ReviewAIDS research and human retroviruses2013
HIV vaccine development: strategies for preclinical and clinical investigation.
Review in AIDS research and human retroviruses, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Funding Strategies to Foster Enabling Basic Science Research in the Development of an HIV Vaccine.Current HIV research · 2026Review
- HIV Vaccine Development: 35 Years of Experimenting in the Funding of Biomedical Research.Viruses · 2020Review
- Clinical development of candidate HIV vaccines: different problems for different vaccines.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2014Review
- New directions for HIV vaccine development from animal models.Current opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article discusses HIV vaccine discovery and candidate vaccine testing in the context of current realities of funding and clinical trial practice. Lacking perfect animal models for testing candidate HIV vaccines, clinical investigators have proposed a strategy of iterative exploratory clinical trials in the model of cancer chemotherapy development. Problems with the appropriateness of this model to HIV vaccine development are discussed. Also, the future feasibility of this strategy in the context of increasing clinical trial costs and emerging new, efficacious prevention modalities is questioned. Strategies for making better use of animal models are presented as an alternative to iterative exploratory clinical efficacy testing. Some ways in which better data from preclinical studies can refine clinical product development are described. Finally, development of an HIV vaccine under the FDA's "Animal Rule" pathway to licensure when human efficacy studies are not feasible is discussed as a fall-back approach. Not making a preventive vaccine against HIV infection is simply not an option because eradication of AIDS will require a preventive vaccine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.