doi:10.1038/nm0403-376a
April 2003 Volume 9 Number 4 p 376
AIDSVAX flop leaves vaccine field unscathed
Tinker
Ready
Boston
HIV vaccine researchers have known for years that VaxGen's AIDSVAX, and
others like it, have little chance of inducing antibodies that can
neutralize HIV. Some have instead chosen to investigate vaccines that,
rather than prevent infection, induce a cellular immune response to destroy
infected cells.
As a few of those alternatives inch toward phase 3 trials, however, many
scientists now say that a combination of the two approaches offers the best
shot at preventing HIV infection.
"The Holy Grail is a candidate that will give you a robust cell-mediated
response, together with the neutralizing antibodies that can recognize and
defend against a wide range of primary isolates," says Anthony Fauci,
director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
Not long ago, there were so few vaccine candidates that keeping track of
them was an easy task, says Scott Hammer, chief of the Division of
Infectious Diseases at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York.
"Now it's a challenge to compress [the information] into a few minutes," he
says.
Many of the new candidates are based on the prime-boost approacha DNA or
vector vaccine to destroy infected cells followed by a subunit-based vaccine
to induce antibodies. Hammer cites four potential vaccines that are likely
to make up the next wave of clinical trials: Merck's adenovirus vaccine; a
DNA vaccine with a modified vaccinia Ankara boost, sponsored by the
International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI); an NIAID trial of the Aventis
canarypox vaccine; and an Emory University vaccine featuring a DNA prime and
a recombinant poxvirus booster.
None of the trials are expected to begin before late 2003 or 2004;
candidates face formidable obstacles such as viral diversity and the
recently described potential for superinfection. In the meantime, Hammer
says, scientists need a better way to predict which candidates will prevent
infections in humans. "It's going to be a while before we have true human
correlates of infection," he says. "It's absolutely what we need to push the
vaccine forward."
The path to a vaccine is littered with abandoned candidates. Last year,
NIAID cancelled one phase 3 study of the ALVAC canarypox vaccine when it
failed to induce a powerful enough immune response. More recently, Harvard
researchers reported that three of four monkeys treated with a promising DNA
vaccine have died due to viral breakthrough.
Researchers now know there are at least six human antibodies that can
broadly neutralize HIV. Members of IAVI's Neutralizing Antibody Consortium
say they have determined the structures of three of those. But retracing the
steps to find the immunogens that can elicit those antibodies has been
difficult, at best.
Although nearly everyone in the field now points to a cocktail of
vaccines which would induce both antibodies and the cellular immune
responseas the solution, there is little evidence to support that premise.
"Intuitively we say we need a combination," says Wayne Koff, IAVI's vice
president for research and development, but proof of that principle has yet
to be established. Asked how long an effective AIDS vaccine is likely to
take, researchers still offer a now-familiar estimate: "five years."