The acronym AIDS is redundant, loaded with stigma, and potentially harmful, according to a group of specialists who suggest replacing the term with “advanced HIV.”
The acronym AIDS has “outlived its usefulness and we should transition toward a more descriptive language that aligns with contemporary challenges in HIV,” report Isaac Núñez, MD, from the Department of Medical Education, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City, and colleagues.
People generally associate the acronym AIDS with patients who have no available treatment options and a short life expectancy, said Núñez. That mischaracterization may affect treatment decisions by patients and clinicians and could result in exaggerated infection-control measures.
Using the HIV/AIDS combination erroneously implies equivalence and can mislead the public and clinicians, which the authors explained in their Viewpoint article published in The Lancet HIV.
Original Reason for the Term
AIDS, which stands for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, was coined in 1982 by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to name a disease with an unknown cause that affected people with weakened cell-mediated immunity.
“When HIV was found to be the cause of the disease (labeled HIV in 1986), the term AIDS, strictly speaking, became unnecessary,” Núñez said.
AIDS was originally intended as a case definition for surveillance purposes, and treatment decisions were based on whether patients met the case definition for AIDS, he pointed out.
“The fact that some people still do so in this day and age shows that this is not only unhelpful, but misleading and even harmful,” he noted. Without the label AIDS, clinicians can focus on whether and for how long people have been on treatment, whether they recently switched treatment, and other factors that will help determine appropriate care.
Some Organizations Removed AIDS From Their Names
Some organizations have already removed AIDS from their names. For example, the International AIDS Society–USA, which issues guidelines on antiretroviral treatment, changed its name to the International Antiviral Society–USA.
In 2017, the name of AIDS.gov was changed to HIV.gov. In its explanation, the group wrote, “Today, people with HIV who are diagnosed early, linked to care, start antiretroviral therapy, and take it as prescribed can achieve life-long viral suppression that prevents HIV infection from progressing to AIDS.”
A different view on the term AIDS comes from Greg Millett, MPH, vice president at the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) and the director of amfAR’s Public Policy Office.
Although he believes that AIDS is an anachronistic term, as a researcher for more than 30 years in the field; a policy director in Washington, DC; a scientist; and a person living with HIV, “it feels like a distinction without a difference. At least from where I sit, there are far more pressing issues that we’re facing as an HIV community,” Millett shared.
For instance, “we’re seeing that global, as well as domestic, HIV funding is in, by far, the most precarious position that I’ve ever seen in the field. Calling it AIDS or HIV makes no difference in trying to alleviate that jeopardy,” he said.
Millett also said that the stigma and persecution and, in some cases, criminalization of people living with HIV or AIDS is pervasive and won’t go away with a name change, which is a point the authors also acknowledged.
“We need to focus on the social determinants of health,” he said. “That is the thing that is going to move the needle among people living with HIV, not nomenclature.”
Millett likens the argument to the one between Black and African American. “As a Black American, I remember fierce debates in the early ’90s over whether we should be called African Americans or Blacks. Some argued that African American carried greater dignity and would help with self-esteem and address inequities by emphasizing that we are American. Many others said that it doesn’t make a difference.”
“It is clear that being called African American has not fixed intractable issues like poverty, structural racism, or inequities in incarceration,” he pointed out.
End the Epidemic, Not the Name
The authors misinterpret the impact of the term on stigma, said James W. Curran, MD, MPH, dean emeritus of the Rollins School of Public Health and professor of epidemiology and global health at Emory University in Atlanta. The term AIDS “is more likely attributed to the fatal nature of the infection itself,” without treatment, he explained, and the mode of transmission, exacerbated by homophobia.
“The term has been in widespread use for 40 years and recognized worldwide,” Curran, who led the nation’s efforts in the battle against HIV and AIDS at the CDC for 15 years before joining Emory as dean, said.
He also worries about the continued trajectory of lives lost: “Over 35 million people worldwide have perished from HIV/AIDS, including over 500,000 per year now.”
Meanwhile, “global programs such as PEPFAR [the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] are under fire and threatened by Congress as no longer necessary. Removing AIDS from the terminology may add to confusion,” making people think “that the epidemic is over,” he said.
Although the authors argue that keeping the term may cause harm, eliminating it might worsen a different kind of harm. “There is a risk that abolishing the term will further de-emphasize the importance of the problem, with no significant impact on stigma,” Curran added.
>>> Read full article>>>
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source : Medscape – https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/time-stop-using-term-aids-2024a10006rd