Using a Transformative Human-Centered Design Approach to Co-Create Communication Materials for the Alimatravir Efficacy Trial, EXPrESSIVE-11

Merck’s EXPrESSIVE program is investigating the efficacy of alimatravir (AMI) for monthly oral PrEP. With support from the Gates Foundation, AVAC works to ensure there is strong, consistent engagement with community representatives to influence the design and implementation of the trials, with an eye toward future rollout and access planning for AMI.

Leveraging expertise in community engagement and human-centered design (HCD), AVAC worked in partnership with community-based organizations on three continents to co-create communications materials for the EXPrESSIVE-11 trial – conducted among men who have sex with men (MSM), transgender, and non-binary people – that are driven by community perspectives and lived realities. The result is a series of tailored, localized materials designed to foster community interest, awareness, and engagement in the trials and in the novel concept of a monthly oral formulation. This work represents a transformative approach to community engagement in materials development for clinical trials.

Starting with communities

HCD is a participatory, iterative process that centers communities in the development of research, materials, processes, or services to understand and incorporate their perspectives, preferences, and lived experiences into the final product. HCD uses creative participation techniques to fully explore and understand community perspectives, rather than traditional survey methods. The co-creation process to develop the EXPrESSIVE-11 communication materials started before the trial began.

“What was different about this process was the timing”, says AVAC’s Senior Program Manager Kate Segal, who led this work. “We were really thinking about community engagement and awareness raising early on. Normally it happens when the product starts to go to market, but we had community realities shape the materials from before the trial began. Because the insights centered on their holistic lives and lived experiences, they can be a starting point to think about future demand generation much sooner instead of waiting for product rollout.”

The project focused on eight trial countries in three regions: Argentina, Brazil, and Peru in Latin America; Kenya and South Africa in Africa; and the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam in Asia. In each region, AVAC partnered with local organizations – Fundación Huésped and Fiocruz in Latin America, Matchboxology and NENDO in Africa, and APCOM in Asia – to engage local facilitators directly from the community who were trained on the methodology and recruited fellow community members for the HCD sessions. This approach ensured that the right participants were reached, fostered trust among participants, and generated more candid and honest insights.

“We partnered with local community organizations so that this work was really rooted in the community in terms of who was facilitating these workshops and how participants were recruited,” says Segal. “Organizations were already working with the focus populations, so they were able to recruit from communities where they already had relationships and trust. Community was front and center throughout the process.”

Partnering with communities, and allowing them to define the process, concept, and design ensured that materials directly reflected the people the study intended to engage. Looking back on the partnership with AVAC, Luciana Kamel, who leads the Community Education Team for HIV studies at Fiocruz in Brazil, said:

“What stood out most to me was the trust in our work and the respect for the process we have developed with the community. That trust gave us the space to build the materials in a way that was grounded in local realities and in the perspectives of the people we were working with.”

Focus group discussion held with community members for co-creation of EXPrESSIVE-11 communication materials

Turning community perspectives into recruitment materials

The process began with small group HCD immersions, or in-depth focus group discussions. These discussions created space for participants to explore how HIV prevention fits within their lives across four domains – Home, Heart, Health, and Hustle – what might make a monthly prevention option relevant to them, and how they wanted their communities to be represented in engagement materials.

“One thing that stayed with me,” recalls Fundación Huésped’s Gastón Devisich, “was how consistently participants pushed us away from images that felt too aspirational, overly symbolic, or disconnected from their everyday lives. They wanted to see themselves — not an idealized version of the community. That meant thinking about much more than gender or sexuality. It was also about body diversity, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and the places and situations in which people actually live, socialize, connect, and make decisions about their health. In Argentina and Peru, this led us to deliberately recreate everyday moments of intimacy and social connection rather than relying on conventional representations of HIV prevention or sexuality.”

Insights from the local immersions informed two global campaign concepts which were then shared with community participants for feedback. After synthesizing feedback from each country and multiple rounds of review, a single global campaign with unified messaging and imagery that resonated with a broad audience was finalized. Then, the global materials were adapted to fit the local contexts of each region and ensure cultural relevance. The adaptations included language translations, visual adaptations, refined messaging, and other design elements that reflected local communities. Given the diversity of the communities represented among the potential EXPrESSIVE-11 trial participants, this was a critical step in the process to ensure local resonance.

Numan Afifi, Senior Policy and Research Officer at APCOM in Thailand, reflected on the value of locally adapting the materials and what it looked like in practice:

“For me, that was the strongest part of the process. The materials felt more relevant because they were shaped by local communities, languages, cultures and experiences. We were able to talk about how people in our own contexts understand HIV risk, stigma, privacy, and what might make a monthly pill feel realistic and useful in their lives.”

The final materials were shared first with EXPrESSIVE-11 trial sites, some of which sought local IRB approval to use as trial recruitment materials, and at the International AIDS Conference in July 2026. With the trial almost fully enrolled, the materials will be used for continued engagement around the trial.

Representation in the final product

This process showcases a practical application of Good Participatory Practice – meaningfully engaging communities in clinical trial design and conduct from the start. Throughout this process meaningful community engagement meant establishing trust and ensuring local ownership of the process.

Kamel shared: “The biggest lesson from this experience was the possibility of developing materials based on our own realities and cultures, without a predefined vision imposed by the funder… Above all, I think the partnership that was established between us and AVAC was fundamental. The trust, openness, and respect for our work with the community made it possible to move beyond simply producing recruitment materials and instead build something that reflected the people and contexts the study was intended to engage.”

In an unexpected outcome, some participants chose to become the faces of the campaign themselves, embodying their call for images to truly look like them and their communities.

Community members who participated in the development of communication materials also posed as models.

As Segal reflected, “A lot of participants opted to be the models in these materials. We didn’t plan it that way, but we really heard that feedback, and they were really excited to participate in that way.”

For Kamel, what made that representation meaningful was when those same participants saw the printed posters at the Global Village during the AIDS 2026 conference: “They were very happy and excited to see themselves represented. For me, that was also an important part of the process: the people represented in the materials could recognize themselves in them and feel that they were part of something they had helped shape.”

The final EXPrESSIVE-11 communications materials

Inclusivity not just in trials, but for product access too

The insights surfaced through the process can serve as a starting point for understanding how communities perceive a once-monthly oral PrEP pill beyond the trial, and what messaging is most likely to support demand generation if AMI is found safe and effective.

At the same time, this experience highlights that meaningful engagement cannot end once community input has been gathered or when the trial is complete. Merck/MSD’s recent voluntary licensing announcement, made while the trials are ongoing, represents a terrific opportunity in preparing for accelerated access to generics, although it also excludes most Latin American and some Asian countries from the voluntary license, reflecting recent roadblocks to accessing other PrEP products.

“I think it is important to be honest about both sides of this experience – how meaningful and powerful the co-creation process was, and also the uncertainty and concern about whether the people and countries who helped build this work will actually have equitable access to what emerges from it,” said Kamel.

Numan adds: “This is why I think community engagement needs to continue beyond the development of the materials. People should not only help shape how a product is introduced; their experiences and demands should also influence decisions around price, access, eligibility, and implementation.”

Kamel and Numan’s concerns highlight what needs to happen next. Creating materials that reflect people’s lives and priorities is valuable, but real-life impact is only achieved if the prevention products actually reach the communities they are meant to serve. Continuing the practice of GPP, intentional access planning well in advance of efficacy results by product developers, funders, advocates, communities, and other stakeholders will be critical to ensuring that meaningful community engagement translates into tangible access and impact.

“I think there is an important lesson in the timing of the process. This was the first time I have been involved in a process where communities were brought in this early to think about communications and demand generation for a product still in development, and that was a significant step forward. … So, while this represents progress compared with the usual timing of community engagement, it also shows how much earlier these processes need to begin if we genuinely want community input to shape implementation rather than simply prepare materials alongside an already-moving trial.” 

Gastón Devisich
Fundación Huésped, Argentina

“Developing these materials was an incredible experience, particularly because we were able to build something that reflected the real face and experiences of the community. As we have discussed in presentations, stigma and where people can actually access prevention are central issues.”

Luciana Kamel
Fiocruz, Brazil

“Overall, I found the process valuable because it built both useful materials and stronger relationships between AVAC and us. It showed what is possible when there is trust, openness, and genuine respect for community knowledge. I hope we can carry that approach into future work… and continue pushing to ensure that the communities involved can actually benefit from the products they helped shape.” 

Numan Afifi
APCOM, Thailand

⮐ Return to the the Impact Report

The Clinical Trial Design Academy: Equipping Advocates to Shape HIV Prevention Research Decisions and Move the Research Agenda Forward

HIV prevention research must be conducted in collaboration with the communities it intends to serve; decisions about study design, participant populations and locations, conduct, and future access need to reflect community input. This engagement creates transparency in the process, builds trust, and facilitates future acceptance of trial results. The AVAC and UNAIDS Good Participatory Practice (GPP) Guidelines are a proven framework for early and sustained partnership between advocates and researchers throughout the research process. As clinical trial research becomes increasingly complex, and as innovative HIV prevention products advance through the pipeline, advocates with dual skillsets – deep contextual knowledge of their community’s needs and scientific and technical knowledge – are increasingly sought after to provide critical community input in research that aligns with GPP and holds researchers accountable.

Building a Skilled Network of Advocates to Influence HIV Research

AVAC’s Clinical Trial Design Academy (CTDA), established in 2019, equips advocates with the scientific knowledge and skillset to influence research – from priority setting to trial design and conduct, to results dissemination. Today, the Academy’s 27 members are highly sought after experts who are directly influencing HIV prevention research. Through immersive learning, ongoing skills strengthening, and direct engagement with research teams, product developers and funders, the CTDA has nurtured this growing pool of technically prepared advocates and community representatives who critically review and inform complex trial designs, ask critical questions, and ensure community priorities are reflected in research decisions and protocols.

For Academy members, this continuing education has changed how they engage with both researchers and the communities they represent. Rather than choosing between scientific expertise and community knowledge, they bring the two together; translating complex science for communities while bringing community priorities into spaces where research decisions are made. As one member reflected:

“Personally, CTDA has helped me put my community first because, with every interaction I have with clinical trials and scientists, every question I ask and every contribution I make is based on community perspectives. I am now able to translate community needs into scientific priorities, ensuring that the voices of the communities we represent are reflected in research and product development.”

— Idah Mulala, Ascend Futures Foundation, Zambia

Academy members’ growing influence and technical knowledge is further reinforced through the strength of the CTDA network. The Academy connects advocates with each other as well as directly to the clinical trial researchers, product developers, regulators, and other experts who shape HIV prevention research. As a network of diverse stakeholders with varied experiences, CTDA members can come together to confront technical challenges, share lessons learned, and work together to advance community needs.

“Beyond the technical skills, the biggest impact has been the network we’ve built, a community that continues to learn from one another and ensure research remains responsive to community realities.”

— Simon Ondiek, Kenya

Translating Community Priorities into Research Decisions

CTDA members are using their technical knowledge, community expertise, and collective advocacy to not only engage on individual trials, but to define and advance community-centered research priorities for the field. Recently, CTDA members helped shape the development of the People’s Research Agenda (PRA), a community-led accountability framework that assesses the state of HIV prevention research across the pipeline and identifies community-driven priority actions for HIV prevention and vaccine research. CTDA members – and advocates in general – use the PRA to advocate for concrete recommendations, including the inclusion of transgender and non-binary people, people who inject drugs, and pregnant and lactating people; examining interactions with gender-affirming treatment and other medicines; improving adherence support; and building post-trial access, pricing and scale-up planning into research from the outset.

Together, the CTDA and PRA create an upstream engagement mechanism through which community priorities can influence research questions and agendas long before individual trials are designed and implemented. Those community priorities are then carried from the broader research agenda into the design and conduct of individual trials. Building on work pioneered during the PURPOSE trials of injectable lenacapavir, the CTDA participated in the very first consultation of any kind for what became Merck’s EXPrESSIVE program assessing the efficacy of a new monthly oral PrEP pill. Seven CTDA members then participated in follow-up protocol consultations. Because of this early engagement, community recommendations informed protocol development and major trial decisions. Merck has publicly recognized the role of community input, including the selection of daily oral TDF/FTC as the comparator in the EXPrESSIVE program. Their involvement is part of a broader approach to community engagement across the EXPrESSIVE program that has placed advocates at the center of trial planning, and six CTDA members serve on the trial’s Global Community Advisory Board, providing sustained community input as the trial moves forward.

The design and conduct of the EXPrESSIVE trials demonstrate what is possible when technically informed and empowered advocates are engaged early and consistently to inform decision-making. Academy members are also applying their knowledge to other research accountability structures, ensuring community engagement in defining upstream research priorities, informing trial designs, and sustained partnerships throughout trial implementation and product rollout planning. Currently, CTDA members are also represented in the Zambia Community Advisory Platform, the AIDS Clinical Trials Group Community Advisory Board (CAB), the Baylor College of Medicine CAB, FASTER Pediatric and Adolescent CAB, amongst others.

Preparing Advocates for What’s Ahead

Approaches like AVAC’s CTDA matters more than ever today: new and emerging HIV prevention technologies require increasingly complex trial designs, and communities are being asked to weigh in on scientific, ethical, and implementation questions, especially when there are no clear-cut answers. Without the CTDA and broader community engagement mechanisms, HIV prevention research risks becoming less connected to the people it is intended to serve. The field needs trusted mechanisms like the CTDA that prepare advocates to interrogate complex trial designs, identify ethical and implementation risks early, and ensure that scientific efficiency does not come at the expense of relevance, equity, acceptability, or future access. That preparation is ongoing with regular CTDA convenings where members are continuously supported to deepen their technical knowledge and engage with new developments in the field; the next CTDA convening will take place in October 2026. As resources shrink and trial designs become more complex, this combination of technical literacy, community accountability and sustained researcher–advocate partnership is more essential than ever.

⮐ Return to the the Impact Report

Embedding Good Participatory Practice in PURPOSE 1

Ethical conduct of HIV clinical trial research improves as product developers, researchers, and other stakeholders become increasingly intentional about community partnership and engagement. When AVAC and UNAIDS developed the Good Participatory Practice (GPP) guidelines, the goal was to create a framework for trial funders, sponsors and implementers to engage communities across the HIV prevention research continuum. From trial design and implementation to results dissemination and access planning, GPP provides a guide for ensuring prevention products are responsive to community priorities and accessible to the people they aim to serve. For almost 20 years of GPP implementation, AVAC has collaborated with partners around the world to embed the principles within advocacy strategies and partnerships and cultivating a diverse network of advocates, civil society organizations, journalists, researchers, and implementers who champion GPP and are equipped to engage with, question, and influence HIV clinical trial research.

The Good Participatory Practice Guidelines, developed by AVAC and UNAIDS

Promoting Transparency and Accountability in Gilead’s PURPOSE Program

Gilead’s PURPOSE program is comprised of six clinical trials investigating long-acting injectable lenacapavir (LEN) for PrEP among diverse populations. PURPOSE 1, one of the two efficacy trials in the program, was conducted among cisgender women in South Africa and Uganda, while PURPOSE 2 expanded the reach to include men who have sex with men (MSM), transgender men and women, and gender non-binary people. Both trials found LEN highly safe and effective among participants. Beyond the clinical findings, the trials also demonstrated that embedding GPP principles promotes accountability, transparency, and meaningful community engagement throughout trial design and conduct.

A case study of GPP implementation in PURPOSE 1 highlights how GPP strengthens ethical conduct and inclusion. AVAC staff and partners participated as members of the Global Community Accountability Group (GCAG), a formal mechanism for providing community perspectives on the trial. GCAG members provided community recommendations on trial design, including protocol considerations, participant recruitment and retention, and trial implementation to Gilead and researchers. Advocacy by the GCAG contributed to expansion of the inclusion criteria to enroll adolescents and to allow pregnant and breastfeeding people to remain in PURPOSE 1 after re-consent, reinforcing the principle that communities should help shape research that directly affects them and allowing the study to gather critical data on the safety and efficacy of LEN in populations often excluded from research.

Nombeko Mpongo of the Desmond Tutu Health Foundation and a member of the African Women’s Prevention Community Accountability Board served on the GCAG for PURPOSE 1 and describes how early involvement translated into influence and accountability:

“What was important was that communities were involved from the beginning. We received the protocol early, before the study began, and had the opportunity to scrutinize it and identify what we thought needed to change. One of the issues we raised was ensuring that women who became pregnant during the study would not automatically be excluded, so we could better understand prevention during pregnancy. We were not there as tokens—we took ownership of our role in the GCAG. We made sure Gilead was accountable to us, and we were also accountable to our communities. It was a flow of accountability in both directions.”

Through this structured forum and sustained engagement, community concerns were heard, researchers and the developer remained responsive, and the priorities of women and young girls remained central to decision making.

Members of the PURPOSE-1 GCAG

Championing Good Participatory Practice

Impactful community engagement in clinical trials requires sustained investment in community leadership, scientific literacy, and trusted partnerships. Years before PURPOSE 1, AVAC and partners established the Coalition to Accelerate and Support Prevention Research (CASPR), an Africa-led advocacy coalition of civil society organizations working to advance biomedical HIV prevention research and equitable access to proven HIV prevention products. CASPR supported a network of advocates with the knowledge and relationships to engage with emerging HIV prevention research. Many of these advocates went on to serve on the PURPOSE 1 GCAG while remaining connected to the broader communities and networks they worked with through CASPR. This helped extend engagement and understanding of the trial beyond the GCAG, and strengthened the pathway from engaging in research to product introduction and access planning.

As Navita Jain, Senior Program Manager and Team Lead for AVAC’s Partnership Network Team explains, “CASPR provided the connective tissue that made meaningful engagement possible. Advocates weren’t starting from scratch when they joined the GCAG—they were already informed, connected and prepared to engage, and could bring that knowledge back to their communities well before conversations about rollout began.”

Because AVAC, CASPR partners, AWPCAB and the broader network of informed advocates were already equipped with the expertise, partnerships, and communities’ trust, they helped bridge the transition from research implementation to disseminating trial results and planning for access. This continued engagement with Gilead, funders and decision makers supported community confidence in the results and accelerated momentum toward equitable LEN rollout in comparison to the delivery of previous PrEP products. This contribution was recognized when Yvette Raphael, Executive Director of APHA, accepted the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s (AAAS) Mani L. Bhaumik Breakthrough of the Year Award on behalf of CASPR, AWPCAB, and the GCAG, affirming the critical role of community advocacy in LEN’s development.

Yvette Raphael, the Executive Director of APHA and a PURPOSE-1 GCAG member accepted the AAAS Breakthrough of the Year Award.

From Research to Rollout

GPP guided community engagement in PURPOSE 1, creating meaningful opportunities for advocates to influence the trial. However, the GPP guidelines recommend continued engagement to shape access and rollout once a product has been proven safe and effective, achieves regulatory approval, and becomes available. After the PURPOSE 1 results were announced, Gilead discontinued the GCAG, even though many of the decisions that would determine equitable access, including licensing, pricing, manufacturing, and product introduction, were still ahead. For HIV activist Saidy Brown, a member of CASPR’s Young Women’s HIV Prevention Council (YWHPC) and GCAG member, continuing the GCAG through product introduction would have been a natural extension of the partnership that began during research:

“We were there from the beginning, supporting the research, and it would have made sense for that partnership to continue through rollout. As much as communities supported the trial, there was also an opportunity to bring that support back to communities as LEN became available. Keeping GCAG members engaged through introduction would have helped create that continuity from research to rollout.”

While the GCAG was discontinued, the networks and relationships built through CASPR have provided a platform for advocates to continue pushing for equitable access, with demands including: a role in access planning, speed and equity in rollout, price transparency, and accelerated access to generics. As a result, donors and ministries of health are engaging with and investing in civil society partners to secure community buy-in, inform rollout planning and generate demand. While LEN rollout across early adopter countries reflects this community leadership, advocates remain vigilant in identifying and addressing challenges around equitable access.

Even so, global access has been far from perfect. Advocates’ demand that all PURPOSE efficacy trial countries be included in voluntary licensing agreements has not been met, reflecting that strong incorporation of GPP during a trial does not automatically translate into access once the trial is over; the work of and commitment to engagement must carry through. Nevertheless, the positive lessons from PURPOSE 1 are informing AVAC’s recent work in Merck’s EXPrESSIVE program assessing the efficacy of a new monthly oral PrEP pill. As new HIV prevention products advance through the research pipeline, AVAC and partners will continue to call for developers, donors and other stakeholders to apply the lessons and practice of GPP – strengthening community engagement throughout research & development, policy, and product introduction so that scientific innovation translates into equitable access and real-world impact.

⮐ Return to the the Impact Report

Global Health Watch: Steinem’s Legacy, US Global Health Aid Cuts; OMB Grant Rule Delayed; Future of Global Health Reform

Issue 84

We’ve lost another champion for global health and reproductive rights this week: Gloria Steinem, the pioneering feminist and activist who spent decades fighting for gender equality, reproductive choice and the power of people to shape the decisions that affect their lives. This is a reminder to continue questioning who has a voice, who gets to decide, and why bodily autonomy is a fundamental right.

This week’s issue addresses those questions: a new analysis finds US bilateral health agreements could dramatically reduce global health funding by more than half; Congress has temporarily blocked the White House OMB’s effort to expand political control over federal grants; and, as global health architecture reform moves forward, civil society is demanding a role in shaping what comes next.

Bilateral Health Deals Could Cut US Health Aid by 59%

A new analysis from Public Citizen and Partners In Health finds that the US Administration’s bilateral (government-to-government) health agreements would drastically reduce US global health funding and foreign assistance to 18 recipient countries by 59 percent ($2 billion) by 2030 compared to pre-2025 funding. This is despite the US Congress maintaining relatively stable global health appropriations. The organizations analyzed 18 available memoranda of understanding (MoU) noting that the Administration “has kept the public in the dark about the full details of its plans for the future of US support for global health…” and “the MOUs warn of a disturbing potential underspend of congressionally appropriated global health dollars.” The agreements require countries to increase domestic health spending as US support declines. However, in 11 of the 18 countries, those domestic resource mobilization commitments would not fully replace the planned reductions in US funding.

IMPLICATIONS: The analysis raises significant questions about whether the Administration’s “America First” global health strategy toward “country ownership” and “self-reliance” is actually achievable. Instead, the analysis posits that the accelerated transition to sustainable domestic financing actually constitutes a rapid withdrawal of critical US support that these countries may not have the fiscal capacity to replace. The analysis further conveys that many of these deals contain worrisome conditionalities and performance metrics tied to funding, which may not be attainable as bilateral funding to support in-country programs are greatly diminished to begin with. The authors also exposed a disconnect between the global health funding Congress has appropriated and the substantially lower spending envisioned by the Administration under the bilateral agreements, with potential consequences for HIV, TB, malaria, Ebola and other health programs. The Department of State said it intends to spend all congressionally-appropriated global health funds, but where and how funding not included in the bilateral agreements will be spent is the outstanding question.

READ:

US Congress Votes to Delay White House Rule Politicizing Federal Grants

Members of the US House of Representatives on both sides of the political aisle voted to pass a continuing resolution (CR) for fiscal year 2027 (FY 27) appropriations. This CR was previously approved by the Senate in early August, which authorizes government spending until December 11, delays a government shutdown on September 30 (the end of the US fiscal year), and, at least for now, delays implementation of the White House Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) controversial proposal to give political appointees greater authority over federal grantmaking. Last month, in a stopgap spending bill released by Senate appropriators, Democrats and Republicans joined in adding a provision that would prevent the OMB rule from taking effect until at least December 11, while Congress negotiates broader government funding measures. The proposal was originally slated to go into effect on October 1, but opposition from both Democratic and Republican appropriators slowed the path forward.

IMPLICATIONS: This temporary delay is important, allowing more time for advocacy and for potential litigation to formulate. However, if implemented in December (or any time), the rule would fundamentally reshape the US research enterprise by injecting political considerations into grantmaking, weakening peer review and undermining the international collaborations that drive progress against HIV, TB, emerging infectious diseases and other global health challenges. The Senate’s actions last month and the bipartisan agreement on the CR suggest that the months of public opposition and advocacy from the advocacy and scientific community may be beginning to influence policymakers. The Senate’s intervention is one of the first signs that resistance to the OMB proposal extends beyond the scientific community and into both parties in Congress. 

Evidence-based decision-making – not politics

The risk of having public health research and recommendations guided by politics as proposed by OMB is real, as evidenced by the ongoing politicization of US vaccine research and policies. To ensure Americans get credible, evidence-based recommendations that previously came from the CDC, the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Vaccine Integrity Project, which is based at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), initiated a collaborative effort to conduct a comprehensive review of evidence for vaccines of the 2026-2027 respiratory virus season. They published their findings this week in the Journal of the AMA (JAMA).

Read the Article

Future of Global Health Architecture 

As the WHO-hosted Joint Task Force on Global Health Architecture Reform meets in person for the first time this week, the Health Architecture Reimagined (HEAR) CSO Steering Committee issued a letter urging the Task Force to put equity and meaningful community and civil society leadership at the center of reform, while also strengthening regional platforms and protecting access as financing shifts. Meanwhile, a new Council on Foreign Relations analysis of 67 health architecture reform proposals finds consensus around shifting decision-making to countries and regions, aligning donor funding with country priorities, strengthening national health systems, expanding regional roles and diversifying financing.

IMPLICATIONS: While the analysis and civil society advocacy show agreement on the direction of global health architecture reform, the outstanding question of how to get there remains. The CFR analysis highlights the key challenges around who pays versus who decides, what is gained or lost by moving from disease-specific programs to integrated health systems, and which functions belong at global versus regional levels. As these decisions are made, HEAR CSO argues that reform must be judged not only by efficiency, but by whether it advances equity, protects access and gives affected communities meaningful power. Moreover, these processes are all unfolding in the midst of leadership transitions at WHO, the Global Fund, Unitaid and the Medicines Patent Pool, amongst others.

READ: 

What We’re Reading

Global Health Watch: Legacies of Parton & Goosby, expiring global health funds, Jeremy Lewin’s move, Ebola funding & vaccine R&D

Issue 83

This week, the global health community lost a powerful, if unlikely, champion in Dolly Parton. She used her singing celebrity to support science and public health, including a $1 million investment that supported early research connected to Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. She was a supporter of literacy, marginalized communities and HIV awareness and care. Her legacy is a reminder of what it looks like to use influence to build trust in science, which couldn’t be more important today as vaccines, public health and LGBTQI+ communities are continually undermined and politicized.

Speaking of leadership, longtime leader Eric Goosby officially retired this week. Eric served as the US Global AIDS Coordinator and led the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) from 2009 to 2013 under President Barack Obama. But before he led PEPFAR and since he returned to UCSF, Eric has been a compassionate doctor, a passionate advocate, and a tireless defender of science and human rights. His colleague and mentee, mike Reid, posted this video from Eric’s retirement celebration.

Also this week, members of the US Congress demanded that the Administration release billions in congressionally-appropriated global health funding before it expires; another leadership change is underway at the Department of State, which oversees the transformation of US foreign assistance; and in the DRC, the Ebola response is making progress even as inadequate funding threatens efforts.

Congress Raises Alarm Over Expiring Global Health Funds and PEPFAR Restructuring 

Democratic members of the US Congress are pressing Secretary of State Marco Rubio and OMB Director Russell Vought to release billions in congressionally-approved foreign assistance before it expires on September 30. In a new letter, they note that $7.5 billion remains unobligated, including more than $3 billion for Global Health Programs. They object to OMB’s reported decision to reserve approximately $1.35 billion in FY2025 global health funding for the closeout costs of USAID rather than health programs Congress funded. They also question plans for PEPFAR, citing the two-million decline in people reported as receiving PEPFAR-supported HIV treatment in 2025 and asking the Administration to explain how proposed reductions in CDC’s implementing role will affect treatment continuity, HIV prevention, surveillance, technical expertise and community-based programs. They are seeking answers by September 9.

IMPLICATIONS: If billions in congressionally-appropriated global health funding are allowed to expire, or used to dismantle USAID rather than support programs, the effects could exacerbate the disruptions already being documented across PEPFAR and other health programs. Additionally, reducing the CDC’s role would shift how PEPFAR is implemented, and also erode surveillance, laboratory, technical and data systems that help countries maintain HIV services and detect wider health threats.

READ:

Jeremy Lewin Leaves Foreign Assistance Role

Jeremy Lewin officially stepped down as head of the US Department of State’s foreign assistance bureau and is now serving as the Department’s Director of Policy Planning. He will advise Secretary of State Marco Rubio on key foreign policy matters. An original DOGE agent at the beginning of this Administration, Lewin was one of the architects of the Administration’s overhaul of US foreign assistance following the dismantling of USAID, including the shift toward bilateral government-to-government agreements and the development of the America First Global Health Strategy. Lewin will now oversee the Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs and continue representing the US in G7 and G20 development discussions. 

IMPLICATIONS: Lewin’s departure is yet another leadership transition for US foreign assistance. This happens as the State Department works to implement a redesigned aid and global health system, while being unable to obligate billions in congressionally- appropriated funding. The big question for global health now is who will lead implementation of the new foreign assistance architecture that Lewin helped design, including the bilateral agreements intended to reshape PEPFAR and other US global health programs. 

READ:

DRC Ebola Response Gains Ground as Funding Gaps Threaten Progress 

The Ebola Bundibugyo outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) continues to expand, with more than 560 new cases in the last week. WHO reports improvements in contact tracing and testing and issued interim guidance on prevention and control to help countries safely continue routine immunization activities during an outbreak. However, transmission remains high and funding gaps threaten the immediate response and the development of preventive vaccines. CEPI, which supports several potential Bundibugyo vaccine candidates, says it faces a shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars for vaccine R&D, even as it launched trials this week of its fifth Bundibugyo-specific virus vaccine candidate in response to the escalating epidemic. In Uganda, the WHO officially declared its related outbreak over.  

IMPLICATIONS: Resources are needed now to prevent new infections, just as sustained investment in vaccine R&D is needed to ensure future outbreaks can be minimized. As we highlighted last week, cuts to foreign assistance and weakened surveillance and response infrastructure have compounded insecurity and other challenges confronting the DRC response. And while vaccines could help prevent Bundibugyo if proven safe and effective, they cannot replace surveillance, health workers, laboratories, community engagement and health systems needed to prepare and respond.  

READ:

New Issue of PxWire

AVAC’s latest issue covers PEPFAR funding cuts; generic licensing of alimatravir; and the latest developments for long-acting treatment and bNAbs for prevention.

Read Now

What We’re Reading

Webinar

Evolving Oral PrEP Guidance for Cis Women: What do we know, and what will it take?

Join The Choice Agenda for a conversation with Heather-Marie Anne Schmidt of UNAIDS, Simon Collins of HIV i-Base, Jenell Stewart of the University of Minnesota and Raphael Landovitz of UCLA on evolving PrEP science, discordant guidelines and what it will take to advance PrEP equity for cis women, trans and non-binary people.

Register

Global Health Watch: NIH reopens South Africa Research Funding; DRC Ebola Strains Outbreak Response; WHO + FDA Leadership Shifts

Issue 82

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) lifted research funding restrictions on South Africa; the DRC’s Ebola outbreak grows, exposing the consequences of weakened outbreak-response systems; and leadership changes at the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raise questions about the future of global health decision-making.

NIH Reopens Research Funding to South Africa

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) lifted its ban on funding research in South Africa. This comes after 18 months of “holding all research awards” for NIH research partnerships with South African institutions as the country was designated a “country of concern” alongside China. As Science reports, an internal memo notes that the “[NIH] decided it was exempt from a February 2025 executive order…that halted ‘foreign aid or assistance’ to South Africa” because “the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 does not govern NIH funding.” The lift of this order reopens the door to new grants. However, the NIH also announced that South African scientists will no longer be eligible to receive training grants from its Fogarty International Center, because the country is upper middle-income and part of the G20. This follows last month’s announcement from the Department of State that it will phase out PEPFAR support to South Africa.

IMPLICATIONS: South Africa is one of the world’s most important HIV, TB and infectious disease research centers – built through decades of diplomacy and partnership with the NIH and US State Department, with numerous South African scientific leaders of today partnering with the Fogarty International Center. This is part of a wider unraveling of this decades-long scientific partnership spanning HIV research, treatment and prevention, emanating from false accusations made by the White House against the South African government for “not doing enough” to address unfounded claims of discrimination purportedly against the country’s white Afrikaner community. While this week’s reversal of the ban restores an important piece of that scientific collaboration, the larger relationship remains strained, including the planned PEPFAR phase out. US investments in PEPFAR and NIH partnerships in South Africa have resulted in significant contributions and innovations in the treatment and prevention of HIV, TB and other infectious diseases for people around the world, including in the US. For the HIV field especially, this reversal shows the interconnectedness of the research partnerships and bilateral programs and why both research and programmatic funding matter. The simple restoration of scientific collaboration, while continuing to withdraw and erode programmatic infrastructure will stifle scientific progress when it relies on strong public health infrastructure and partnerships made possible through PEPFAR.

READ:

DRC Ebola Outbreak Illustrates Impact of Foreign Aid Restrictions 

The ongoing Ebola Bundibugyo outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is now the country’s deadliest Ebola epidemic and the second deadliest ever recorded. At an emergency WHO meeting, Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, “We must be frank: The epidemic is far from being under control… It had a big head start, and we are still playing catch-up.” WHO says it could still be brought under control within approximately three months, but only if resources and response capacity are rapidly scaled up. WHO figures report that only 60 percent of the $115 million needed to finance the response has been raised. Currently, there is no licensed vaccine or treatment for the Bundibugyo strain. Many new cases are appearing outside known transmission chains, which indicate infections are continuing to spread undetected. 

READ:

Leadership Shifts at WHO and US Food and Drug Administration

The WHO and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are undergoing leadership changes. WHO’s chief scientist and Assistant Director-General for health promotion and disease prevention and control Jeremy Farrar will leave at the end of September. This latest departure comes amid WHO’s challenge to continue charting its future in the face of reduced donor funding, a smaller senior leadership structure, and the end of Director-General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus tenure later this year. Meanwhile, in the US, White House adviser on the Domestic Policy Council, Dr. Heidi Overton was nominated to lead the FDA as commissioner. She helped shape several of the Administration’s health initiatives, including its recent overhaul of childhood vaccine recommendations and is a proponent of the government’s anti-abortion policies. Her nomination comes after months of turmoil and a leadership vacuum at the FDA, which saw Marty Markary depart from the role in May after a short tenure of 13 months. Some Senators who are now debating her nomination are questioning her role in the recent vaccine order as they prepare for confirmation hearings.

IMPLICATIONS: As WHO is being forced to redefine its role and priorities amid shrinking resources, the US FDA is facing significant scrutiny and political pressure over vaccines and scientific decision-making. For global health and HIV, leadership stability and scientific independence at both agencies matter beyond the internal structure as WHO normative guidance and FDA regulatory decisions will determine which products move forward, how quickly they reach countries and communities who need them. Many national regulatory authorities around the world rely heavily on FDA’s rigorous regulatory review and approval processes to inform their decision-making in local approval, procurement, and implementation of new and emerging biomedical innovations. Similarly, countries without the capacity or expertise to independently develop treatment and prevention guidelines rely heavily on WHO’s normative guidance to ensure health policies are grounded in the latest evidence. The looming question at the FDA is whether its leadership and decisions will continue to be guided by evidence, as political pressure increasingly shapes the ideologues may potentially helm the world’s premier regulatory agency. as political pressure increasingly shapes the agency’s leadership and priorities.

READ:

What We’re Reading

The Latest Resources from AVAC: Advancing Science, Expanding Access

Scientific breakthroughs accelerate HIV prevention—but only when they are matched with bold advocacy, sustained investment and equitable access. This month’s roundup highlights key prevention news, developments and takeaways from AVAC and explores what’s needed and what’s next to ensure the latest innovations move beyond headlines and into the hands of the communities that need them most.

Science Creates the Possibilities, Communities Create the Future

AIDS 2026, the 26th International AIDS Conference, took place 26-31 July 2026. AVAC and partners were there, convening critical conversations, bringing timely analysis and advancing advocacy to turn scientific breakthroughs into public health impact. From the mainstage to the hallways, the importance of moving from innovation to impact rang clear. As AVAC Program Manager Grace Kumwenda shares in her reflections on the conference, “we need to move from products to programs at scale; from clinics to community-centered delivery platforms; from product-focused interventions to choice-based prevention; and from scientific breakthroughs to political courage, financing, solidarity and accountability.”

AVAC’s coverage highlights what it will take to act on evidence with equity and speed. Explore conference highlights, key takeaways and resources from Rio here.


Prevention Access News 

High Demand for LEN Faces Real-World Supply Challenges 

AVAC’s Mitchell Warren recently spent a week in Zambia with AVAC partner Ascend Futures Foundation, which is playing a leading role in the introduction of injectable lenacapavir (LEN) for PrEP.  Mitchell was joined by Science’s Jon Cohen, who was reporting on the rollout of LEN and the real-world challenges being faced on the ground, including lack of supply. While LEN has met critical milestones with record speed, AVAC, Access Bridge and partners continue to advocate to ensure the science is matched with political will, financing and community leadership to get LEN to the people who need it most. “Science alone doesn’t change the world – people do,” said Mitchell in the article.

Merck Announces Global Access Plans for Monthly Oral Alimatravir (AMI)

On July 24, Merck announced that it granted seven direct licenses to generic manufacturers – including three in Africa – to produce and market their investigational monthly pill for HIV prevention, known as alimatravir (MK-8527, or AMI), in 129 countries while Phase 3 clinical trials are still enrolling. Since 2012, each successive PrEP introduction has gone faster than the previous one, yet the time to market and to public health impact remains too slow. AVAC is committed to changing that, and has worked to influence trial design and implementation, and to ensure strong engagement with community representatives in the research program. These efforts coincide with broader AVAC efforts to engage stakeholders in preparation for results from the trials, and, in the case of efficacy, building the foundation for a swift path to wide-scale uptake and access.

AVAC partner Kenneth Mwehonge of HEPS Uganda told the New York Times: “Our engagement with pharma has always been fights, but it is amazing to sit with them and have them say, ‘We are learning from the other products’. It all sounds good for now, but we will wait to see how it’s put to action.”

Learn how AVAC and partners have shaped alimatravir trials.

Accelerating policy approval and uptake of the dual prevention pill in Zambia through early stakeholder engagement

The Dual Prevention Pill (DPP), a combination of daily oral PrEP and combined oral contraception, offers a novel, female-controlled option for HIV and unintended pregnancy prevention. However, promising technologies like the DPP often face delays in regulatory approval and uptake due to limited stakeholder involvement early in the introduction process. This new article in AIDS Care, authored by AVAC Fellow alum Rhoda Msiska, AVAC Senior Program Managers Kate Segal and Cindra Feuer, and Dr. Newton Donkola of Copper Rose Zambia, illustrates how early, multisectoral stakeholder engagement could accelerate DPP approval and adoption in Zambia.


Threats to Science in the U.S.

NIH Budget Cuts Threaten HIV Research 

In this commentary for Think Global Health, AVAC’s Stacey Hannah and Mitchell Warren argue that ending the HIV epidemic will require sustained investment in the basic science that makes future breakthroughs possible. They warn that attacks on science and growing anti-vaccine sentiment threaten progress toward an HIV vaccine and could undermine advances across global health. “At a moment when scientific progress is advancing,” they write, “advocates, researchers, policymakers and communities should push back against politically motivated, fringe, anti-vaccine sentiments that threaten decades of investment to develop the tool that would finally break the back of the epidemic.”

AVAC Says Stop the Waste, Fraud and Abuse in the Persecution of Tony Fauci  

Former NIAID Director and longtime champion for HIV and AIDS research Dr. Anthony Fauci is facing renewed attacks from Congress, after a Senate committee voted to hold him in contempt following a hearing about the COVID-19 response. The attacks on Dr. Fauci raise alarm bells about the current state of congressional oversight, constitutional protections and attacks on science and scientists. In a letter of support for Dr. Fauci, AVAC urged the committee to recognize the deep history of partnership that Dr. Fauci has forged with the HIV/AIDS community; one that has resulted in numerous biomedical innovations and programs that have ultimately saved millions of lives.


Podcasts

Let’s Talk About PrEP: The Future of HIV Prevention with Mitchell Warren 

In this new podcast, Mitchell Warren joined Global Black Gay Men Connect (GBGMC) to talk about the future of HIV prevention and what it takes to turn scientific innovation into impact. As Mitchell puts it, “the future of HIV prevention isn’t just about groundbreaking science; it’s about making sure that science reaches the communities who need it most.”

The Future of PrEP: LEN and the Fight for Access 

Mitchell also joined ITPC’s Make Medicines Affordable podcast to discuss the future of PrEP. While LEN is a transformative option for HIV prevention that is being rolled out with unprecedented speed, Warren discusses why scientific progress means nothing without fierce political will, stronger, resilient health systems and true equity for low- and middle-income countries.

The State of HIV Prevention: Big News, Big Moves: Reflections from AIDS 2026 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 

By Grace Kumwenda, AVAC Regional Program Manager: Research Engagement 

AIDS 2026 in Rio was extraordinary.

Big science across HIV prevention, treatment and cure headlined from podiums; in side rooms, we had difficult conversations around greater access to available products; and throughout, ongoing tensions played out over the future of the AIDS response and the role of the US Government. And—if you are like me—there was also a lot of trying to understand some very complicated vaccine and broadly neutralizing antibody (bNAb) science and immediately asking: What does this actually mean for people and the People’s Research Agenda? What does it mean for the field and the future? Simply put, Rio did not disappoint.

Big treatment news

A first-in-class once-weekly oral combination of islatravir plus lenacapavir achieved viral suppression as effectively as daily oral antiretroviral therapy (ART) at week 48 in the ISLEND trial, another exciting indication of where longer-acting and less frequent HIV treatment is headed. We also heard important data on long-acting treatment for adolescents. In the LATA study, injectable cabotegravir (CAB) and rilpivirine administered every eight weeks performed better than daily oral tenofovir disoproxil, lamivudine, dolutegravir (TLD) at 96 weeks, and the overwhelming majority of adolescents said they found injections easier than daily oral pills. That matters because long-acting treatment cannot only be designed for adults who already navigate health systems better than youth; adolescents and others who struggle with daily adherence also need to be part of this innovation story.

Then came the bNAbs 

The CAPRISA 012C results readout was a powerful reminder that science does not always move in a straight line. A prevention trial evaluating two bNAbs together—CAP256-V2LS plus VRC07-523LS— administered subcutaneously every six months was reported to be safe but did not reduce overall HIV incidence. Unexpectedly high levels of viral resistance seen in the trial population raised important questions for the field, including whether it is time to pivot away from research on bNAbs for prevention.

It was disappointing that two bNAbs together did do any better than a single bNAb in Antibody-Mediated Prevention (AMP) studies a couple of years. These findings raise important questions about whether and how a combination bNAb approach can work for HIV prevention, as well as the implications for vaccine, treatment and cure research. In treatment and cure research, the bNAb story is more nuanced and, frankly, fascinating. Studies including RIO and FRESH are suggesting that bNAbs may be able to do something ART does not: in a small proportion of participants, immune control may persist even after the antibodies themselves have washed out of the body. There were also promising signals in children. In Botswana, two bNAbs kept 44 percent of children in the Tatelo study undetectable at six months after stopping ART, while early results from the ongoing Tatelo+ study using three bNAbs showed all participants remaining undetectable at week 24. But this is also where we have to manage expectations. The science is exciting, but effects are still seen in relatively small subsets of people, while resistance and incomplete HIV strain coverage remain challenges, strain sensitivity testing is complex and costly, and we still need much more evidence about who benefits and why. That is exactly why continued research matters.

Vaccine science is getting more precise 

HIV vaccine science continues to make important—if sometimes complicated—progress. The challenge has not changed: HIV is extraordinarily diverse, it mutates rapidly and it has evolved sophisticated ways of escaping the immune system. But what has changed is the precision with which scientists are now trying to solve that problem. Instead of simply asking whether a vaccine candidate produces an immune response, researchers are increasingly asking: Can we deliberately guide the immune system, step-by-step, toward producing the exact bNAbs needed to recognize many different HIV strains? Several studies presented in Rio focused on doing exactly that.

Researchers are refining sequential vaccination, where one vaccine primes very rare B cells and subsequent vaccinations guide those cells through stages of maturation toward bNAbs. Work presented on coaxing the creation of V3 glycan-targeting antibodies showed that carefully designed vaccine sequences can steer antibody responses away from non-neutralizing pathways and toward potentially protective ones. Other approaches are trying to generate antibodies against several vulnerable sites on the HIV envelope at once. That may ultimately be critical because an effective vaccine is unlikely to rely on one antibody class alone. Scientists are increasingly exploring how to induce bNAbs targeting two or three different vulnerable sites, potentially making it harder for HIV to escape.

Grace advocates for the pursuit of a preventive HIV vaccine at the AVAC HIV Cure and Prevention Research Networking Zone

New vaccine platforms are also opening possibilities. An mRNA approach designed to express HIV envelope trimers produced neutralizing antibody responses in rhesus macaques and protected a proportion of animals from SHIV challenge. None of this means an HIV vaccine is around the corner. But it does mean that vaccine development is becoming increasingly deliberate. Scientists are not simply hoping the immune system will produce the right antibodies. They are learning how to engineer and guide the immune response toward them. And despite highly effective PrEP, the case for a vaccine remains strong. PrEP only works when people can access it, choose it and use it.

A vaccine could eventually reach people who face barriers to ongoing PrEP use, people who do not perceive themselves to be at risk and communities where sustaining repeated prevention visits remains difficult and/or expensive.

So yes—we still need a vaccine.

And the MPT pipeline is getting interesting 

The multipurpose prevention technology (MPT) pipeline is another space that caught my attention at the HIV Prevention pre-conference in Rio. A removable injectable depot combining CAB with the contraceptive medroxyprogesterone acetate studied for three- and six-month durations in macaques provided complete suppression of ovulation through six months, with return to fertility shortly after depot removal and a relatively short CAB tail. And in another study, a 3D-printed, 90-day intravaginal ring containing islatravir, ethinyl estradiol and etonogestrel provided protection across 12 weekly HIV exposures in macaques. If we can develop products that respond to several needs at once—and importantly, products people actually want to use—that could be transformative. But again, the key phrase is want to use. A scientifically brilliant product that does not fit into people’s lives will struggle to achieve population-level impact.

Innovation in ARV-based prevention is moving 

Grace advocates for the pursuit of a preventive HIV vaccine at the AVAC HIV Cure and Prevention Research Networking Zone

We are all watching closely the efficacy program for the once-monthly oral PrEP candidate now named alimatravir (AMI). What caught my attention was not only the science, but also how Merck/MSD, the developers, are thinking about the product in people’s lives: a small, discreet tablet that could potentially be delivered beyond traditional clinics, including through pharmacies, community settings and other entry points.

Access is already part of the conversation even as alimatravir is still more than a year out from phase 3 study results. MSD announced an initial access plan that includes voluntary licensing arrangements intended to support future generic production. That matters. Access cannot be a conversation we begin after approval; it needs to sit alongside product development from the beginning. And, to be fair, the access conversations around both LEN and AMI were some of the biggest—and at times hardest—conversations in Rio. Questions around pricing, licensing, manufacturing, financing speed to scale, and equity in access were not answered. But they are exactly the conversations we need to be having now, not later. Science is moving quickly, and access planning has to move one step ahead.

Rio also provided encouraging implementation data on existing long-acting prevention options. In the PURPOSE 1 open-label extension, 95% of eligible participants chose twice-yearly lenacapavir (LEN) for PrEP, with no HIV acquisitions during follow-up and 96% injection adherence. PURPOSE 2 also reported very low HIV incidence, while real-world CAB studies continued to show strong effectiveness even as questions around late injections, testing and delivery remain important. The pipeline continues to widen, with early data on 90-day dapivirine-levonorgestrel vaginal rings adding to the range of longer-acting and MPT options under development. All this data adds another dimension to an increasingly diverse prevention pipeline—one that is more responsive to people’s different prevention and reproductive health needs.

PEP also needs its own innovation moment 

And if we are talking about innovation in PrEP, then we also have to talk about post-exposure prophylaxis—PEP. PEP is one of our oldest biomedical HIV prevention interventions, yet it can still feel like the mis-placed or forgotten tool in the prevention box. We heard several times in Rio that PEP is a race against time: it needs to be started as quickly as possible after a potential exposure. But accessing it can still mean travelling to a facility, explaining what happened, navigating stigma, finding a provider who understands PEP and then completing a 28-day regimen. That hardly sounds like an intervention designed for success.

Amidst the ongoing normalization of long-acting PrEP, AIDS 2026 addressed the implications of long-acting ARVs for PEP. But how do we generate strong evidence for new and potentially better PEP products when traditional efficacy trials may be extremely difficult—or even unethical—to conduct? Researchers are now exploring innovative approaches, including zero-event trial designs, that could help us build credible evidence without relying on HIV incidence as an endpoint or traditional trial models.

But just as with PrEP, product innovation alone will not be enough. Policy and delivery have to move to address the gaps we have today. During an AVAC side meeting, we discussed the need to simplify national PEP guidelines, address gaps across different types of exposure, support differentiated service delivery, strengthen provider information and rethink how we communicate about PEP. One point from that discussion stayed with me: we celebrate someone choosing PrEP as responsible self-care, yet someone seeking PEP can still be met with judgement—as though needing PEP means they did something wrong.

That has to change.

Seeking PEP is also an act of responsibility and self-care. If we want people to use it quickly, we need to make PEP easier to find, easier to understand and easier to use—and we need the next generation of PEP products and delivery models to reflect the urgency of the moment in which people need them.

And then there is community 

Grace provides a community perspective at the session “From Community to Innovation to Scale”

If the Global Village was the heart of AIDS 2026, then community remains the heartbeat of the HIV response and the “why” behind the HIV prevention pipeline. I had the opportunity to share community perspectives during a symposium on moving from community to innovation to scale, and one thing stayed with me: we still too often imagine innovation as a straight line from basic science to clinical trials, regulatory approval, implementation and then community.

Trials such as EXPrESSIVE and PURPOSE have reshaped that line, and we need to keep pushing. Community should be there from the moment we define the unmet need, through research priorities and trial design, to access, affordability, implementation and the final question that matters most: is this intervention actually working in people’s lives? And as prevention science becomes more complex, community engagement cannot simply mean inviting advocates into technical rooms; it also means investing in the knowledge and tools that allow communities to ask difficult questions and influence decisions. That is one reason I remain so passionate about initiatives like AVAC’s Clinical Trial Design Academy.

I left Rio thinking that perhaps the biggest shift is not only in the big news about what products are being developed and evaluated in the HIV prevention pipeline. The questions need to change.

For years, the biggest question in HIV prevention was: Can we develop highly effective tools to prevent HIV? Today, we increasingly know that we can. We have daily oral PrEP, two injectable PrEP products, the dapivirine ring, condoms, circumcision, and, hopefully, in the near future a monthly oral pill, with even longer-acting products anticipated in the near future. The harder questions now are: Can people get them? Can they actually choose between them – when and where and from whom they want them? Can countries afford them? Can health systems deliver them? And are we building the systems today that will be ready for the products coming tomorrow? That is where the big moves become important.

The big move we need NOW is from innovation to impact. That means moving from products to programs at scale; clinics to community-centered delivery platforms; product-focused interventions to choice-based prevention; and scientific breakthroughs to political courage, financing, solidarity and accountability.

The science is moving. “The science delivered beyond our wildest dreams,” said Dr. Raphy Landovitz in a moving plenary session.

Now everything around the science needs to move just as boldly. We need resources, moral compass, political will and government-owned prevention programs to move the science to people.

From Rio to the People’s Research Agenda: What next? 

So where does all of this leave us? For me, Rio reinforced that the People’s Research Agenda has to keep pushing the field on whether the science will actually matter in people’s lives. 

  • HIV vaccines: keep investing—but design for the real world now. We still need an HIV vaccine, and we need to stay the course. But as scientists refine sequential immunization and increasingly precise vaccine approaches, the field must also ask early what a future vaccine regimen would look like in people’s lives: how many doses, over what period, for whom, at what cost and how it could realistically be delivered at scale. 
  • MPTs: start with people’s lives, not just what science can combine. We need to develop MPTs around the lives and priorities of the people who will use them. The research question cannot only be: what products can we technically combine? It must also be: what combinations, durations and delivery forms do people actually want—and what gives them meaningful choice and control? 
  • ARV-based prevention: match the speed of innovation with the speed of access. Affordability, licensing, manufacturing, financing, country readiness and delivery must be planned alongside product development, not after approval. At the same time, implementation research must tell us how long-acting products work in the real world, including persistence, late injections, switching and what it truly takes to deliver genuine choice. 
  • PEP: give PEP the innovation and urgency it deserves. PEP needs a new research, product and delivery agenda. We need shorter, simpler and more forgiving regimens; innovative trial designs that can generate credible evidence; and delivery models that get PEP to people within hours, not after they have navigated multiple barriers in the health system. And perhaps just as importantly, we need to reposition PEP as what it is: an act of self-care and responsibility. 

Announcing AVAC’s 2026 HIV Cure Academy Alumni Fellows 

AVAC is pleased to announce the 2026 Alumni Fellows from the HIV Cure Academy Program. This year, five alumni are putting what they gained through the Academies into action—strengthening community engagement, informing policy and advancing HIV cure research in diverse settings across Africa and the US. These grants build on a growing network of Cure Academy alumni who are translating what they learn into meaningful advocacy and action in their communities. 

Each year, AVAC convenes a global HIV Cure Academy in collaboration with the International AIDS Society (IAS) and a US Academy organized through the Martin Delaney Collaboratories (MDCs) community engagement program under REACH, PAVE and I4C, equipping advocates with the skills and connections to champion HIV cure research, strengthen supportive research environments and promote ethical community engagement in clinical research. Following the Academy, participants can apply for an alumni grant to design and implement a year-long project that advances HIV cure research in their communities.

The HIV Cure Academy Alumni Fellowship is one component of AVAC’s broader HIV cure advocacy portfolio, which strengthens civil society engagement, advances meaningful community participation and ensures the development of HIV cure strategies is guided by affected communities. AVAC supports stakeholders with the information, connections and tools needed to engage in critical conversations about the future of HIV cure research. 

Read on to learn more about the 2026 Cure Fellows and their projects and check back throughout the year for updates on their work to advance HIV cure research. 

Global HIV Cure Academy Alumni Fellows in Partnership with the Africa HIV Cure Consortium (AHCC) 

Charles Brown: High-Level Stakeholders Dialogue on Advancing and Sustaining HIV Cure Research and Advocacy in Uganda

Charles Brown is the Founder and Executive Director of Preventive Care International, a civil society organization based in Uganda. He is a 2014 AVAC Fellow alum, coordinator for the Africa HIV Cure Advocacy Coalition, member of the Uganda PrEP technical working group, the Uganda communicable and non-communicable diseases technical working group, the Uganda civil society advocates network and a steering committee member of the Uganda HIV Prevention Coalition. The High-Level Stakeholders Dialogue on Advancing and Sustaining HIV Cure Research and Advocacy in Uganda aims to strengthen and advance stakeholder involvement in HIV cure research through the creation of a platform for HIV cure researchers, policymakers, funders and advocates to dialogue on advancing and sustaining HIV cure research and the formation of an African Hub for HIV cure advocacy.

Laurel Kevine Tchmada Tayo: TheImpactVoices

Laurel Kevine Tchamda Tayo is an early-career researcher at the Centre for Research on Emerging and Re-emerging Diseases (CREMER) in Cameroon. She holds a Master’s degree in Public Health Biotechnology and is a field investigator for HIV research, with a specific focus on HIV cure-related studies. TheImpactVoices initiative aims to bridge the gap between HIV research and the community to improve awareness and community engagement around HIV prevention, care and cure research through accessible and contextualized research dissemination, youth-centered communication and digital storytelling. TheImpactVoices hopes to empower young people and people living with HIV to actively contribute to advocacy, education and sustainable health solutions in Cameroon. 

Mandisa Tyadi Dukashe: SA HIV Cure Knowledge Hub Project

Mandisa Tyadi Dukashe is a public health expert, HIV specialist and PhD candidate with over 25 years of experience delivering health systems strengthening, multi-disease management and patient-centered care in South Africa (SA). She has been living with HIV openly for over 23 years. Mandisa is a founding member of the HIV Survivors and Partners Network, a co-founder of the U=U Africa Forum, a pioneer for the South African HIV Cure Knowledge and Innovation Hub, a 2020 AVAC Fellow alumni and served as a PAVE Collaboratory and CureRoar Community Advisory Board member. The SA HIV Cure Knowledge and Innovation Hub aims to strengthen collaboration among researchers, policymakers, advocacy partners and communities to advance equitable and community-centered HIV cure research and implementation. Ultimately, the Hub aims to translate collaboration and innovation into sustainable health outcomes and improved quality of life for people affected by HIV.

US HIV Cure Academy Alumni Fellows

Amelia Poulin: SPEAK: HIV Cure

Amelia Poulin, MPH, PMP, CPH is the Assistant Director for Emerging Infectious Disease at the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, where she supports state and territorial health departments prepare for, and respond to, infectious diseases. Amelia is a Doctor of Public Health student at the University of Illinois – Chicago and was named a 2025 de Beaumont 40 Under 40 in Public Health honoree for her dedication, creativity and innovation in working towards healthier communities. SPEAK: HIV Cures is a novel dialogue academy that aims to strengthen system readiness to implement HIV cure research by bringing together alumni from the 2026 US HIV Cure Academy, leading HIV cure researchers and university students for a structured training series on dialogue and rhetoric, HIV cure science, lived experience and health policy. The project will explore how community-centered dialogue and reasoned persuasion can strengthen public health system readiness for policy implementation around HIV cure research.

Kennedy Walker: The CLEAR (Communication, Literacy, Education and Research) Toolkit

Kennedy Walker is a Psychology and Human Development & Family Studies student at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, where he is an Honors College and Guarantee Scholar. Kennedy has worked across community engagement, advocacy and research through organizations including the Florida State University Adult Trials Network, Charlotte Pride and the Office of Intercultural Engagement at UNCG. The CLEAR Toolkit is a community-informed communication and health literacy initiative designed to strengthen conversations between people living with HIV, healthcare providers, researchers and community advocates. Through stakeholder listening sessions and collaborative development, the project will create practical resources to improve communication, shared decision-making and understanding of HIV treatment and cure research. The CLEAR Toolkit aims to build trust, increase health literacy and create a scalable resource that can be adapted across HIV care, research and community settings.

Global Health Watch: Exec Order Changes Childhood Vaccine Recs, $2B in Faith-based Aid, NIH Restricts Policy Rx

Issue 81

This week, the US Administration announced $2 billion in global health funding for faith-based organizations; US Congress intensified oversight of PEPFAR and the bilateral global health agreements; the NIH moves to restrict policy-focused research; and – perhaps most alarmingly – the US President issued an executive order rewriting longstanding, evidence-based childhood vaccine recommendations.

US President Issues Executive Order Changing US Childhood Vaccine Recommendations 

The US President issued an executive order to overhaul the US childhood vaccination recommendations. The order bypasses the longstanding scientific review process traditionally led by expert advisory bodies including the CDC’s Advisory Council on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which has historically informed this process, before being politicized by the current Administration. The order reduces the number of vaccines recommended for all children; calls for the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to be administered as three separate shots; shifts several vaccines—including hepatitis A and B and COVID-19—to “shared clinical decision-making”; and expands exemptions for school immunization requirements. Public health leaders and clinicians immediately condemned the order, warning that it contradicts decades of scientific evidence, creates confusion and raises new barriers for vaccine access.

IMPLICATIONS: The latest executive order is another divergence from evidence-based public health policymaking and toward politically driven decision-making. Public health experts warn that replacing established scientific review with executive action could erode confidence in childhood immunization, increase vaccine hesitancy and reduce vaccination coverage, leading to more outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. A New York Times article profiles Japan as a “cautionary tale” after the government modified its vaccine schedule for MMR in 1993, making the measles and rubella single shots and the mumps component entirely voluntary. Consequently, coverage of mumps vaccination plummeted, and cases then soared – resulting in deaths among unvaccinated children in Japan. The changes by the federal government also signal how vaccine policy is being developed in the US, raising concerns that scientific expertise is being sidelined in favor of political priorities, and driven by misinformation and skepticism in vaccines.

READ:

US Administration Awards $2 Billion to Faith-Based Organizations 

The US Department of State awarded $2 billion in global health and humanitarian assistance to faith-based organizations (FBOs), the largest allocation of foreign aid to these groups in more than 20 years. Under its “America First” Global Health Strategy, the funding, a majority spread over five years, will support faith-based hospitals and clinics in 17 countries and emergency humanitarian response, with major awards going to a consortium of Christian FBOs including World Vision, Samaritan’s Purse and Compassion International. Of the $2 billion awarded, approximately $1.4 billion will be for healthcare programming primarily in Africa.

IMPLICATIONS: News of global health funding is welcome after such sweeping cuts and months of delay, but it marks a major shift in how the US is delivering its foreign aid. The Administration claims the awards reflect a more efficient, results-driven approach and were not based on religious affiliation. However, former USAID officials and global health experts question whether the decisions were guided by evidence. FBOs historically are critical partners in delivering critical care and global health programming in countries that receive US foreign assistance. However, prioritizing a smaller group of FBOs over a broader range of implementing partners, where funding has been frozen or contracts terminated, could reshape HIV prevention and global health programs, and these large FBOs have many of the same administrative and overhead costs as other international NGOs, which were heavily criticized by the Administration in closing down USAID. Concentrating resources in fewer organizations also raises questions about whether diverse, community-led approaches to HIV prevention and health equity will continue to receive the support needed to reach the populations most affected. Moreover, representatives from recipient FBOs contend that the new money does not easily supplant or replace funding lost from the cuts and dismantling of USAID, when many FBOs were adversely affected and forced to reduce programming or shutdown services.

READ:

US Congress Continues to Take Oversight Actions on Global Health Programs

Democratic members of the US Congress continued oversight of the US Administration’s global health policies this week with new inquiries into PEPFAR and the Administration’s “America First” Global Health Strategy. California Representative Robert Garcia, the ranking Democratic member of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, requested in a letter answers from the US Secretary of State following disruptions to PEPFAR and emerging data showing how they have contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the closure of at least 1,700 HIV service sites. Separately, Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia led colleagues in a separate inquiry, questioning the Department of State’s reported requirement that African countries grant US officials direct access to sensitive national health data systems as a condition of receiving global health assistance through the bilateral memorandum of understanding (MOUs) agreements that are currently being negotiated with recipient countries. As part of the inquiry, Senate signatories requested a formal briefing from the State Department to answer these questions and provide updates on the data conditionalities present in these agreements.

IMPLICATIONS: The escalation of these congressional inquiries reflects mounting concern in both chambers of Congress over the Administration’s continued restriction and termination of congressionally appropriated global health funding, the lack of transparency surrounding its bilateral Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), and the need for greater accountability in how the Administration is unilaterally reshaping US global health policy and using foreign assistance as leverage. These latest requests for information also suggest that sustained advocacy by the global health community is beginning to influence policymakers, as new evidence continues to document lives lost and the erosion of global health infrastructure resulting from this accelerated restructuring. While congressional oversight alone will not reverse these policy changes, it demonstrates that coordinated advocacy is elevating global health issues and helping shape the debate around future policy.

READ:

US Senate Blocks White House OMB Rule as NIH Faces New Policy Research Restrictions

Following the US Senate’s official vote to temporarily block the White House Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposal to give political appointees greater authority over federal grant decisions (until December 11), Nature reported this week that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has begun turning away grant applications for research where the primary purpose is to shape and inform policymaking. This, coupled with the Administration’s attempt to weaken the role of scientific review through the blocked OMB regulation, demonstrates increasing intention to politicize federal research priorities in line with political ideology and not evidence. Internal NIH documents reportedly state that policymakers are no longer considered “mission-relevant stakeholders”, placing dozens of health policy research grants in question.

IMPLICATIONS: Efforts to reshape the US research enterprise are extending beyond a single OMB proposal to influence what research is funded, who can use it and how scientific evidence informs public policy. While advocacy from the scientific community is gaining traction, the temporary block does not resolve overall concerns about political influence over research funding. And restricting support for policy-focused research would weaken the evidence base that informs decisions on HIV, infectious diseases, pandemic preparedness, and public health, making it more difficult for policymakers to respond to emerging health challenges with rigorous scientific evidence guiding decision-making that is aimed towards saving lives.

READ:

Dr. Anthony S. Fauci Should be Celebrated as a Public Health Hero, Not Harassed and Persecuted by Anti-Science Bigots

What We’re Reading