ReviewJournal of medical primatology2025
Losing Less in Translation: Relating the Preclinical Evidence Base for Active and Passive Immunity to Prevention of HIV-1 Infection in Humans.
Review in Journal of medical primatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking non-human primate models for emerging viral infections after COVID-19.Laboratory animal research · 2026Review
- Effects and mechanisms of monoclonal and polyclonal human antibodies in protection of humanized mice from HIV-1 challenge.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The nonhuman primate (NHP) model has been a cornerstone in the development of effective therapeutic and prophylactic interventions for HIV-1 infection. Yet, despite promising results in this key preclinical setting, major efficacy trials of HIV vaccines have failed to exhibit sufficient protection to meet their endpoint efficacy criteria. Similarly, the recent Antibody-Mediated Prevention (AMP) trials (HVTN 703, 704), which tested the ability of passive immunization with the broadly neutralizing antibody VRC01, also failed to meet predetermined overall efficacy criteria. Cumulatively, both active and passive vaccination regimens that have demonstrated the ability to provide protection in NHPs have not provided sufficient benefits in clinical field trials, raising questions about how to optimally model the challenging clinical reality facing HIV-1 vaccine developers. Here, with a goal of highlighting means whereby gaps might be addressed, we discuss some factors that may influence consistency between NHP experiments and translation between clinical and preclinical settings in both active and passive vaccine regimens. We conclude that results from the AMP trials provide a key benchmark that has high value in gauging the clinical prospects of humoral immune responses induced by vaccines or provided by passive antibody prophylaxis. The promise of new knowledge gained through carefully designed testing of new interventions and therapeutics motivates continued exploration of means to model humoral immunity to HIV-1 in preclinical models.
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.