Slashdot Log In
First Phase of AIDS Vaccine Trials Successful
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sun Aug 20, 2006 03:57 PM
from the baby-steps dept.
from the baby-steps dept.
rbarreira writes "Xinhua online is reporting on the success of the first trial phase of an AIDS vaccine, which was started on March 2005. From the article: '"Forty-nine healthy people who received the injection showed no severe adverse reactions after 180 days, proving the vaccine was safe," said Zhang Wei, head of the pharmaceutical registration department of the SFDA. "The recipients appeared immune to the HIV-1 virus 15 days after the injection, indicating the vaccine worked well in stimulating the body's immunity," he told the press conference.' After the results are further analyzed, 800 more voluntaries may be needed for the second and third phases of the vaccine's trial."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
49 people + 180 days = proof?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, success is good, but...
This is not proof. It isn't even close to it.
How long was Fen Phen tested? Thimerosal? RotaShield? Whoops.
I hope that this does work but stating that the vaccine has been prooven safe is very misleading.
Re:49 people + 180 days = proof?? (Score:5, Informative)
Drug trials go through three phases, the first of which consists of a very small number of subjects. It's essentially the first time the drug is used on humans and to see it doesn't have immediate, obvious side effects not observed in animal trials. The 2nd and 3rd phases continue to monitor safety while attempting to determine the efficacy of the drug.
Keep in mind, that a lot of the recalled drugs, such as the COX2 inhibitors like Vioxx, don't show negative side effects until your trial goes into hundreds or thousands of subjects. And even then, the drugs are continually monitored after their release to look for effects that might be present only in 0.1% even or 0.001% of the population
Parent
Re:49 people + 180 days = proof?? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference between a vaccine and a cure. If you could cure someone of AIDS and give their immediate descendants of some minor birth defects, that might be worthwhile. But a vaccination is something that would be given to everyone in order to prevent them from getting HIV in the first place. This being the case, birth defects are definitely not an acceptable consequence.
Parent
Re:49 people + 180 days = proof?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to the gay community.
Parent
Re:49 people + 180 days = proof?? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:49 people + 180 days = proof?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you! Finally, someone who gets it.
I'm a lesbian. I also have an immune system/skin condition called psoriasis. I've spent the last eight years fighting with different doctors for the chance to try new treatments when they become available.
"This drug causes birth defects so women of child-bearing age..."
"I'm a lesbian."
"Yes, but while you are of child-bearing age I'm not comfortable prescribing..."
"Lesbian. Leeeeeeeeesbian."
"Yes, I understand, but while there is a possibility of your becoming pregnant..."
Certain rules do not apply to certain groups. I wish more medical doctors had the reasoning capacity that you have.
Parent
Re:49 people + 180 days = proof?? (Score:5, Informative)
The reason for the doctors hesitation to prescribe you the experimental medicin is due to their danger of being liable for the side effects of those drugs that have not been officially aproved by the FDA, even if you acknowledge the danger of said effects.
Go talk to a lawyer and have him/her/it draft a letter of legal absolution from liability which you can offer the reluctant doctors in exchange for their cooperation.
Basically, they are just covering their own asses when they are denying you those drugs. Good luck.
Also, I think that the slashdotting community would probably not be adverse to you writing down some of your romantic exploits. In fact that's probably what the slashdot's journal was made for: Hot lesbian love ;-)
Parent
Re:49 people + 180 days = proof?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
pool's closed (Score:5, Funny)
HIV (Score:5, Insightful)
All it takes is one night in the wrong club at the wrong time and no matter what kind of protection you have -- it could be too late.
Re:HIV (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
First Phase of AIDS Vaccine Trials Successful (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First Phase of AIDS Vaccine Trials Successful (Score:5, Funny)
"I dunno how much AIDS scare y'all, but I got a theory - the day they come out with a cure for AIDS. Guaranteed, one-shot cure. On that day, there's gonna be fucking in the streets, man. It's over! Who're you? C'mere! What's your name, baby? No, it's over, yeah, woo-hoo! Man, if you can't get laid on that day, cut it off."
-- Bill Hicks
Parent
Re:First Phase of AIDS Vaccine Trials Successful (Score:5, Funny)
I felt a disturbance in the force. It is as if the fantasies of millions of slashdotters were suddenly silenced.
Parent
Lack of information (Score:5, Insightful)
The actual press release is more cautious than the excerpt that is quoted here; describing the result of the trials as saying that the vaccine is "safe and possibly effective." Apparently there were no ill effects, and if I interpret the text correctly, they detected antibodies against whatever these people were injected with. Which does not prove at all that the vaccine could be effective, because the envelope proteins of HIV are so variable that buidling up immunity is enormously difficult. However, it is probably as much as one could reasonably hope for in this first phase of trials.
That said, there is nothing in this press release to suggest that this vaccine trial will have a better outcome than the series of failed trials that have already preceded it. Mainly because there is very little information in this press release at all. Obviously, it was written by someone who did not have a clue about the science behind the trials; you can't tell from this what the vaccine consists of and how it is supposed to work. More worryingly, the "director of the National Institute for the Control of Pharmaceutical and Biological Products" is quoted as saying that "The HIV-1 specific cells injected into the recipients were the DNA fragments of the virus which don't cause infection." Which is nonsensical enough to suggest that the aforementioned director, who held the press conference, doesn't have a clue either. Probably he is more remarkable for his political skills than his medical ability.
But maybe these Chinese researchers are on the right track -- who knows? A vaccine against HIV is very much needed, and the hope that we will be able to create one seems to shrink with every new failure.
HIV test (Score:5, Insightful)
For the non-biologists: vaccines are often based on exposing the body to a protein from the virus (but not the entire virus). In doing so, the body produces antibodies that recognize the protein. The next time the body sees the protein (i.e. when exposed to the actual virus), the body will be able to quickly destroy the virus particles before the person becomes infected.
However, a lot of tests for viral infection is based on the presence of the antibodies in blood. So, if the person has been immunized using the vaccine, the person will have those antibodies in blood, and it becomes difficult to tell whether the antibodies came as a result of vaccination or infection.
Re:HIV test (Score:5, Informative)
There are quite a few different tests for HIV - you're right, the primary test is antibody-related (a quick-n-dirty relative of the Western blot, followed up by an actual high-precision blot if the initial screening turns up positive), but there are alternatives based on testing for the actual genes.
In a nutshell, the sample is combined with a set of enzymes and primers that will replicate only a specific stretch of DNA (in this case, the HIV genome). If there is HIV in the blood, you'll end up with a lot of HIV DNA around the place, which you can then test for with fluorescent probes or something similar.
This type of method would not be affected by anything your immune system does, as it tests directly for the presence of the virus.
There's a list of the available tests, and a bunch of other information - mostly aimed at patients - here [hivtest.org].
Parent
Hats off to those brave test subjects (Score:5, Insightful)
For the equivalent of $250.
Damn.
Re:Proof of Immunity? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:49? (Score:5, Funny)
Pssst, there were 150 participants, but 101 of them died.
Parent
Re:Duck and Cover (Score:4, Informative)
The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS [nih.gov]
HTH. IHBT. HAND.
Parent
Re:Duck and Cover (Score:4, Interesting)
Could someone with more insight please explain why there are scientists who deny there's a link?
Parent
Re:Doesn't it take a little longer? (Score:5, Informative)
I would suggest they probably tried introducing HIV into a blood sample of the patient, and tried to see how successful HIV was in reproducing. If it can reproduce well in "normal" blood, but badly in the blood of the patient, that's a reasonable indication that they're immune.
Parent
Re:But I thought... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, that's not really the case. HIV actually replicates very quickly after infection. Even though one may not show symptoms for many years, that's unusual. Most people develop the first symptoms within weeks of getting the virus. But with or without symptoms, signs of the virus can be found very quickly, particularly in the lymphatic system.
Do not confuse HIV infection and symptoms with AIDS. One isn't considered to have AIDS until their T-Cell count falls below 200 cells per uL. This is usually the point where the person starts developing the kinds of diseases that normally don't affect healthy people. Before that point, you still has a tendency to get sick from a number of more common illnesses.
Parent
Re:Umm ... (Score:5, Insightful)
What about blood transfusions, broken condoms, infected partners that picked it up via adultery, rape victims and dumb kids who don't know any better (since we don't teach them safe sex, and they're too hormoned-up not to fuck)? That doesn't even get into the mess over in Africa. Are you seriously prepared to condemn every single infected person simply due to the fact that many of the dying got that way from carelessness?
An ounch of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That doesn't mean however that you can always prevent bad things from happening, or that we shouldn't care enough to try and find a cure.
And by the way, your arguement can be twisted for just about anything. Why should we try to develop a cure for cancer? Those people should have known to get themselves checked up (many cancers can be detected early, via screening, thereby removing the need for any miracle cure), and should have known to avoid carcinogens (do you check everything you eat?). Yet to take that stance both condemns people for honest mistakes, and condemns the blamelessly unlucky along with the careless by denying them a cure as well.
Parent