Knowledge of the most dominant T-cell epitopes in the context of the local human leukocyte antigen (HLA) background is a prerequisite for the development of an effective HIV vaccine. In 100 Ethiopian subjects, 16 different HLA-A, 23 HLA-B, and 12 HLA-C specificities were observed. Ninety-four percent of the population carried at least 1 of the 5 most common HLA-A and/or HLA-B specificities. HIV-specific T-cell responses were measured in 48 HIV-infected Ethiopian subjects representing a wide range of ethnicities in Ethiopia using the interferon (IFN)-γ enzyme-linked immunospot (Elispot) assay and 49 clade C-specific synthetic Gag peptides. Fifty-eight percent of the HIV-positive study subjects showed T-cell responses directed to 1 or more HIV Gag peptides. Most Gag-specific responses were directed against the subset of peptides spanning Gag p24. The breadth of response ranged from 1 to 9 peptides, with most (78%) individuals showing detectable responses to <3 Gag peptides. The magnitude of HIV-specific T-cell responses was not associated with HIV viral load but correlated positively with CD4+ T-cell counts. The most frequently targeted Gag peptides overlapped with those previously described for HIV-1 subtype C-infected southern Africans, and therefore can be used in a multiethnic vaccine.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an ethical analysis of whether the Ethiopian and Tanzanian national HIV/AIDS treatment guidelines can be considered legitimate and fair rationing tools. Method: Qualitative study and ethical analysis involving guideline documents and interviews with nine key members involved in the development of the guidelines. The analysis followed an editing organising style. The theoretical framework was a guideline-specific framework based on theories of just resource allocation in healthcare and conditions that ensure fair processes in guideline development. According to this framework, legitimate rationing requires reasons for patient selection to be explicit, public and relevant, and decisions must be open to question and revision. Results: The only explicit rationing criteria that both guidelines recommended were clinical antiretroviral treatment indications. Explicit non-clinical rationing criteria were expressed in a separate Ethiopian implementation guideline. Neither of the guideline development processes fully satisfies minimal requirements of procedural fairness. There is a lack of transparency. The reasons for decisions are rarely given and are not publicly available. This reduces the opportunity for public questioning, debate and revisions. The guidelines were based on expert opinion and consensus. Recommendations from the WHO were copied without much discussion, disagreement or adjustment. Conclusions: The two national HIV treatment guidelines discussed are de facto mechanisms for rationing but were developed using methods that do not fully satisfy the requirements of fair processes.