Search

BackgroundNon-communicable diseases (NCDs) are increased amongst people living with HIV (PLWH) and are driven by persistent immune activation. The role of socioeconomic status (SES) in immune activation amongst PLWH is unknown, especially in low-income sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where such impacts may be particularly severe.MethodsWe recruited Malawian adults with CD4ResultsOf 279 PLWH, the median (IQR) age was 36 (31-43) years and 122 (44%) were female. Activated CD8 T-cells increased from 70% amongst those with no education to 88% amongst those with a tertiary education (p = 0.002); and from 71% amongst those earning less than 10 USD/month to 87% amongst those earning between 100-150 USD/month (p = 0.0001). Arterial stiffness was also associated with higher SES (car ownership p = 0.003, television ownership p = 0.012 and electricity access p = 0.029). Conversely, intermediate monocytes were higher amongst those with no education compared to a tertiary education (12.6% versus 7.3%; p = 0.01) and trended towards being higher amongst those earning less than 10 USD/month compared to 100-150 USD/month (10.5% versus 8.0%; p = 0.08). Water kiosk use showed a protective association against T cell activation (p = 0.007), as well as endothelial damage (MIP1β, sICAM1 and sVCAM1 p = 0.047, 0.026 and 0.031 respectively).ConclusionsSocioeconomic risk factors for persistent inflammation amongst PLWH in SSA differ depending on the type of inflammatory pathway. Understanding these pathways and their socioeconomic drivers will help identify those at risk and target interventions for NCDs. Future studies assessing drivers of inflammation in HIV should include an SES assessment.

Biomedical scientists aim to contribute to further understanding of disease pathogenesis and to develop new diagnostic and therapeutic tools that relieve disease burden. Yet the majority of biomedical scientists do not develop their academic career or professional identity as “translational scientists,” and are not actively involved in the continuum from scientific concept to development of new strategies that change medical practice. The collaborative nature of translational medicine and the lengthy process of bringing innovative findings from bench to bedside conflict with established pathways of building a career in academia. This collaborative approach also poses a problem for evaluating individual contributions and progress. The traditional evaluation of scientific success measured by the impact and number of publications and grants scientists achieve is inadequate when the product is a team effort that may take decades to complete. Further, where scientists are trained to be independent thinkers and to establish unique scientific niches, translational medicine depends on combining individual insights and strengths for the greater good. Training programs that are specifically geared to prepare scientists for a career in translational medicine are not widespread. In addition, the legal, regulatory, scientific and clinical infrastructure and support required for translational research is often underdeveloped in academic institutions and funding organizations, further discouraging the development and success of translational scientists in the academic setting. In this perspective we discuss challenges and potential solutions that could allow for physicians, physician scientists and basic scientists to develop a professional identity and a fruitful career in translational medicine.