4.8 Article

Nonhuman primate models and the failure of the Merck HIV-1 vaccine in humans

Journal

NATURE MEDICINE
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages 617-621

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nm.f.1759

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [R24 RR015371, R24 RR016038] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI45463, R01 AI052056, R01 AI055332, U01 AI069420, R37 AI033292, R37 AI36082, R01 AI049120, R37 AI036082, U01 AI69420, R01 AI045463, R37 AI33292] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [R24RR016038, R24RR015371] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R37AI036082, R01AI049120, R01AI052056, R01AI045463, U01AI069420, R37AI033292, R01AI055332] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The adenovirus type 5 (Ad5)-based vaccine developed by Merck failed to either prevent HIV-1 infection or suppress viral load in subsequently infected subjects in the STEP human Phase 2b efficacy trial. Analogous vaccines had previously also failed in the simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) challenge-rhesus macaque model. In contrast, vaccine protection studies that used challenge with a chimeric simian-human immunodeficiency virus (SHIV89.6P) in macaques did not predict the human trial results. Ad5 vector -based vaccines did not protect macaques from infection after SHIV89.6P challenge but did cause a substantial reduction in viral load and a preservation of CD4(+) T cell counts after infection, findings that were not reproduced in the human trials. Although the SIV challenge model is incompletely validated, we propose that its expanded use can help facilitate the prioritization of candidate HIV-1 vaccines, ensuring that resources are focused on the most promising candidates. Vaccine designers must now develop T cell vaccine strategies that reduce viral load after heterologous challenge.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available