A Smart + Strong Site
Subscribe to:
POZ magazine

Back to home » Treatment News » Top Stories

Most Popular Stories
Undetectable Viral Load Essentially Eliminates Transmission Risk in Straight Couples
FDA Approves New Single-Tablet HIV Regimen, Triumeq
Life Expectancy for Young People With HIV Is Nearly Normal
A 15-Year Jump in Life Expectancy for People With HIV
Scientists Devise Method of Snipping HIV From Immune Cells
Monkey HIV Vaccine Success Opens Door for Human Trials
HIV Combo Pill Less Toxic Thanks to New Form of Tenofovir
What's That Mean?
(just double-click it!)

If you don't understand one of the words in this article, just double-click it. A window will open with a definition from mondofacto's On-line Medical Dictionary. If the double-click feature doesn't work in your browser, you can enter the word below:

Most Popular Lessons
Aging & HIV
The HIV Life Cycle
Herpes Simplex Virus
Syphilis & Neurosyphilis
Treatments for Opportunistic Infections (OIs)
What is AIDS & HIV?
More News

Have medical or treatment news about HIV? Send press releases, news tips and other announcements to news@aidsmeds.com.

Click here for more news


October 20, 2009

Final Results: “Modest Benefit” Seen in Thai Vaccine Study

Researchers conclude that a preventive HIV vaccine conferred modest benefit in a Thai clinical trial, according to final results published today, October 20, in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Amid ongoing debate regarding the true significance of the trial’s findings, the study authors offered two important considerations for future exploration—that this particular vaccine strategy’s effectiveness might dwindle over time, while its efficacy might be more pronounced in people facing a lower risk for HIV infection in the first place.  

The debate among activists and researchers surrounding the effectiveness of the tested vaccine strategy—four doses of Sanofi Pasteur’s ALVAC plus two doses of VaxGen’s AIDSVAX, compared with placebo—stems from the conflicting results of two statistical analyses of the study data. Both analyses are included in the NEJM paper but have already been reported in preliminary form.

A modified intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of the study included all 16,402 people enrolled in the study (with the exception of seven who tested positive for HIV before receiving the vaccines), regardless of whether or not they received all six vaccine doses exactly as recommended by the study protocol. In this analysis, 51 of the 8,197 given the vaccine and 74 of the 8,198 given the placebo tested positive for HIV after three years of follow-up. This translated into a 31.2 percent lower risk of infection for the vaccine group. The difference in the modified ITT analysis was statistically significant, meaning that it was too large to have occurred by chance.

A per-protocol analysis of the study included only 12,452 volunteers who received their vaccine or placebo injections exactly as prescribed and were followed for the length of the study. This analysis documented 36 infections in the vaccine group and 50 infections in the placebo group. This difference translated into a 26.2 percent lower risk of infection in the vaccine group. However, unlike the modified ITT analysis, the difference between the two groups in the per-protocol analysis was not statistically significant. In other words, it could have been due to chance.   

In the full ITT analysis—which included all people enrolled in the study, including those who tested positive for HIV before being vaccinated—there was a 26.4 percent lower risk of infection in the vaccine group. But here, too, the difference between both groups was not statistically significant.

In all three analyses, the researchers reported, those who received the vaccine and became infected with HIV did not have lower viral loads or higher CD4 counts, compared with those who received placebo and became infected with HIV. These findings speak, rather negatively, to a long-held assumption that a vaccine capable of sparking the immune system to prevent HIV infection would also help control HIV replication if infection did occur.

“Taken together,” the researchers conclude, “these data are consistent with a modest protective effect of vaccine in this study. However, there was no significant difference in the HIV-1 viral load or the postinfection CD4+ count between the two study groups.”

The authors also highlight two “intriguing considerations” for future study, given that the Thai clinical trial itself yielded too few HIV infections, in either group, to allow for any serious sub-study analyses.

First, the reduction in the risk of HIV infection among those at low- and medium risk of HIV infection was 40.4 and 47.6 percent in the modified ITT analysis, compared with a 3.7 percent reduction among high-risk individuals. “Perhaps the requirements for protection against transmission in low-risk heterosexual persons are considerably different or less stringent,” Raphael Dolin, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The researchers also noted that the vaccine seemed to confer protection against HIV for up to one year but then seemed to dwindle. But again, too few infections occurred in the study to allow for a sound statistical analysis.

While [these results] will not likely have any immediate public health benefit,” said Colonel Nelson Michael, director of the U.S. Military HIV Research Program and an RV 144 study investigator, “we are hopeful that the findings will guide additional studies and accelerate research efforts toward a more effective vaccine.”

Search: Thai vaccine, RV 144, Thai Ministry of Health, VaxGen, AIDSVAX, ALVAC, intent-to-treat, per-protocol, Raphael Dolin, Colonel Nelson Michael,

Scroll down to comment on this story.


(will display; 2-50 characters)


(will NOT display)


(will display; optional)

Comment (500 characters left):

(Note: The AIDSmeds team reviews all comments before they are posted. Please do not include ":" "@" "<" ">" in your comment. The opinions expressed by people providing comments are theirs alone. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Smart + Strong, which is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by people providing comments.)

Comments require captcha.
Please enter this number for verification:

| Posting Rules

Show comments (0 total)

[Go to top]

Quick Links
About HIV and AIDS
The Cure
Lab Tests
Clinical Trials
HIV Meds
Starting Treatment
Switching Treatment
Drug Resistance
Side Effects
Hepatitis & HIV
Women & Children
Fact Sheets
Treatment News
Community Forums
Conference Coverage
Health Services Directory
POZ Magazine
AIDSmeds on Twitter

Conference Coverage

XX International AIDS Conference
(AIDS 2014)
Melbourne, Australia
July 20 - 25, 2014

21st Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections
(CROI 2014)
Boston, MA
March 3 - 7, 2014

7th International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention
(IAS 2013)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
June 30 - July 3, 2013

more conference coverage

[ about AIDSmeds | AIDSmeds advisory board | our staff | advertising policy | advertise/contact us]
© 2016 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved. Terms of use and Your privacy.
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.