Explore the vast range of titles available.

Equitable access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) for men and women with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is a principle endorsed by most countries and funding bodies, including the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) Relief (PEPFAR) (1). To evaluate gender equity in ART access among adults (defined for this report as persons aged ≥15 years), 765,087 adult ART patient medical records from 12 countries in five geographic regions* were analyzed to estimate the ratio of women to men among new ART enrollees for each calendar year during 2002-2013. This annual ratio was compared with estimates from the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)(†) of the ratio of HIV-infected adult women to men in the general population. In all 10 African countries and Haiti, the most recent estimates of the ratio of adult women to men among new ART enrollees significantly exceeded the UNAIDS estimates for the female-to-male ratio among HIV-infected adults by 23%-83%. In six African countries and Haiti, the ratio of women to men among new adult ART enrollees increased more sharply over time than the estimated UNAIDS female-to-male ratio among adults with HIV in the general population. Increased ART coverage among men is needed to decrease their morbidity and mortality and to reduce HIV incidence among their sexual partners. Reaching more men with HIV testing and linkage-to-care services and adoption of test-and-treat ART eligibility guidelines (i.e., regular testing of adults, and offering treatment to all infected persons with ART, regardless of CD4 cell test results) could reduce gender inequity in ART coverage.

Furthermore, we challenge scientists to include both male and female animals to promote comparison of results. Since the passage of the NIH Revitalization Act in 1993, there has been an increased enrollment of women in clinical trials, thereby demonstrating that enacted public policies can change the way scientists conduct their work. Arguments against the study of both sexes at the preclinical research level center around duplication of efforts, increased costs and additional time.\\n As we continue to learn more about sex differences that impact health beyond the reproductive system, it becomes imperative that we include instruction on sex differences in our medical school curriculum and in continuing education programming for medical school and clinical research faculty.