aidsvax flop leaves vaccine field unscathed

1
376 NATURE MEDICINE VOLUME 9 NUMBER 4 APRIL 2003 NEWS HIV vaccine researchers have known for years that VaxGen’s AIDSVAX, and oth- ers like it, have little chance of inducing antibodies that can neutralize HIV. Some have instead chosen to investigate vac- cines that, rather than prevent infection, induce a cellular immune response to de- stroy infected cells. As a few of those alternatives inch to- ward phase 3 trials, however, many sci- entists 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 approach—a 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 vac- cine 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 featur- ing a DNA prime and a recombinant poxvirus booster. None of the trials are expected to begin before late 2003 or 2004; candi- dates 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 re- sponse. More recently, Harvard re- searchers reported that three of four monkeys treated with a promising DNA vaccine have died due to viral break- through. 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 response—as the so- lution, there is little evidence to support that premise. “Intuitively we say we need a combi- nation,” 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.” Tinker Ready, Boston When California-based VaxGen an- nounced in February that its HIV vaccine was ineffective in a majority of trial par- ticipants, few researchers in the field were surprised. “All the animal studies pointed that way and even the phase 2 trials…suggested that it wouldn’t work out—and it didn’t,” says Dennis Burton (see page 380), professor of immunol- ogy at Scripps Research Institute. The vaccine, which was directed against the gp120 envelope protein, elicited neither neutralizing anti- bodies (see page 380) nor a cellular immune response, Burton notes. “The science community is pretty angry by now because I think it was a pretty clear failure,” he says. But with those results, VaxGen also revealed the tantalizing possi- bility that the vaccine conferred 78% protection in African- Americans and 67% protection in a group composed of African-Americans, Asians and other minorities. Skeptical scientists were ready with sharp pencils. Bette Korber of Los Alamos National Laboratory questions how VaxGen de- rived the P (significance) value for African-Americans and the grouped mi- norities. “If you move the African [Americans] out, you’re left with Asians and ‘others’ and [the results are] not sig- nificant,” she says. In response to press reports question- ing its statistical analysis, the company issued a statement saying, “the re- sults…remain accurate as stated, and the analysis continues.” But Jim Key, VaxGen’s director of communications, now says the data have not been ad- justed for multi-group analysis. Key says the next step is to find a bio- logical explanation for the mixed results. Asked why the company went public with incomplete data analysis, Key says that VaxGen, a publicly traded com- pany, was in a difficult position. Once the data were initially unblinded, he says, the company had to protect the in- formation from leaking out for fear it would influence stock trading. The initial announcement of trial results was fol- lowed by an immediate drop in VaxGen’s share price from about $10 to around $4. Is it possible that a vaccine could se- lectively protect African-Americans? Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) geno- types could certainly affect both the transmission and cure of certain dis- eases, says Keith Crawford, director of clinical research at Howard University’s School of Pharmacy. But Crawford and others are reserving further judgment until they see a detailed analysis. “[VaxGen] should tell people what they’ve done,” says Korber. “They should explain it to us.” Myrna E. Watanabe, New York All subjects White & Hispanic Black, Asian, other combined Black Total Infected at end of trial Percentage who became infected 1,679 3,330 1,508 3,003 171 327 111 203 98 191 81 179 17 12 9 4 5.8% 5.7% Placebo Vaccine 5.4 6.0 9.9 3.7 8.1 2.0 AIDSVAX flop leaves vaccine field unscathed Source: VaxGen, Inc. Skeptical scientists skewer VaxGen statistics © 2003 Nature Publishing Group http://www.nature.com/naturemedicine

Upload: tinker

Post on 23-Jul-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: AIDSVAX flop leaves vaccine field unscathed

376 NATURE MEDICINE • VOLUME 9 • NUMBER 4 • APRIL 2003

NEWS

HIV vaccine researchers have known foryears that VaxGen’s AIDSVAX, and oth-ers like it, have little chance of inducingantibodies that can neutralize HIV. Somehave instead chosen to investigate vac-cines that, rather than prevent infection,induce a cellular immune response to de-stroy infected cells.

As a few of those alternatives inch to-ward phase 3 trials, however, many sci-entists now say that a combination ofthe two approaches offers the best shotat preventing HIV infection.

“The Holy Grail is a candidate that willgive you a robust cell-mediated response,together with the neutralizing antibodiesthat can recognize and defend against awide range of primary isolates,” saysAnthony Fauci, director of the USNational Institute of Allergy andInfectious Diseases (NIAID).

Not long ago, there were so few vaccinecandidates that keeping track of themwas an easy task, says Scott Hammer,chief of the Division of InfectiousDiseases at Columbia PresbyterianMedical Center in New York. “Now it’s achallenge to compress [the information]into a few minutes,” he says.

Many of the new candidates are basedon the prime-boost approach—a DNA orvector vaccine to destroy infected cellsfollowed by a subunit-based vaccine toinduce antibodies. Hammer cites fourpotential vaccines that are likely to makeup the next wave of clinical trials:Merck’s adenovirus vaccine; a DNA vac-cine with a modified vaccinia Ankaraboost, sponsored by the InternationalAIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI); an NIAIDtrial of the Aventis canarypox vaccine;and an Emory University vaccine featur-ing a DNA prime and a recombinantpoxvirus booster.

None of the trials are expected tobegin before late 2003 or 2004; candi-dates face formidable obstacles such asviral diversity and the recently describedpotential for superinfection. In themeantime, Hammer says, scientists needa better way to predict which candidateswill prevent infections in humans. “It’sgoing to be a while before we have truehuman correlates of infection,” he says.“It’s absolutely what we need to push thevaccine forward.”

The path to a vaccine is littered withabandoned candidates. Last year, NIAIDcancelled one phase 3 study of theALVAC canarypox vaccine when it failed

to induce a powerful enough immune re-sponse. More recently, Harvard re-searchers reported that three of fourmonkeys treated with a promising DNAvaccine have died due to viral break-through.

Researchers now know there are at leastsix human antibodies that can broadlyneutralize HIV. Members of IAVI’sNeutralizing Antibody Consortium saythey have determined the structures ofthree of those. But retracing the steps tofind the immunogens that can elicitthose antibodies has been difficult, atbest.

Although nearly everyone in the fieldnow points to a cocktail of vaccines—which would induce both antibodies andthe cellular immune response—as the so-lution, there is little evidence to supportthat premise.

“Intuitively we say we need a combi-nation,” says Wayne Koff, IAVI’s vicepresident for research and development,but proof of that principle has yet to beestablished. Asked how long an effectiveAIDS vaccine is likely to take, researchersstill offer a now-familiar estimate: “fiveyears.”

Tinker Ready, Boston

When California-based VaxGen an-nounced in February that its HIV vaccinewas ineffective in a majority of trial par-ticipants, few researchers in the fieldwere surprised. “All the animal studiespointed that way and even the phase 2trials…suggested that it wouldn’t workout—and it didn’t,” says Dennis Burton(see page 380), professor of immunol-ogy at Scripps Research Institute.

The vaccine, which was directedagainst the gp120 envelope protein,elicited neither neutralizing anti-bodies (see page 380) nor a cellularimmune response, Burton notes.“The science community is prettyangry by now because I think it wasa pretty clear failure,” he says.

But with those results, VaxGenalso revealed the tantalizing possi-bility that the vaccine conferred78% protection in African-Americans and 67% protection in agroup composed of African-Americans,Asians and other minorities. Skepticalscientists were ready with sharp pencils.

Bette Korber of Los Alamos NationalLaboratory questions how VaxGen de-rived the P (significance) value forAfrican-Americans and the grouped mi-norities. “If you move the African[Americans] out, you’re left with Asiansand ‘others’ and [the results are] not sig-nificant,” she says.

In response to press reports question-ing its statistical analysis, the companyissued a statement saying, “the re-sults…remain accurate as stated, andthe analysis continues.” But Jim Key,VaxGen’s director of communications,now says the data have not been ad-

justed for multi-group analysis.Key says the next step is to find a bio-

logical explanation for the mixed results.Asked why the company went publicwith incomplete data analysis, Key saysthat VaxGen, a publicly traded com-pany, was in a difficult position. Oncethe data were initially unblinded, hesays, the company had to protect the in-formation from leaking out for fear itwould influence stock trading. The initialannouncement of trial results was fol-

lowed by an immediate drop inVaxGen’s share price from about $10 toaround $4.

Is it possible that a vaccine could se-lectively protect African-Americans?Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) geno-types could certainly affect both thetransmission and cure of certain dis-eases, says Keith Crawford, director ofclinical research at Howard University’sSchool of Pharmacy. But Crawford andothers are reserving further judgmentuntil they see a detailed analysis.“[VaxGen] should tell people whatthey’ve done,” says Korber. “Theyshould explain it to us.”

Myrna E. Watanabe, New York

All subjects

White & Hispanic

Black, Asian,other combined

Black

TotalInfected atend of trial Percentage who became infected

1,6793,330

1,5083,003

171327

111203

98191

81179

1712

94

5.8%5.7%

Placebo

Vaccine

5.46.0

9.93.7

8.12.0

AIDSVAX flop leaves vaccine field unscathed

Sour

ce: V

axG

en, I

nc.

Skeptical scientists skewer VaxGen statistics

NW-nm0403.qxd 3/18/03 10:09 AM Page 376

©20

03 N

atu

re P

ub

lish

ing

Gro

up

h

ttp

://w

ww

.nat

ure

.co

m/n

atu

rem

edic

ine