Japan could become one of the first countries in the world to end the HIV epidemic, says the president of Gilead Sciences Japan, Kennet Brysting. The idea for now could seem a little too ambitious, but it is not entirely unrealistic, given that the availability of medicines that can prevent transmission of HIV. Drugs are not the cure, but control over the spread of virus to the point where the disease is no longer a major public health threat.

What Is The Role Of Preventative HIV Medicines?

Gilead's have two key drugs, Truvada and lenacapavir. These two are playing a crucial role in prevention. Truvada is taken as a daily pill, while lenacapavir requires two injections per year. It can make the virus undetectable in infected individuals and prevent transmission to those who are not infected yet. In trials, lenacapavir showed 100% efficacy in preventing HIV infections. This is why it is describe as "almost a vaccine".

In 2024, Japan also approved Truvada for HIV prevention, but the country has yet to approve lenacapavir for the same. Until now, people in Japan had been importing generic versions of Truvada or purchasing it from clinics that source it from overseas.

HIV In Japan

Up until now, Japan reported around 25,000 HIV infections, whereas 669 new cases were reported in 2023. For seven consecutive years, the number of new infections remained under 1,000. The downward trend thus shows that the virus has been controlled, however, getting to zero new infections remains the ultimate goal.

Brysting too acknowledged that simply having effective drug is not enough. What is important is to have a proper implementation, access and healthcare support to make sure that these treatments are widely available and effective.

What Are The Challenges In Implementation?

The biggest challenges is testing rates. There is a need to increase testing rates. At this very moment, around 86% people infective with Japan have been tested, but the goal is to increase it up to 95%, with an ideal goal of 100%. Without widespread testing, many infected people may not even know that they are infected and it could transmit the virus.

Another measure issue is the cost of preventative medication. While Japan's health insurance covers treatments for diseases, it does not cover preventative drugs. Those who purchase Truvada for prevention, pay around $470 per month. Some clinics in Tokyo offer generic alternatives too, which is cheaper, but they are not ideal.

Better Healthcare Support

Brysting expressed concern that individuals importing medications might not be consulting doctors regularly, which is essential for monitoring HIV status and overall health. Truvada users need to be tested for HIV initially and every three months, along with screenings for other infections and kidney function checks. Without proper medical supervision, there is a risk of misuse and inadequate protection.

Gilead is in discussions with Japanese authorities to improve access and insurance coverage for Truvada, and progress is being made. Japan has shown efficiency in approving critical medicines, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic when Gilead’s remdesivir was approved in just three days.

What Is The Way Ahead?

Gilead at this moment is not only focused on HIV and hepatitis C, but also expanding into oncology with innovative treatments like CAR-T cell therapy, which strengthens a patient's immune system to fight cancer.

However, Japan’s strict approval processes can slow down drug availability. Phase 3 clinical trials often need to be conducted within the country, and Japan tends to approve medicines much later than other regions. For instance, Truvada was approved for prevention in Japan 12 years after the U.S. and nearly 20 years after its approval for treatment. inancial factors also play a role. The Japanese government adjusts drug prices annually, often reducing them, which can make long-term investment challenging for pharmaceutical companies.

Chronic hepatitis B infections among children and young adults in the United States could rise by 83% if the country moves away from routinely recommending vaccination at birth for all newborns, according to a new study titled Projected Effect of 2026 Federal Changes to the Childhood Immunization Schedule on Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infections in the United States, published in Annals of Internal Medicine recently.

Researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School analysed outcomes for a birth cohort of 3.6 million infants over their first 20 years.

The study examined the impact of changes to US hepatitis B vaccine recommendations for babies born to mothers who test negative for the virus.

Under the revised approach, parents and healthcare providers decide together whether and when to begin vaccination. The findings suggest that this could leave more children vulnerable to infection, increasing the cases of chronic hepatitis B.

What Did The Study Find?

The model compared universal vaccination at birth with two alternatives. The first is delaying the first dose until at least two months of age, and the second is leaving the decision to parents and healthcare providers.

Researchers estimated that delaying vaccination could increase chronic hepatitis B infections acquired by age 20 by 19%. Under the second option, the estimated increase was 83%.

The model estimated 255 chronic infections under universal birth-dose vaccination, compared to 303 if vaccination was delayed and 467 under shared decision-making.

The number of people who remained at high risk to hepatitis B at age 20 was also projected to increase. Under universal vaccination at birth, around 232,000 people in the cohort would remain at risk. This rose to 474,000 with delayed vaccination and approximately 1.8 million under shared decision-making.

Study's corresponding author Amir Mohareb said, “These findings show why policy makers should re-implement recommendations for universal hepatitis B vaccination at birth.”

Also read: Hepatitis C: Could 8-Week Treatment Help India Reach More Patients?

Importance Of Hepatitis B Birth Dose

Hepatitis B is a viral infection that affects the liver and spreads through infected blood and certain bodily fluids, including during childbirth. Infection acquired during infancy is likely to become chronic, leading to cirrhosis, liver failure or liver cancer in the future.

The universal hepatitis B birth-dose recommendation was introduced in the US in 1991. The first dose provides early protection, including when maternal infection is missed or a child's exposure risk is not recognised.

In December 2025, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended replacing universal vaccination at birth with shared decision-making for infants whose mothers test negative.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adopted this approach in January 2026. Babies born to mothers who test positive or whose infection status is unknown continue to be recommended to receive the birth dose promptly, along with hepatitis B immune globulin when indicated.

Also read: Can Panty Liners Pose A Cancer Risk? What Science Says

Increase In Infections, Deaths And Costs

The changes in vaccine policy is also likely to lead to hundreds more infections, deaths, and millions of dollars in higher costs, according to another research published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Pediatricians, public health experts, and dozens of medical groups warned that it could harm children and their families. So the JAMA studies modelled the potential impact of the policy.

The first study estimated that delaying the first hepatitis B vaccine dose by two months for babies born in a single year to mothers who tested negative — about 80 percent of the 3.6 million US births annually — would increase lifetime health-care costs by at least $16 million, The Washington Post reported. If vaccination were delayed by seven months, it would cost an additional $19.8 million.

The second study modeled what would happen if only 10 per cent of babies born to unscreened mothers received a birth dose; an additional 628 babies would get infected.

“One of the most concerning implications is how many more infected Hep B babies will we see,” said co-author Rachel Epstein, a pediatric and adult infectious diseases clinician at Boston Medical Center.

“A universal birth dose helps prevent a substantial number of infections in babies of a lifelong condition that we do not have a cure for,” she added.

Scientists have identified a new H1N1 mutation, G155E, in US flu samples, raising questions about immunity and vaccine protection as the flu season begins early.

Early laboratory findings suggest the mutation may make some H1N1 strains harder for existing antibodies to recognize. However, the vaccine’s effectiveness specifically against G155E remains uncertain, and there is no evidence yet that the mutation makes the flu shot ineffective.

H1N1 Becomes The Dominant Flu Strain In US

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) October 2 report, 53 of 55 influenza A samples undergoing subtyping were H1N1, while two were H3N2. No influenza B viruses were reported in this group.

Researchers at the University of Washington identified G155E in 13 of 17 sequenced H1N1 samples collected from hospitals and clinics in the Seattle area.

Could G155E Affect Flu Shot Effectiveness?

Also read: Flu 2026: Symptoms To Watch For As New Season Begins

The 2026-2027 flu vaccines approved by the US Food and Drug Administration target H1N1, H3N2 and an influenza B virus.

Dr. Jennifer Duchon, a pediatric infectious disease expert at Mount Sinai Children’s Hospital, told Reuters that younger people may have had limited exposure to this year’s H1N1 strain.

“What people are a bit worried about is that the H1N1 strain this year hasn't been seen by a lot of younger folk, so it may be more severe in them,” she said.

However, this concern does not establish that G155E causes more severe disease. Flu vaccine effectiveness varies by season and depends partly on how well vaccine strains match circulating viruses.

Scott Hensley, a microbiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, told Reuters that two of this season’s three vaccine components appear well matched to circulating strains. He also recommended getting vaccinated early.

The American Medical Association also recommends annual flu vaccination for people aged six months and older, unless they have a medical reason not to receive it.

G155E: Who Could Be More Vulnerable?

Read More: Flu Vaccine: Why October Is A Good Time To Get Your Family Vaccinated

Antibody studies suggest that people exposed to influenza last year may have antibodies that recognize the new mutation less effectively, particularly among teenagers and young adults.

Researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, including virologist Jesse Bloom, examined antibody responses to influenza A strains carrying mutations such as G155E.

In a preprint posted on bioRxiv, researchers tested antibodies from 260 people in Australia and the US against 148 influenza A strains that circulated through mid-2026. Some G155E-carrying strains were less readily recognized by antibodies, particularly those from younger people.

The researchers suggested that limited previous exposure to similar H1N1 variants could help explain this difference. However, laboratory findings alone cannot establish how likely people are to become infected or develop severe illness.

Should You Worry About G155E?

The mutation warrants monitoring, but current evidence does not establish that it makes the flu shot ineffective. How well this season’s vaccine protects against G155E remains uncertain.

Annual flu vaccination remains an important preventive measure, particularly for people at higher risk of complications. Regular hand hygiene and other basic precautions can also help reduce the spread of infections.

Emmy-winning American actor Christina Applegate has in a shocking news revealed that she does not have multiple sclerosis (MS), despite continuing to experience debilitating symptoms since her 2021 diagnosis.

Applegate, 54, shared the news in an episode of her podcast MeSsy, co-hosted with fellow actor Jamie-Lynn Sigler and posted to YouTube on Tuesday.

“I’m back at square one – that I don’t know what’s going on with me,” she said through tears.

Applegate had gradually withdrawn from public life after her MS diagnosis in 2021, as she navigated the physical and emotional toll of the condition.

She has also become an advocate for MS awareness and chronicled her struggles in an emotional memoir published in March.

Christina Applegate Recalls Learning About Her Misdiagnosis

Also read: Why Multiple Sclerosis Increases Emotional Burden Among Women

Applegate recalled a visit to her doctor when she was told she did not have MS.

“She came into my room and said, ‘Congratulations, you don’t have MS,’” Applegate recalled through tears. “I was, like, not happy at all. Everybody else was so happy.”

Despite the news, Applegate said her symptoms have not improved.

“I haven’t gotten better. I still have to use wheelchairs when I go to the doctor’s office. I can’t walk from the car to the room. I’m still in this. Nothing magical happened when she said, ‘You don’t have MS.’ Nothing magical happened.”

Applegate also described feeling confused about her condition and the uncertainty surrounding her symptoms.

“It’s weird because I feel like I let everybody down. It’s this weird feeling of like I became this, you and I, the poster children for MS. Everything that I was doing, I had a fucking reason as to why my day sucked every day.

“And now I don’t have a reason. It’s very unnerving and it’s really confusing for me.”

What Is Multiple Sclerosis?

Read More: Selena Gomez Says Vaping Changed Her Voice: How E-Cigarettes Affect Vocal Cords

According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, multiple sclerosis is a chronic neurological condition that affects the central nervous system, including the brain, spinal cord and optic nerves.

MS is also an immune-mediated disease in which the immune system attacks myelin, the protective sheath surrounding nerve fibers. Damage to myelin can disrupt nerve signals, causing symptoms that vary from person to person.

These may include muscle weakness, fatigue, numbness, coordination problems, vision changes and memory difficulties.

MS is commonly diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 40, although it can develop earlier or later. There is no cure, but treatments can help manage symptoms and slow disease progression. Some people experience relapses with periods of improvement, while others develop progressively worsening disability.

Why Is Multiple Sclerosis Hard To Diagnose?

Dr. Marwa Kaisey, an associate professor in the Department of Neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, joined Applegate and Sigler on the podcast to discuss MS misdiagnosis.

Kaisey said misdiagnoses are “fairly common” because there is no single test that can definitively confirm or rule out MS.

“We don’t have one single test for MS. It’s not like we have something like a pregnancy test that says, ‘Yes. You have it.’ ‘No. You don’t.’ It’s a list of criteria.”

Kaisey said nearly 20% of people diagnosed with MS may not actually have the disease, People.com reported.

“Almost one in five of these people who’d been told they had MS, some for decades, didn’t actually have it. And a majority of them were on medication to treat their MS,” she said.

MS diagnosis typically involves assessing symptoms, a neurological examination, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and, when appropriate, additional tests to rule out other conditions.

Because several disorders can cause similar symptoms, clinicians must evaluate the findings against established diagnostic criteria.