[afro-nets] Failure of Vaccine Test Is Setback in AIDS Fight

Cross-posted from: AIDS ASIAaids_asia@yahoogroups.com

The New York Times

September 22, 2007 Saturday, Late Edition - Final

Failure of Vaccine Test Is Setback in AIDS Fight
BYLINE: By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN and ANDREW POLLACK

A much-heralded H.I.V. vaccine has failed to work in a large clinical trial, dealing another serious setback to efforts to stop the AIDS epidemic.

The vaccine's developer, Merck, said yesterday that it had halted test vaccinations after the vaccine failed to prevent infection or reduce the severity of infection among volunteers who became infected during the trial.

The trial was closely watched because experts considered the vaccine one of most promising to be tested on people so far.

This was also the first of a new class of H.I.V. vaccine to get this far in clinical trials. The failure of the vaccine raises questions about whether the new approach will work.

'This was viewed as the most promising strategy,' said Dr. Mark B. Feinberg, a vice president of Merck, 'so I think it is a disappointment for us and a disappointment for everyone in the AIDS vaccine area.'

Dr. Feinberg and others said that the failure reinforced the view that H.I.V. is unlike any infection for which scientists have successfully developed a vaccine.

Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which conducted the trial with Merck, said in an interview that 'the results are obviously disappointing.'

But Dr. Fauci also said it was too soon to draw any broad conclusions about the potential of the new class. Merck said it would share its data with scientists.

Health officials deem development of an H.I.V. vaccine the most important tool they need to control the AIDS pandemic, which rivals the worst in history.

The only H.I.V. vaccine to have undergone full-scale testing was based on the traditional approach of stimulating the immune system to produce antibodies against an infectious agent.

Because that vaccine failed, and similar vaccines also failed in earlier stages of testing, many scientists theorized that AIDS might be controlled by stimulating a different component of the immune system, T cells.

They based their reasoning on the observation that among people infected with H.I.V., those who do well tend to have stronger T-cell responses. So, many scientists held out hope that a vaccine that stimulated a strong T-cell response against H.I.V. in advance would help people stave off an infection.

Experiments on animals and smaller tests on people showed enough promise for Merck to develop and conduct the first large tests of that approach, known as cell-mediated immunity.

The vaccine was made from a weakened version of a common cold virus, which served as a way to deliver three synthetically produced genes from the AIDS virus, known as gag, pol and nef. Three doses of the vaccine were injected over six months.

The trial, which began in late 2004, involved 3,000 uninfected volunteers, largely in the United States and Latin America. The trial was the second of the three-stage system that the Food and Drug Administration typically requires before it licenses any vaccine or drug.

Results of the trial were not expected until the end of 2008 at the earliest. But in its first planned interim analysis of 1,500 volunteers, the board monitoring the trial concluded that it was already obvious the vaccine was not working.

'The results were very clear,' said Dr. Feinberg of Merck.

Among 741 people who received at least one dose of the vaccine, 24 cases of infection were found after volunteers had been followed for about 13 months. That compared with 21 infections out of 762 people who received injections of a dummy vaccine.

Nor did the vaccine reduce the amount of H.I.V. in the blood of those who did get infected, which was a second major goal of the study.

The board advised the investigators, led by Dr. Lawrence Corey of the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, to stop vaccinating volunteers but to continue monitoring them.

Merck is also halting vaccinations in another trial started last year in South Africa.

The latest failure 'is in no way the end of the search for an AIDS vaccine,' the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition said in a statement.

About 30 other H.I.V. vaccines are being tested in people and all work somewhat differently, said Wayne C. Koff, a senior vice president of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative in New York.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, for example, plans to test a vaccine based on genes from the AIDS virus followed with a cold-virus vaccine somewhat similar to Merck's, Dr. Koff said.

In tests on monkeys, this two-step vaccine showed greater effectiveness than the viral-type vaccine alone, he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/22/health/22vaccine.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/22/health/22vaccine.html
--
Claudio Schuftan
mailto:cschuftan@phmovement.org

Another disappointment from the HIV vaccines world that makes male circumcision the attractive alternative, at least for now. With a 60% protection, no vaccine now or in the near future can match male circumcision's efficacy. Let's call it "surgivac" or surgical vaccine

'Dipo

--
Emmanuel Oladipo Otolorin, FRCOG
mailto:eotolorin@jhpiego.net

Dear all,

Why is there so much attention for male circumcision and no attention for the only existing female controlled prevention tool: THE FEMALE
CONDOM? We all know the trend of feminization of AIDS. We all know that relatively more and more women get infected. Why did policy makers and donors never act on introducing the female condom on a big scale? I quote George Brown: "The female condom engenders negative initial responses on the part of many donors, programme managers and providers, who IGNORE more positive acceptability studies and the few successful country experiences" (G. Brown et al., Planning for microbicide access in developing countries: Lessons from the introduction of contraceptive technologies, July 2007).

One reason: grassroots women have no say in this world.

If you are interested to read about a power analysis on the female condom, please contact mailto:anny.peters@oxfamnovib.nl The report is called "A matter of choice rather than noise",

With kind regards,
Anny

--
Anny Peters
mailto:Anny.Peters@oxfamnovib.nl

About a month ago Anny Peters asked why there is so much excitement about Male Circumcision compared to the female condom. The excitement about Male Circumcision (MC) stems from the fact that, following one minor surgical procedure, a man's risk of acquiring HIV will be reduced by 60% for the rest of his life. Scaling up MC has the potential to prevent millions of new HIV infections among men, women and children, and to begin to bring the epidemic under control in the hardest hit countries of East and Southern Africa.

Male and female condoms are of course very effective if they are used consistently and correctly. However they require a consistent supply to the most remote areas as well as (and this is the really difficult part) an ongoing commitment to use them consistently and correctly. While female condoms are technically a female-controlled method, anyone who has seen, let alone used, a female condom knows that they can not be utilized without the knowledge or consent of the male partner. If and when it becomes available, a microbicide may be able to be used in secret, but still presents the same challenge of needing to be applied correctly before each and every sex act.

East and Southern Africa has a mature, generalized HIV epidemic, fueled by high rates of concurrent partnerships and low male circumcision prevalence. At this point in the epidemic, most transmission events in the region do not take place in the context of commercial or even casual sex, but rather, among people in relatively stable (but not always monogamous) relationships. And we have a wealth of evidence from around the world to show that while many people are willing to use condoms for commercial or casual sex, most people do not and will not use them with their regular partners in any kind of consistent way. Condoms are a great technology and have no doubt done a great deal to contain the spread of HIV in concentrated epidemic settings, but it is naïve to expect condoms, whether male or female, to reverse a mature, generalized epidemic like the one in East and Southern Africa.

I recognize that MC is not a "magic bullet". It is only 60% protective, and it is very important that men, women, parents and communities understand that circumcised men can and do become HIV infected. Circumcised men still need to use other prevention measures, such as partner reduction (particularly avoiding concurrent partnerships) and male or female condoms. However, MC represents the first "new" tool to be added to our prevention toolkit, and the current status of the vaccine and microbicide trials suggests it may be a long, long time before we get another new prevention tool. MC may not be perfect, but it is one of the few evidence-based prevention strategies that we have.

To paraphrase my colleague Emmanuel 'Dipo Otolorin, if we had an HIV vaccine that was 60% protective we would not be having any debates or discussions about whether to scale it up. The donors would be falling over themselves in their haste to fund the roll-out of the vaccine and someone would likely be getting the Nobel Prize for Medicine.

Ironically, we already have an HIV vaccine that is 60% protective. It just comes in the form of a surgery rather than a shot. History will judge us if we fail to scale up MC because we were waiting for a vaccine or we were hoping that people would start to use condoms more often. Let's implement this proven intervention before we lose another generation to the epidemic.

Kelly

--
Kelly Curran
Technical Director, HIV/AIDS and Infectious Diseases
JHPIEGO--an Affiliate of Johns Hopkins University
1615 Thames St.
Baltimore, MD 21231
Tel: +1.410.537.1820
Fax: +1.410.537.1477
mailto:kcurran@jhpiego.net
http://www.jhpiego.org