By Todd Zwillich
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
March 25, 2008 -- The recent failure of the most promising
HIV vaccine ever developed has scientists taking stock and wondering where
to go next.
After more than 20 years of research, answers to that
question are scarce.
"We have to admit to ourselves that we don't know how to
make an HIV vaccine right now," said Beatrice H. Hahn, MD, a microbiologist
at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Hahn spoke in front of hundreds of researchers gathered in
Bethesda, Md., to try to brainstorm ideas for finding a vaccine for HIV; the
virus has killed 25 million people worldwide and now infects an estimated 33
million, according the World Health Organization.
The meeting comes several months after the drug company
Merck announced it was halting human trials of its experimental HIV vaccine.
Not only did the vaccine not work to prevent infection, but it also didn't
reduce the amount of virus in people who became infected; there were also
indications suggesting it may have made it easier for some people to
contract the virus.
The failure has researchers and policy makers locked in a
debate. Some are calling for more money for testing vaccines similar to the
failed Merck vaccine already in the pipeline. Others want to abandon the
vaccines under testing and start from scratch.
"Nothing currently around is going to cause significant
protection, in the opinion of many of us," Hahn said. She counts herself
among the leading scientists calling on the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) to sharply reduce support for testing existing experimental vaccines.
The money should be spent instead on basic scientific research aimed at
finding new approaches to a vaccine, these scientists say.
Funding HIV Research
NIH officials say they've been hurt by five years of flat
funding from Congress. One effect of the shortfall is dwindling support for
young researchers who could come up with new ideas, they say.
"The easy things have been done," said James Hoxie, MD,
who directs the Penn Center for AIDS Research at the University of
Pennsylvania.
Wednesday's meeting was part scientific strategy session,
part group therapy session for a field stunned by its lack of progress.
Several leading scientists, including Anthony Fauci, MD,
head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have
offered stark comments recently warning that an AIDS vaccine may never be
found.
Hoxie implored the group to face head-on Merck's failure,
and the failure of other HIV vaccines before it.
"It comes with the territory. It is part of the process,
we have to be willing to accept it, we have to be willing to fund it," he
said.
"It is only one step back," said Adel Mahmoud, MD, PhD, a
Princeton University professor of microbiology and the meeting's co-chair.
"The status quo and finger pointing isn't going to take us anywhere."
Fauci was more enthusiastic: "Everything is on the table
to look at." He added that that he was "unambiguous" about the need to shift
more funding toward basic scientific discoveries that could lead to new
vaccines.
HIV Vaccines: What Comes Next?
But earlier this week several HIV research advocacy groups
called for the U.S. government to abandon efforts to develop an HIV vaccine.
Homayoon Khanlou, MD, U.S. chief of medicine for the AIDS Healthcare
Foundation, said that the money should instead be spent on increased HIV
testing and treatment, which both help cut the risk of HIV transmission.
All the clinical trials that have been done with the
vaccine have yielded no results," Khanlou told reporters. "They've left us
with no clue in terms of which way to go."
Few researchers seemed willing to consider abandoning
vaccine efforts entirely. But several described their field as being a
crossroads.
"The idea that we shut everything we have done and get to
do something else is absolutely insane," Mahmoud said.
He showed the audience of scientists a slide quoting
Winston Churchill's famous speech to a group of British students during
World War II. "Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never," it
read. |