A world first: Vaccine helps prevent HIV infection

[XemaSab]

Source: SFGate

For the first time, an experimental vaccine has prevented infection with the AIDS virus, a watershed event in the deadly epidemic and a surprising result. Recent failures led many scientists to think such a vaccine might never be possible.

The vaccine cut the risk of becoming infected with HIV by more than 31 percent in the world's largest AIDS vaccine trial of more than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand, researchers announced Thursday in Bangkok.

Even though the benefit is modest, "it's the first evidence that we could have a safe and effective preventive vaccine," Col. Jerome Kim said in a telephone interview. He helped lead the study for the U.S. Army, which sponsored it with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The institute's director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, warned that this is "not the end of the road," but said he was surprised and very pleased by the outcome.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/09/23/international/i224743D59.DTL&tsp=1

---

In some ways this is good news, and in some way this is bad news.

If people get the vaccine and think they are protected, they will probably be more likely to engage in risky behavior. :(

[Mithreal]

1. Promising, if the results can be repeated.

"New infections occurred in 51 of the 8,197 given vaccine and in 74 of the 8,198 who received dummy shots."

[Nihil]

10. Really?

The difference between an infection rate of 0.6% and an infection rate of 0.9%
would seem to be well inside the noise level - especially considering that
there would be an unknown effect due to behavioural modification across both
groups who received the injection ...

:shrug:

Just struck me as not particularly promising at all ... just another justification
for sticking the hand out to tap some more of the AIDS funding gravy train ...

[customerserviceguy]

13. That's what I thought, too

This is nearly insignificant, statistically.

[Time for change]

15. It's statistically significant at p=.04

Only about one chance in 25 that such a difference could occur by chance. Only one chance in 50 that such a difference could occur by chance in favor of the treatment group.

[Nihil]

22. And the other point?

>> ... especially considering that there would be an unknown effect
>> due to behavioural modification across both groups who received
>> the injection ...

Care to estimate the effect on someone's behaviour after they have
received an "AIDS vaccine" (whether real or placebo)?

Would this make them aware of the risk and so be cautious?
Would it make them less active?
Would it even make them more active but more selective?
More active and less selective?

Now balance the impact of the change in behaviour against the chance
of the "vaccine" being the only cause for the difference (never mind
any other factors that may have been tolerated at a certain level)?

(PS: I was used to something becoming "statistically significant"
at p=.05 or is that only in some fields?)

[stray cat]

24. Statistically p<.04 is better than p<.05 - lower is better

[Nihil]

30. Thanks!

It's too long since I did stats ...

The figure of 5% had just stuck in my mind as being the default
for "becoming significant" so I went off on a tangent.

Sorry. :blush:

[Time for change]

28. Why would there be a behavioral effect compared to the placebos?

The controls were given placebos, and they were randomized. There is no reason to suspect that their behavior would be any different than those who were given the real vaccine.

With regard to increasing a person's risk by changing their behavior in a riskier direction, that's a possibility with any vaccine. It may or may not be an actual problem, but it seems to me that the vaccine would have a net positive effect.

[stray cat]

23. 96% chance it had a small contribution - but the efficacy for it as a vaccine stinks

[Time for change]

27. The efficacy isn't so bad

Preventing 23 cases of a fatal disease with a little over 8 thousand vaccinations is not a bad deal at all -- assuming that the vaccine itself doesn't have some real serious side effects. And anyhow, this may be just a start, towards developing more efficacious vaccines.

[cosmicone]

32. In other news ....

8000 people smoking Marlboros were compared with 8000 people smoking Winstons.

Of the Marlboro group, 51 got lung cancer. Of the Winston group, 74 got lung cancer.

This conclusively proves that Marlboro is a safe cigarette.

:sarcasm:

[kestrel91316]

43. Beats hell out of ZERO efficacy, which is what you get if you do nothing.

The people who DIDN'T get AIDS (and die) probably would disagree with you, too.

[LeftishBrit]

2. Encouraging news.

[harry_pothead]

3. Awesome news.

[TheWraith]

4. Helps, maybe, could... too many weasel words.

Sounds like somebody rushed into the press release before they really did the REST of the science.

[Heidi]

5. Recommended.

:kick:

[Fearless]

6. Anything is better than nothing. It's a step in the right direction.

[Solly Mack]

7. R

[Ken Burch]

8. If Jesse Helms were alive, he'd have made sure this vaccine was banned.

n/t.

[closeupready]

39. Actually, much as I hated him, that is unfair. He expressed regret for

his actions later on in his life, and actually lobbied for more foreign aid to help those with AIDS in Africa and elsewhere.

[barbtries]

9. this is excellent news

people are people, and they will engage vaccine or no vaccine.

[dotymed]

11. Great news

I hope they are able to refine the vaccine and get a much
higher protection rate.  Unfortunately, after all of the
government money used in this discovery, all of the huge
amounts of profits will go to a corporate owned pharma
company.Imagine how easily we could pay for Universal
Healthcare, if our government shared in the profit (or got it
all) after funding the vaccine.

[Haole Girl]

12. This is very good news. nt

[Pharlo]

14. Conclusions sound suspicious to me.

They have no way of knowing if the group given the 'vaccine' were just used greater preventive measures than the control group.

In my opinion, too many uncontolled factors combined with too low of a significant decline in new cases to be making a 'successful vaccine' claim.

[Time for change]

16. These experimental clinical studies are randomized

By randomizing the two groups you ensure that the likelihood of uncontrolled factors differing substantially between them is very low.

[pinto]

17. kick

:kick:

[schmuls]

18. I am really dense at 8 am, but I read that the virus was altered so

that it could not cause an HIV infection in the volunteers and then later on in the article, it said that some of the volunteers did get an infection. What am I missing?

[TZ]

20. Nothing. It is only 30% effective BUT its still the most effective

vaccine in research to date..Oh and its a combination of TWO different vaccines which is a totally new approach to HIV and vaccine development. Which is why this is SO interesting. New ways of thinking about therapies are always positive.

[Ms. Toad]

33. The vaccine didn't cause the infection

Exposure to HIV through other means did (sexual activity, shared needles, etc.)

[LynneSin]

19. Just imagine if Reagan helped fund research back in the 80s instead of ignoring it

How many lives would have been saved?

Just another reason why Reagan is 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times worse than Bush

[TZ]

21. XemaSab

That argument about a vaccine making people more likely to engage in risky behavior is why the right is so anti-HPV vaccine. I am surprised to hear anybody parrot that argument here. Vaccines for other infectious diseases don't encourage "risky behavior". Why would an HIV vaccine do so?

[PHIMG]

25. Very right-wing conclusion there that the OP makes

Same thing the fundies are saying about Gaurdasil (the HPV/Cervical Cancer Vaccine)

[Barack_America]

26. Cut infections by only 31.2%

Unfortunately that's not good enough to release this to the product. A vaccine expected to fail 70% of the time is insufficient and dangerous.

However, this is a tremendous leap forward towards discovery of "THE" vaccine.

[kestrel91316]

44. How is it "dangerous", lol??? Doing NOTHING is what is dangerous.

When we first got a vaccine against Feline Leukemia Virus, it was a pretty crappy one, but it beat hell out of no vaccine at all.

Of course now, 25 years later, we have an excellent and very safe FeLV vaccine that is about 99% effective. It took time and a great deal of research to make it to where we are, but we had to start someplace. Think about how many cats would have died if FeLV vaccines had been withheld until now because they weren't good enough per some arbitrary criteria.......

[JonQ]

29. A good start

but it may make things worse.

When people think vaccines they generally think they are safe from that disease. But this seems to offer a minor reduction at best. We've reduced new AIDS cases substantially by making people terrified of the disease and educating them on prevention. If they think there's a cure that could undo all that work.

[mike_c]

31. if they're protected, the behavior isn't risky anymore, right...?

Unless it risks different consequences, but that's a different matter.

[XemaSab]

34. There are other STD's

and also, the vaccine does not provide 100% protection.

Why are you not my FB friend? :cry:

[DireStrike]

35. At every vaccination, the recipient should be counseled

There are a plethora of other temporary, permanant, uncomfortable and sometimes deadly and incurable STDs.

Also unplanned pregnancy is a bad thing.

[A R S]

36. Watch the wingnuts complain

about how the vaccine doesn't work and that gays aren't human and blah blah blah...

[McCamy Taylor]

37. Should not replace safe sex and workplace practices, but might help healthcare workers

cut down their risk of getting HIV accidentally.

[FarLeftFist]

38. WTF WHO VOLUNTEERED FOR THAT TRIAL?!

THOSE OTHER 70% ARE PROBABLY PRETTY PISSED OFF RIGHT ABOUT NOW.

[closeupready]

40. They were all counseled about safe sex and the importance of practicing it.

n/t

[kestrel91316]

45. You must be VERY young to understand so very little about randomized trials.

So I'll forgive you for sounding like a complete idiot.

[closeupready]

41. Some people are such scumbags. On another board, someone posted dismay at this development,

saying that this would mean more people to feed in Africa and more foreign aid $$$ towards that end.

:puke: :puke: :mad:

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. Where is the anti-vax crowd they are usually out in force?