ReviewAIDS research and human retroviruses2014
Clinical development of candidate HIV vaccines: different problems for different vaccines.
Review in AIDS research and human retroviruses, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of effective subdominant anti-HIV-1 CD8+ T cells within entire post-infection and post-vaccination immune responses.PLoS pathogens · 2015Article
- Induction of intestinal immunity by mucosal vaccines as a means of controlling HIV infection.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2014Review
- Comment on clinical development of candidate HIV vaccines: different problems for different vaccines.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2014Article
- Commentary on Shapiro: clinical development of candidate HIV vaccines: different problems for different vaccines.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2014Article
- Vaccines that stimulate T cell immunity to HIV-1: the next step.Nature immunology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Realization of individual and public health benefit from an HIV vaccine requires clinical testing to demonstrate efficacy. To facilitate clinical testing, preclinical HIV vaccine developers should consider the realities of clinical practice and the conduct of clinical trials in product design. There are several essentially different approaches to prophylactic HIV vaccine design: (1) induce immunity that allows infection but reduces initial peak viremia and viral load set point; (2) induce immunity that allows infection but controls viremia to below the level of detection; (3) induce immunity that allows infection but promotes viral clearance before disease (classic vaccine approach); (4) induce "sterilizing immunity" that prevents acquisition of infection. Each approach presents different challenges for clinical product development. Current clinical trial practices and evolving treatment standards may make it infeasible to perform an efficacy trial of a preventive vaccine that only modestly reduces viremia. A vaccine that promotes control of viremia to below the level of detection is testable but will require extended follow-up to determine how long virus control persists; once control is lost boosting with the same vaccine may not be useful. A vaccine that permits infection but promotes subsequent complete clearance of the virus from the body will require the development and validation of an effective assay for virus clearance. A vaccine that prevents acquisition of infection is the most straightforward to test in the clinic, but escalating costs require more attention by vaccine developers to understanding how the vaccine works and the breadth of protection. All types of vaccine require attention to effect size to ensure adequate powering of efficacy trials.
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.