Use of 'eradication' in HIV cure-related research: a public health debate.

BACKGROUND: The landscape of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) research has changed drastically over the past three decades. With the remarkable success of antiretroviral treatment (ART) in decreasing AIDS-related mortality, some researchers have shifted their HIV research focus from treatment to cure research. The HIV cure research community often uses the term eradication to describe the science, and talks about eradicating the virus from the body. In public discourse, the term eradication could be conflated with disease eradication at the population level. In this paper, we call for a reframing of HIV cure research as control, as it is a more accurate descriptor and achievable goal in the foreseeable future. DISCUSSION: The properties of HIV are discordant with eradicability standards at both the individual level (as a clinical concept), and at the population level (as a public health concept). At the individual level, true eradication would necessitate absolute elimination of all latent HIV reservoirs from the body. Current HIV cure-related research strategies have proven unsuccessful at accurately quantifying, let alone eliminating these reservoirs. At the population level, eradication implies the permanent global reduction of HIV to zero new cases and to zero risk for future cases. Given the absence of an efficacious HIV vaccine and the impracticality and unethicality of eliminating animal reservoirs, global eradication of HIV is highly implausible. From a public health perspective, HIV eradication remains an elusive goal. CONCLUSION: The term 'eradication' is a misleading description of current HIV cure-related research. Instead, we call for the use of more realistic expressions such as 'sustained virologic HIV suppression (or control)' or 'management of HIV persistence' to describe HIV cure-related research. Using these terms reorients what HIV cure science can potentially achieve in the near future and avoids creating unrealistic expectations, particularly among the millions of people globally who live with HIV.

Back to the future: a history of ACOG in social media's golden age.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To chronicle a medical professional society's adoption of innovation and to describe themes pertinent to the adoption. RECENT FINDINGS: In September 2013, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) published a Committee Opinion on Toxic Environmental Agents that included an infographic and social media awareness campaign. To date, it claims one of the highest total audience reaches for an ACOG Facebook post reaching nearly 18 000 viewers. Despite this powerful promise, ACOG's timely and successful social media campaign did not always appear an obvious strategy. Although social media took hold of popular culture in the early 2000s, social media's professional etiquette remained uncharted and rife, with cautionary tales through the latter half of the decade. SUMMARY: Through a thoughtful and dedicated process, the ACOG Fellow and Junior Fellow leadership partnered to navigate the appropriate balance of innovation and prudence that propelled ACOG into social media's golden age, and paved the pathway for more progressive institutional changes.

Re-examining the HIV 'functional cure' oxymoron: Time for precise terminology?

For over a decade, the binary concepts of 'sterilizing' versus 'functional' cure have provided an organizing framework for the field of HIV cure-related research. In this article, we examine how the expression 'functional cure' is employed within the field, published literature, and community understanding of HIV cure research. In our synthesis of the different meanings attributed to 'functional cure' within contemporary biomedical discourse, we argue that employing the 'functional cure' terminology poses a series of problems. The expression itself is contradictory and inconsistently used across a wide array of HIV cure research initiatives. Further, the meaning and acceptability of 'functional cure' within communities of people living with and affected by HIV is highly variable. After drawing lessons from other fields, such as cancer and infectious hepatitis cure research, we summarize our considerations and propose alternative language that may more aptly describe the scientific objectives in question. We call for closer attention to language used to describe HIV cure-related research, and for continued, significant, and strategic engagement to ensure acceptable and more precise terminology.

Revisiting the 'sterilising cure' terminology: a call for more patient-centred perspectives on HIV cure-related research.

The literature on HIV therapeutics research is rife with terminology associating 'sterilisation' with HIV cure. We find connotations of the word 'sterilising' problematic for the HIV cure research field. In this viewpoint, we review associations of sterilising with concepts of disinfection or cleansing, as well as coerced sterilisation. We discuss emerging findings from socio-behavioural research that show aversion from people living with HIV towards the 'sterilising cure' nomenclature. We call for more collaborations with people with HIV as partners to help define what would be a more acceptable terminology for describing an HIV cure.