PRICK & CHOOSE

First Commercial HIV Vaccine On Horizon After Successful Human Trial

VaccineAn HIV vaccine has proven successful in a Phase I clinical trial with no adverse effects on human patients. The vaccine, developed by Dr. Chil-Yong Kang and his team at Western’s Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, with the support of Sumagen Canada, is the first genetically modified, whole-killed vaccine to be approved for testing in humans.

“We are now prepared to take the next steps towards Phase II and Phase III clinical trials,” Sumagen CEO Jung-Gee Cho said in a press release. “We are opening the gate to pharmaceutical companies, government, and charity organization for collaboration to be one step closer to the first commercialized HIV vaccine.”

This vaccine was used in human clinical trial to evaluate its safety, tolerability and immune responses from March 2012 through August 2013:

This trial was a randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled study of killed whole HIV-1 vaccine (SAV001-H) following intramuscular (IM) administration. HIV-infected, asymptomatic men and women, 18 to 50 years of age, have been enrolled in this study and randomized into two treatment groups to administer killed whole HIV-1 vaccine (SAV001-H) or placebo…No serious adverse event was observed in any volunteer vaccines throughout the observation periods.

Sumagen will now proceed with Phases 2 and 3 clinical trials to show the immunogenicity and efficacy of the vaccine and the pharmaceutical company plans on having not only “the first HIV vaccine in market but also the eradication of HIV/AIDS for human beings.”

h/t: Medical Daily

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #aids #hiv #hivvaccine stories and more

31 Comments

  • NateB79

    This is pretty incredible.

  • Katbox

    Good news for HIV+ individuals.
    Bad news for pharmaceuticals looking to suck them dry.

    Let’s see what happens.

  • QJ201

    Call me when it gets to Phase III…since so many of the previous vaccine trials failed in Phase II and some have had Phase III ended due to lack of results or unintended consequences.

  • Dakotahgeo

    Another modern miracle (hopefully) that will make the religious extremists pee their panties an fill their Depends prematurely, and save lives! I will be so happy for the recipients!

  • viveutvivas

    This seems to be a therapeutic vaccine for HIV+ individuals, not a preventive vaccine as one normally thinks of a vaccine.

    And unfortunately many vaccines have worked well in phase I trials (i.e., safety trials) causing a good immune response, yet all have been quite ineffective.

  • Tookietookie123

    @QJ201: Nonetheless, we still have to have hope for a vaccine, if not for ourselves then for the millions of lives it could save in the long run.

  • Dakotahgeo

    @viveutvivas: We can always hope. :-)

  • GayTampaCowboy

    I read the press release and Dr. Sumagen said he “anticipates not only having the first HIV vaccine in market but also the eradication of HIV/AIDS for human beings.”

    Hopefully these researchers have a TIGHT HOLD on the Phase II and III testing process so we don’t get any “big pharma” agents trying to skew the results!

  • Thomathy

    @Katbox:

    Good news for HIV+ individuals.
    Bad news for pharmaceuticals looking to suck them dry.

    Let’s see what happens.

    This is a vaccine. It is prophylactic. It is meant to be used in people who are not HIV+ to prevent infection.

    @viveutvivas:

    This seems to be a therapeutic vaccine for HIV+ individuals, not a preventive vaccine as one normally thinks of a vaccine.

    It’s a vaccine. It’s in the press release. Also ‘therapeutic vaccine’ doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    @GayTampaCowboy:

    I read the press release and Dr. Sumagen said he “anticipates not only having the first HIV vaccine in market but also the eradication of HIV/AIDS for human beings.”

    Hopefully these researchers have a TIGHT HOLD on the Phase II and III testing process so we don’t get any “big pharma” agents trying to skew the results!

    LOL Wut? You definitely didn’t read the press release.

    There is a Dr. Chil-Yong Kang. There is no Dr. Sumagen. That’s Sumagen Canada, a ‘big pharma’ biotech company. The university is already working with ‘big pharma’. And Sumagen Canada is paraphrased in the press release as having said, ‘anticipates not only having the first HIV vaccine in market but also the eradication of HIV/AIDS for human beings.’

  • Roger Rabbit

    Phase 1 Clinical Trials are to make sure the drug does not harm anyone, and gathers the beginning list of side effects.

    It does NOT test to see if the drug actually says what it is going to do.

    So releasing this study at this time was simply a way to hype the drug to raise collaborative efforts and potentially funds for the furthering of Phase 2 and potentially Phase 3 Clinical Trials.

    It takes over a billion dollars to get a drug through all three phases of clinical trials, and that is with a narrow scope such as this. Let’s hope that this drug makes it through all 3 phases and can finally be a preventative measure to eradicate this disease. But I’m not holding my breath until it gets through at LEAST Phase 2.

  • Bozen

    Interesting news, but I wonder what the implications could be regarding the resurgence of anonymous/rampant unsafe sex if the vaccine goes through

  • hyhybt

    @Bozen: That’s happening anyway.

  • Katbox

    @Bozen: apparently a lot of people are already having it.

    Dustin Lance Black…..

  • 1EqualityUSA

    hyhybt, and let’s not forget those special gay rings filled with stuff….

  • Polaro

    @Bozen: That’s the idea.

  • Randy

    I still feel no hope.

  • viveutvivas

    @Thomathy, so what do you think “therapeutic vaccine” means?

  • akn

    @Thomathy: You’re right that this is a preventive vaccine, but I’m curious as to what your understanding of a “therapeutic vaccine” is, vis-a-vis your comment directed at viveutvivas. Are you able to clarify? Thanks.

  • Thomathy

    Viveutvivas, Akin, a therapeutic vaccine would be a vaccine meant to cure (treat) a chronic infection. They don’t operate at all like a vaccine in the traditional sense, and are being developed currently for use against cancers, tuberculosis (and other bacteria) and, yes, even against HIV (and other viruses). The use of the word therapeutic is misleading, but it’s used because an infection is present already and because the vaccine is stimulating an immune response to a present infection (it is a therapy, if curative). It is necessary to draw a distinction from a typical vaccine as the purpose and action of a therapeutic vaccine is quite different.

    If that’s what you did mean, sorry. People tend to bandy the term about without much understanding, as though it would be a lifelong treatment for a chronic illness rather than curative. Of course, with HIV, eradication of the virus in vivo isn’t likely to be possible, so any so-called therapeutic vaccine would be stretching the definition quite a lot and would essentially be a (possibly) one-time treatment for an infection that would be contained and managed, but still persist.

  • Thomathy

    *Akn, sorry.

  • mlbumiller

    @viveutvivas:
    Does anyone ever read the links? Nothing in the press release stating that SAV001-H is a therapeutic vaccine, in fact the release states the goal is a preventative vaccine. This is the problem with just cutting and pasting a couple paragraphs.

    “In addition to safety evaluation, HIV-1 specific antibody detections have been performed throughout the follow up period. The antibody against p24 capsid antigen increased as much as 64-fold in some vaccinees and antibody against gp120 surface antigen increased up to eight-fold after vaccination. The increased antibody titers were maintained during the 52 week study period. The boost antibody production in HIV-positive volunteer vaccinees is highly encouraging, since it forecasts a success of the Phase 2 human clinical trial, which will measure the immune responses.

    In particular, the antibody against gp120 surface antigen is considered to be very important, since some of these antibodies may represent the broadly neutralizing antibodies, which seem to be the most important parameter of an effective HIV vaccine for prevention of HIV-infection.

    SAV001-H is the first genetically modified killed whole virus vaccine (SAV001-H) in human clinical trial and proving its safety was the major concern for going forward for next steps. With these encouraging results from the Phase I Clinical Trial, Sumagen is confident in developing SAV001-H as the first preventative HIV vaccine for saving millions of lives and is now preparing for the next phases of trials to show the immunogenicity and efficacy.”

  • Brian

    HIV does not cause AIDS. A vaccine is pointless. Anti-viral drugs are pointless.

    Stop being promiscuous and stop taking drugs – best cure for AIDS ever.

  • Thomathy

    @Brian:

    HIV does not cause AIDS. A vaccine is pointless. Anti-viral drugs are pointless.

    Stop being promiscuous and stop taking drugs – best cure for AIDS ever.

    Those are dangerous lies

  • hyhybt

    @Brian: If not by spreading HIV, by what specific mechanism do you propose that promiscuity and drug-taking cause AIDS? (Also, I can’t help noticing you use the word “cure,” yet it’s very plain that ceasing to be promiscuous and to take drugs does not cause AIDS to go away once established.)

  • the other Greg

    @Brian: Hey Brian, your boyfriend is fucking around on you!

    (Is that why your Facebook is down?)

  • MikeE

    @Brian: so is it specifically the combination of promiscuity AND drugs? or does doing drugs alone also cause AIDS? how much promiscuity is enough for the disease to develop?

    Would one joint be enough “drugs” to cause AIDS? how about a single sexual partner? Do you have to do the drugs before, during or after sexual intercourse for AIDS to develop?

    These are all important questions for you to answer if we are to live good lives and not catch the AIDS.

    By the way, I never did drugs, and had my first sexual encounter – a steady boyfriend, who didn’t know his previous BF had cheated on him – when I became HIV+. So how does your theory about AIDS being contracted through promiscuity and drugs fit into that particular scenario?

    If it isn’t a virus, then technically, my BF’s previous BF couldn’t have “given him” anything, since AIDS is caused by poor living, according to you. Since I wasn’t promiscuous, and didn’t do drugs, then how do you explain the HIV infection and subsequent HIV-related illnesses I got?

    HIV-deniers are such a funny lot. They deny, deny, deny, yet can never come up with anything that isn’t half-baked and nonsensical when pressed to explain AIDS. I’m sure that all of those babies who died of AIDS were very promiscuous before birth, doing lots of drugs and going to raves!

    /facepalm

  • boring

    Call me when they get to Phase IV, which is when the ants start taking over the world.

  • redcarpet

    I hope its the vaccine we’ve all been hoping for, but I am extremely pessimistic. Even if it is shown to be effective, it won’t be 100 percent. Hell, it probably won’t even be 80 percent. We’ve been jerked around so many times before so I don’t see a real vaccine happening in my lifetime.

    It would sure be nice to not have the pendulum of HIV swinging over our sex live though. Real nice.

  • patricklee5150

    AWESOME!

  • Hermes

    @viveutvivas:

    Actually, despite the support of Jonas Salk (then still alive) the man who cured Polio — a standard killed virus vaccine has NEVER been tried on HIV. He was excoriated for suggesting that it might work, and funding was pulled. Articles in the journals said mostly that he “was old” “didn’t understand anymore” and “couldn’t be bothered to study” (the differences between viruses and retroviruses.) He went to his grave insisting that the idea was the same. Vaccines tried on HIV that some publications said were killed virus were ACTUALLY virus fragments, recombined. The Salk Institute did develop a “therapeutic vaccine” – but it isn’t a vaccine in classic senses, being instead a concentrate of certain immunoglobulins and proteins from the patient, and it was developed by the Institute after the flap over Dr. Salk’s position on HIV vaccination had died down.

    If this works, and I have long supported the idea of at least engaging in trials of a killed virus vaccine – then I think there are MANY hard questions that need to be asked, starting with why this was not tried when he proposed it? Was it onus against the LGBT community? Was it a desire to make money? Was it (most likely) professional arrogance? Believe me, I will start asking some of those questions of some of my own colleagues – if this works.

    Regards.

  • viveutvivas

    I believe the classical objection to killed/inactivated whole virus vaccines is the lack of guarantee that the virus is completely dead. There is a small chance viral particles can recombine into active virus. This is not just theoretical. A small number of people still get polio every year from the current polio vaccine, chicken pox from the chicken pox vaccine, etc. I suspect that it is for this reason this vaccine is being tested on HIV+ volunteers.

    For the same reason the regulatory hurdles for testing this vaccine on HIV- volunteers will be high, perhaps too high to overcome.

    Also, there have been tons of vaccines that caused a good immune response in phase 1 trials and ended up being ineffective, so let’s not be blinded by marketing press releases and not count our chicks before they hatch.

Comments are closed.