, thus improving the health of HIV-positive individuals. At the same time, the treatment decreases the level of HIV in sexual fluids to undetectable levels, thereby reducing the likelihood of HIV transmission by over 90 per cent.

“The evidence is clear: treatment conclusively prevents morbidity, mortality and transmission,” said Dr. Montaner. “We now have ample and compelling evidence that treatment prevents HIV transmission during pregnancy and breastfeeding, as well as in sexual and injection drug use settings. The challenge remains to optimize the impact of this valuable intervention. Failure to do so is not an option.”

A recent study by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported that immediate use of HAART led to a 96% decrease in the risk of HIV transmission among heterosexual couples where one partner is HIV positive.

“These results are a real scientific breakthrough and a game changer in the response to HIV,” said Michel Sidibé, Executive Director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). “We must embrace Treatment as Prevention as part of a combination prevention strategy to achieve our collective vision of zero new infections and zero AIDS-related deaths.”

The Treatment as Prevention model has been embraced by UNAIDS and the World Health Organization within the Treatment 2.0 initiative, announced last year as a central pillar of the global strategy to respond to HIV.

In February 2011, in consultation with the BC-CfE and the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC), China became the first country to incorporate Treatment as Prevention as part of its national HIV/AIDS strategy to control HIV/AIDS over the next five years.

 ---

To read the Lancet article, click here.

You can also read an excellent article in the New England Journal of Medicine here, and the accompanying editorial here.

[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]

The research agenda for antiretroviral prevention – now it gets complex

Via AIDSMap, by Roger Pebody.

We now know that starting antiretroviral therapy early, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and vaginal microbicides can all have an impact on HIV transmission, Victor de Gruttola told a satellite session at the International AIDS Society conference in Rome on Sunday. But researchers now need to do more than establish efficacy, he said.

Studies need to identify the mechanisms by which interventions do and do not work in different communities.

They need to get to understand the characteristics of sexual networks, sexual behaviour and local epidemiology that influence their effectiveness. And they need to compare the impact of providing a stand-alone intervention with that of combined packages of interventions.

Other speakers at the satellite, which had been organised by AVAC and the European AIDS Treatment Group, emphasised the importance of implementation research – identifying barriers to the implementation of prevention interventions and developing strategies to overcome them.

Both Victor de Gruttola from the Harvard School of Public Health and Timothy Hallett from Imperial College London suggested there is no single best intervention – or even best package of interventions, but that this will depend on the characteristics of different communities and epidemics.

For different settings, researchers need to identify the combination of prevention interventions which could keep the spread of HIV under control. They also need to establish the breadth of programme coverage that is required.

Timothy Hallett presented some results from a basic mathematical model which aimed to identify the impact and cost of providing antiretroviral therapy to 80% of people at a number of different CD4 counts, PrEP to varying proportions of young people, PrEP to most people of all ages, or a combination thereof.

For each level of spending, Hallett identified the programme that would have the greatest impact – at the lowest levels of spending identified, this would be antiretroviral therapy alone. Should there be budget available to fund more than making therapy available for all with diagnosed HIV, policy makers should then provide PrEP for young people, and then for people of all ages.

But the model’s results change if baseline assumptions shift. If the costs of PrEP are actually lower than Hallett estimated (because drug prices come down), or if it turns out to be more expensive to get people diagnosed early and on to treatment (because testing promotion has less impact than anticipated or because new health services need to be provided), strategies with a greater reliance on PrEP would start to make more sense.

And the modelling studies need to consider other issues. Interventions – and combinations of interventions – will have different levels of effectiveness in different places, depending on a vast range of local factors which researchers are only beginning to get to grips with.

For example, Victor de Gruttola mentioned assortativity: the tendency for people who have many sexual partners to choose partners with the same characteristic. When this is the case, interventions will have less impact than when there is less assortativity.

Other important local factors are the number of transmissions that are due to people who are themselves recently infected, the proportion of people with HIV who are diagnosed and linked to care and the proportion of HIV-negative people who can be provided with an intervention.

Read the rest here.

[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]

At Home or in Rome, Online Resources to Keep You Connected to IAS 2011

via IAS

The 6^th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention (IAS 2011) kicks off on Sunday, 17 July and promises to offer a wealth of important scientific news, including the first full presentation on HPTN 052 and new data on a wide-range of topics including elite controllers, gene therapy, effectiveness of existing treatment regimens, co-infections, microbicides, PrEP, task-shifting, and decentralization of care.

There are a number of online resources for those following at home and those attending the conference. All can be accessed through the conference website.

Programme-at-Glance

The Programme-at-a-Glance (PAG) will include slides with audio from more than half of the sessions, including all plenary sessions and most oral abstract sessions. Audio/slides for most sessions will be posted within six hours, though in some cases it will take 12-24 hours.

Abstracts

Abstracts will be available through the PAG and posted at the time of presentation.

Rapporteur Reports

Rapporteurs will prepare summaries of all sessions along with daily summaries in each track, available here.

Blog

The Conference Blog is live and already has posts from a variety of guest authors. We’ll be posting more this week and tracking key developments during the conference and encourage your feedback, thoughts and ideas.

Twitter

We are tweeting – @ias2011 – and encourage you to tweet and re-tweet along with us, using #IAS2011.

Facebook

Follow IAS 2011 on Facebook for updates on and links to key sessions and developments, as well as photos, video highlights and interviews.

YouTube

The IAS 2011 YouTube channel has past interviews and talks from conference speakers and leadership and we’ll be adding more from the conference.

Photo Library

Free, high-resolution photos for use by the media and others (with appropriate credit) will be available through the IAS 2011 online media centre.

Online Partners Coverage

News Reports by NAM
NAM will offer news stories on major scientific presentations on aidsmap.com and publish a free daily news bulletin in English and translated into French, Portuguese, Spanish and Russian. Sign up here to receive the bulletin via email.

Scientific Analysis by CCO Clinical Care Options’ (CCO) online coverage at clinicaloptions.com will begin the week of 17 July and include expert audio highlights, capsule summaries of important clinical data, downloadable slidesets and more.

[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]