HIV's Gender Bias

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Viral loads of people infected with HIV differ based on gender, suggests new research that may have implications for treatment. During the first few years of infection, women have significantly smaller amounts of the HIV virus in their blood than men. Surprisingly, however, they lose immune cells and develop AIDS just as quickly, according to a new study by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), published in today¿s New England Journal of Medicine.

From 1988 to 1998 the researchers observed 156 men and 46 women who were HIV-positive. Of the 202 participants, 44 developed AIDS¿29 of them men, 15 women. The team found that the median initial viral load of women was almost five times lower than that of men as they progressed to AIDS. "Despite early differences in viral load among men and women, as time went on, both men and women had a similar risk of developing AIDS," says Timothy Sterling, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, which participated in the study.

Viral load normally determines when a person becomes eligible to start anti-HIV drug treatment, but the new findings show that this measure may be inadequate. "Previous studies in men have shown that initial viral load can be used to gauge their likelihood of progression to AIDS," says Thomas Quinn, a senior investigator for NIAID and professor at Johns Hopkins. "But these data confirm that the initial viral load is much lower in women than in men and consequently not as predictive for women." Although this sheds a light on gender differences in viral loads, Quinn adds that the best point at which to start anti-HIV drug treatments is generally still unknown.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe