For First Time, AIDS Vaccine Shows Some Success in Trials

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,120
45,128
136
September 25, 2009
For First Time, AIDS Vaccine Shows Some Success in Trials
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.

A new AIDS vaccine tested on more than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand has protected a significant minority against infection, the first time any vaccine against the disease has even partly succeeded in a clinical trial.

Scientists said they were delighted but puzzled by the result. The vaccine ? a combination of two genetically engineered vaccines, neither of which had worked before in humans ? protected too few people to be declared an unqualified success. And the researchers do not know why it worked.

?I don?t want to use a word like ?breakthrough,? but I don?t think there?s any doubt that this is a very important result,? said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is one of the trial?s backers.

?For more than 20 years now, vaccine trials have essentially been failures,? he went on. ?Now it?s like we were groping down an unlit path, and a door has been opened. We can start asking some very important questions.?

Results of the trial of the vaccine, known as RV 144, were released at 2 a.m. Eastern time Thursday in Thailand by the partners that ran the trial, by far the largest of an AIDS vaccine: the United States Army, the Thai Ministry of Public Health, Dr. Fauci?s institute, and the patent-holders in the two parts of the vaccine, Sanofi-Pasteur and Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases.

Col. Jerome H. Kim, a physician who is manager of the army?s H.I.V. vaccine program, said half the 16,402 volunteers were given six doses of two vaccines in 2006 and half were given placebos. They then got regular tests for the AIDS virus for three years. Of those who got placebos, 74 became infected, while only 51 of those who got the vaccines did.

Although the difference was small, Dr. Kim said it was statistically significant and meant the vaccine was 31.2 percent effective.

Dr. Fauci said that scientists would seldom consider licensing a vaccine less than 70 or 80 percent effective, but he added, ?If you have a product that?s even a little bit protective, you want to look at the blood samples and figure out what particular response was effective and direct research from there.?

The most confusing aspect of the trial, Dr. Kim said, was that everyone who did become infected developed roughly the same amount of virus in their blood whether they got the vaccine or a placebo.

Normally, any vaccine that gives only partial protection ? a mismatched flu shot, for example ? at least lowers the viral load.

That suggests that RV 144 does not produce neutralizing antibodies, as most vaccines do, Dr. Fauci said. Antibodies are long Y-shaped proteins formed by the body that clump onto invading viruses, blocking the surface spikes with which they attach to cells and flagging them for destruction.

Instead, he theorized, it might produce ?binding antibodies,? which latch onto and empower effector cells, a type of white blood cell attacking the virus.

Whatever the vaccine does, he said, it does not seem to mimic the defenses of the rare individuals known to AIDS doctors as ?long-term nonprogressors,? who do not get sick even though they are infected. They have low viral loads because they block reproduction in some way that is still mysterious.

?If we knew what immune response did it, we?d be able to be a lot more efficient in targeting it,? Dr. Kim said.

Also, the RV 144 tested in Thailand was designed to combat the most common strain of the virus circulating in Southeast Asia. Different strains circulate in Africa, the United States and elsewhere, and it is not clear that the vaccine would have similar results, even in modified form.

The thousands of Thais chosen were a cross-section of the Thai young adult population, not just high-risk groups like drug injectors or sex workers, Dr. Kim said.

One of the substances that were combined to make RV 144 is Alvac-HIV, from Sanofi-Pasteur, a canarypox virus with three AIDS virus genes grafted onto it. Variations of Alvac were tested in France, Thailand, Uganda and the United States; it was found safe but generated little immune response.

The other, Aidsvax, was originally made by Genentech and is an engineered version of a protein found on the surface of the AIDS virus; it is grown in a broth of hamster ovary cells.

It was tested in Thai drug users in 2003 and also in gay men in North America and Europe; it did not protect them against infection, and Genentech spun off the rights to develop the vaccine.

In 2007, two trials of a Merck vaccine in about 4,000 people were stopped early; it not only failed to work but for some men seemed to increase the risk of infection.

Combining Alvac and Aidsvax was a hunch by scientists: If one was designed to create antibodies and the other to alert white blood cells, might they work together even if neither worked alone?

Mitchell Warren, executive director of AVAC, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, which pushes for vaccines and other forms of prevention, was enthusiastic about the trial data.

?Wow,? he said. ?This is a hugely exciting and, frankly, unexpected result. It changes our thinking in ways we hadn?t anticipated.?

?We often talk about whether a vaccine is even possible,? he added. ?This is not the vaccine that ends the epidemic and says, ?O.K., let?s move on to something else.? But it?s a fabulous new step that takes us in a new direction.?

Mr. Warren said the finding showed the need for large human trials, expensive as they are. Studies in mice and monkeys have not been good at predicting what would work in people, and small human trials in which researchers test results by looking for antibodies in blood have limited value.

Dr. Fauci agreed.

?This is not the endgame,? he said. ?This is the beginning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09...esearch/25aids.html?hp

This is a huge step in the right direction in that they might have finally found an approach that confers at least some protection. It will be interesting to see if they can determine how the vaccine is protecting the person and raise the effectiveness.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: K1052
September 25, 2009
For First Time, AIDS Vaccine Shows Some Success in Trials
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.

A new AIDS vaccine tested on more than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand has protected a significant minority against infection, the first time any vaccine against the disease has even partly succeeded in a clinical trial.

Scientists said they were delighted but puzzled by the result. The vaccine ? a combination of two genetically engineered vaccines, neither of which had worked before in humans ? protected too few people to be declared an unqualified success. And the researchers do not know why it worked.

?I don?t want to use a word like ?breakthrough,? but I don?t think there?s any doubt that this is a very important result,? said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is one of the trial?s backers.

?For more than 20 years now, vaccine trials have essentially been failures,? he went on. ?Now it?s like we were groping down an unlit path, and a door has been opened. We can start asking some very important questions.?

Results of the trial of the vaccine, known as RV 144, were released at 2 a.m. Eastern time Thursday in Thailand by the partners that ran the trial, by far the largest of an AIDS vaccine: the United States Army, the Thai Ministry of Public Health, Dr. Fauci?s institute, and the patent-holders in the two parts of the vaccine, Sanofi-Pasteur and Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases.

Col. Jerome H. Kim, a physician who is manager of the army?s H.I.V. vaccine program, said half the 16,402 volunteers were given six doses of two vaccines in 2006 and half were given placebos. They then got regular tests for the AIDS virus for three years. Of those who got placebos, 74 became infected, while only 51 of those who got the vaccines did.

Although the difference was small, Dr. Kim said it was statistically significant and meant the vaccine was 31.2 percent effective.

Dr. Fauci said that scientists would seldom consider licensing a vaccine less than 70 or 80 percent effective, but he added, ?If you have a product that?s even a little bit protective, you want to look at the blood samples and figure out what particular response was effective and direct research from there.?

The most confusing aspect of the trial, Dr. Kim said, was that everyone who did become infected developed roughly the same amount of virus in their blood whether they got the vaccine or a placebo.

Normally, any vaccine that gives only partial protection ? a mismatched flu shot, for example ? at least lowers the viral load.

That suggests that RV 144 does not produce neutralizing antibodies, as most vaccines do, Dr. Fauci said. Antibodies are long Y-shaped proteins formed by the body that clump onto invading viruses, blocking the surface spikes with which they attach to cells and flagging them for destruction.

Instead, he theorized, it might produce ?binding antibodies,? which latch onto and empower effector cells, a type of white blood cell attacking the virus.

Whatever the vaccine does, he said, it does not seem to mimic the defenses of the rare individuals known to AIDS doctors as ?long-term nonprogressors,? who do not get sick even though they are infected. They have low viral loads because they block reproduction in some way that is still mysterious.

?If we knew what immune response did it, we?d be able to be a lot more efficient in targeting it,? Dr. Kim said.

Also, the RV 144 tested in Thailand was designed to combat the most common strain of the virus circulating in Southeast Asia. Different strains circulate in Africa, the United States and elsewhere, and it is not clear that the vaccine would have similar results, even in modified form.

The thousands of Thais chosen were a cross-section of the Thai young adult population, not just high-risk groups like drug injectors or sex workers, Dr. Kim said.

One of the substances that were combined to make RV 144 is Alvac-HIV, from Sanofi-Pasteur, a canarypox virus with three AIDS virus genes grafted onto it. Variations of Alvac were tested in France, Thailand, Uganda and the United States; it was found safe but generated little immune response.

The other, Aidsvax, was originally made by Genentech and is an engineered version of a protein found on the surface of the AIDS virus; it is grown in a broth of hamster ovary cells.

It was tested in Thai drug users in 2003 and also in gay men in North America and Europe; it did not protect them against infection, and Genentech spun off the rights to develop the vaccine.

In 2007, two trials of a Merck vaccine in about 4,000 people were stopped early; it not only failed to work but for some men seemed to increase the risk of infection.

Combining Alvac and Aidsvax was a hunch by scientists: If one was designed to create antibodies and the other to alert white blood cells, might they work together even if neither worked alone?

Mitchell Warren, executive director of AVAC, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, which pushes for vaccines and other forms of prevention, was enthusiastic about the trial data.

?Wow,? he said. ?This is a hugely exciting and, frankly, unexpected result. It changes our thinking in ways we hadn?t anticipated.?

?We often talk about whether a vaccine is even possible,? he added. ?This is not the vaccine that ends the epidemic and says, ?O.K., let?s move on to something else.? But it?s a fabulous new step that takes us in a new direction.?

Mr. Warren said the finding showed the need for large human trials, expensive as they are. Studies in mice and monkeys have not been good at predicting what would work in people, and small human trials in which researchers test results by looking for antibodies in blood have limited value.

Dr. Fauci agreed.

?This is not the endgame,? he said. ?This is the beginning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09...esearch/25aids.html?hp

This is a huge step in the right direction in that they might have finally found an approach that confers at least some protection. It will be interesting to see if they can determine how the vaccine is protecting the person and raise the effectiveness.

That's very good news.
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Wait a second.

Does anybody else have issues with how they figured that 31% protection rate? Because x out of the control/placebo group got infected, then that means that x of the experimental group also should be infected? So, then since only y of the experimental group got infected then that means that (x-y)/x=% of people this worked on? Ummm

This is great news, and obviously needs to be studied more in depth. That said though, I don't know if I would say the vaccine worked on 31% of people though. It seems like the most you could say is that it could have worked, and x were infected in control group and y in test group but until this is explored it's not a "success" quite yet.

I hope that it really did work 31% of the time though, because at least then scientists have somewhere to pour their efforts into that should hopefully produce 80+% protection rates.
 

Ronstang

Lifer
Jul 8, 2000
12,493
18
81
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Wait a second.

Does anybody else have issues with how they figured that 31% protection rate? Because x out of the control/placebo group got infected, then that means that x of the experimental group also should be infected? So, then since only y of the experimental group got infected then that means that (x-y)/x=% of people this worked on? Ummm

This is great news, and obviously needs to be studied more in depth. That said though, I don't know if I would say the vaccine worked on 31% of people though. It seems like the most you could say is that it could have worked, and x were infected in control group and y in test group but until this is explored it's not a "success" quite yet.

I hope that it really did work 31% of the time though, because at least then scientists have somewhere to pour their efforts into that should hopefully produce 80+% protection rates.

It is nice to see I was not the only one thinking this upon reading the article. It seems the modern scientific method has been modified since I was in school.
 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
How can they even test the vaccine ethically? Infecting everyone and seeing who catches HIV isn't exactly ethical.
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,150
12,811
136
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
How can they even test the vaccine ethically? Infecting everyone and seeing who catches HIV isn't exactly ethical.

That's why they had a 16000 person sample size. Give half a placebo and the other half the vaccine. Counsel both groups on HIV prevention. Take regular tests to see who becomes infected. They're not intentionally infecting people. They are performing a double-blind study using a placebo and a potential vaccine. It's probably as ethical as you can get for something like this.
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
Wonder if the religious right is going to get in the way of this one like they did the HPV vaccine because it could promote non-abstinence, you know, while young girls died of cervical cancer.
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,150
12,811
136
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Wonder if the religious right is going to get in the way of this one like they did the HPV vaccine because it could promote non-abstinence, you know, while young girls died of cervical cancer.

But an HIV/AIDS vaccine will encourage promiscuous sex among the young!!!!! Someone please think of the children!

I'll be sticking my head in the sand over there if you need me.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
HIV/AIDS is an amazing virus. Not saying that meaning it is great that it exist, but reading up on how it works it really is amazing that something so small can be so creative in how it infects someone. If you read on how it infects cells it really makes you wonder how something like that comes into existence. Any vaccine even if 1% is worth it. Something is better than nothing !


HIV actually imbeds itself in the DNA of the bloodstream. Its genetic code becomes part of the host in such a way that it is inseparable from it. It is no longer a foreign object floating around in the blood, ready to be harpooned like a whale or swatted like a fly. Instead, it is really part of the person.

The HIV virus contains RNA. RNA stands for ribonucleic acid. All cells of any kind contain RNA. HIV RNA contains the genetic code of the HIV virus. After HIV infects human cells, its genetic information, as found in its RNA, is transcribed into the DNA of the human host. As a result, the HIV RNA takes over the machinery of its human host cell. The host cell is then instructed by the RNA to replicate itself, producing new virus particles. These virus particles then spread to infect new blood cells in the human host.
 

RaistlinZ

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2001
7,470
9
91
Wonder how fast the big drug companies try to shut this down? An AIDS vaccine will mean we won't need to spend billions on AIDS realted drugs and treatment every year.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Wonder if the religious right is going to get in the way of this one like they did the HPV vaccine because it could promote non-abstinence, you know, while young girls died of cervical cancer.

You got a link to this?
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,523
10,955
136
Originally posted by: RaistlinZ
Wonder how fast the big drug companies try to shut this down? An AIDS vaccine will mean we won't need to spend billions on AIDS realted drugs and treatment every year.

Faster than they shut down the "grind up the money into a syringe" solution :)
 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,631
88
91
Originally posted by: Modelworks
HIV/AIDS is an amazing virus. Not saying that meaning it is great that it exist, but reading up on how it works it really is amazing that something so small can be so creative in how it infects someone. If you read on how it infects cells it really makes you wonder how something like that comes into existence. Any vaccine even if 1% is worth it. Something is better than nothing !


HIV actually imbeds itself in the DNA of the bloodstream. Its genetic code becomes part of the host in such a way that it is inseparable from it. It is no longer a foreign object floating around in the blood, ready to be harpooned like a whale or swatted like a fly. Instead, it is really part of the person.

The HIV virus contains RNA. RNA stands for ribonucleic acid. All cells of any kind contain RNA. HIV RNA contains the genetic code of the HIV virus. After HIV infects human cells, its genetic information, as found in its RNA, is transcribed into the DNA of the human host. As a result, the HIV RNA takes over the machinery of its human host cell. The host cell is then instructed by the RNA to replicate itself, producing new virus particles. These virus particles then spread to infect new blood cells in the human host.

There are many viruses that embed themselves in host DNA, and parts of our DNA are likely the remains of old viruses. This is called a provirus and the vast majority of us have them (chicken pox for instance). Zoster will actually remain in a latent state in your DNA until triggered by environmental stimuli that will actually cause it to replicate again, thus causing shingles. HPV is another example.

Strictly speaking, converting from RNA to DNA before integration can be seen as somewhat inefficient. You have to create an extra enzyme (reverse transcriptase) and an extra step must be taken to get DNA as opposed to those viruses that are strictly DNA. However, this can be said to help HIV. Reverse transcriptase has a relatively high error rate when going from RNA to DNA, which means that HIV mutates quickly and can be a hard target for treatment.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: Skoorb
31% is pretty good for starters.

Especially because it was targeted at specific strains. The people who became infected could have been exposed to strains not covered by this test vaccine.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Wait a second.

Does anybody else have issues with how they figured that 31% protection rate?

It's genetics.

Eventually the other 70% will die off and only the genetically immune 30% will evolve.

Watch how quickly the rest of the Drug companies suddenly pop up that they have a vaccine too.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,396
8,559
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Wait a second.

Does anybody else have issues with how they figured that 31% protection rate?

It's genetics.

Eventually the other 70% will die off and only the genetically immune 30% will evolve.

Watch how quickly the rest of the Drug companies suddenly pop up that they have a vaccine too.

:confused:
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Wait a second.

Does anybody else have issues with how they figured that 31% protection rate?

It's genetics.

Eventually the other 70% will die off and only the genetically immune 30% will evolve.

Watch how quickly the rest of the Drug companies suddenly pop up that they have a vaccine too.

:confused:

Glad I'm not the only one ElFenix....
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Wait a second.

Does anybody else have issues with how they figured that 31% protection rate?

It's genetics.

Eventually the other 70% will die off and only the genetically immune 30% will evolve.

Watch how quickly the rest of the Drug companies suddenly pop up that they have a vaccine too.

How has this reject not been taken out to pasture yet? The fact that he was let back on AT surely means several innocent kittens have died.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,525
9,742
136
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It's genetics.

Eventually the other 70% will die off and only the genetically immune 30% will evolve.

Watch how quickly the rest of the Drug companies suddenly pop up that they have a vaccine too.


Do you actually know of anyone who is immune to HIV?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Do you actually know of anyone who is immune to HIV?

Everybody knows either a. only gays get hiv or b. If you stand while having sex you wont get aids or have babies.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It's genetics.

Eventually the other 70% will die off and only the genetically immune 30% will evolve.

Watch how quickly the rest of the Drug companies suddenly pop up that they have a vaccine too.


Do you actually know of anyone who is immune to HIV?

There are people with a genetic mutation that makes them immune. Look up the CCR5 receptor.