[HN Gopher] New HIV vaccine with a 97% antibody response rate in...
___________________________________________________________________
New HIV vaccine with a 97% antibody response rate in phase I human
trials
Author : MKais
Score : 255 points
Date : 2021-04-04 16:23 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com)
| paulydavis wrote:
| Africa really needs to be the target rollout for these vaccines
| if and when they materialize.
| qrbLPHiKpiux wrote:
| Why didn't education work there?
|
| I'm just asking.
| tremon wrote:
| Why do you immediately conclude it hasn't?
|
| Far more likely are these factors:
|
| - education reaches only a small part of the population
|
| - condoms are unavailable
|
| - condoms are too expensive
| mkr-hn wrote:
| Don't forget well-justified suspicion of westerners based
| on horrible and not too distant history.
| spiritplumber wrote:
| Because it got drowned out by misinformation.
| africanboy wrote:
| same reason why education has not prevented covid-19 from
| spreading.
| mxcrossb wrote:
| > The Swazi population faces major health issues: HIV/AIDS and
| (to a lesser extent) tuberculosis are widespread.It is
| estimated that 26% of the adult population is HIV-positive. As
| of 2018, Eswatini has the 12th-lowest life expectancy in the
| world, at 58 years.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eswatini
|
| It seems countries like this could benefit massively from an
| effective vaccine
| thescribbblr wrote:
| I am confuse about the working of this vaccine? Anyone, who can
| make me understand about the working I would be thankful.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| They developed a piece of mRNA that produces a specific type of
| blood protein that binds the HIV infection mechanism. The bound
| protein triggers your body's antibody cascade to attack and
| neutralize it.
| agumonkey wrote:
| is that similar to what is being investigated for cancer ?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Yes!
|
| https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/mrna-technology-
| promises-...
| arrosenberg wrote:
| More or less. Insert mRNA instructions for creating or
| triggering antibodies that target cancer cells
| specifically.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| It's really interesting stuff. One issue as I understand
| it is getting the immune reaction to be appropriate to
| develop antibodies without going crazy.
| ignoramous wrote:
| From TFA to set context: _The vaccine is an immune primer, to
| trigger the activation of naive B cells via a process called
| germline-targeting, as the first stage in a multi-step vaccine
| regimen to elicit the production of many different types of
| broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs). Stimulating the
| production of bnAbs has been pursued as a holy grail in HIV for
| decades._
|
| That is, the vaccine triggers generation of bnAbs successfully,
| turning a "passive immunization" HIV/AIDS treatment in to
| "active immunization".
|
| More on bnAbs:
|
| > _Antibodies are proteins that immune cells make to block
| viruses and other infectious agents. In the case of HIV, people
| who are infected typically produce antibodies to the virus. But
| because the virus mutates and replicates rapidly, antibodies
| are largely ineffective at controlling the virus. After years
| of infection, though, some people produce highly potent
| antibodies called broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) that,
| in laboratory tests, are able to neutralize a wide variety of
| HIV strains. The identification of such antibodies has
| transformed the field of HIV prevention research for two
| reasons: it provides information to guide the design of
| vaccines that could elicit bnAbs for protection, and it has
| opened the door to a new prevention modality: the
| administration of HIV bnAbs to prevent infection._
|
| > _The administration of antibodies to prevent infection is
| known as passive immunization, in contrast to active
| immunization, which occurs as a result of vaccination (see
| graphic, below). While a vaccine "trains" the immune system to
| generate antibodies and other immune responses, passive
| immunization requires that the antibodies be delivered directly
| into the body through infusions or injections. This protection
| is temporary, and, in the case of HIV prevention, would need to
| be administered periodically as long as the subject was still
| at risk._
|
| From: https://www.iavi.org/our-science/bnabs-for-hiv-prevention
| [deleted]
| colordrops wrote:
| Does this cure pre-existing infections
| xiphias2 wrote:
| This looks to be the original announcement from February:
| https://www.iavi.org/news-resources/press-releases/2021/firs...
|
| Browsers not showing full URLs were the first bad thing, but now
| articles are linking to domain names, which makes those links
| unusable for cross-checking references.
| ransom1538 wrote:
| Dumb question: Isn't HIV a solved problem? With current anti-
| virals they can't even detect HIV in blood tests.
| Daynil wrote:
| If you call requiring tens of thousands of dollars of
| maintenance medication treatment annually for life a solved
| problem, then absolutely!
| SquareWheel wrote:
| This still requires treatment for life, though. A vaccine would
| obviate this need, freeing up time, resources, and money for
| other healthcare.
| eganist wrote:
| If there was a cost-effective cure, we could consider it
| solved. The only (functional) cure for it involves basically
| taking a sledgehammer to the entire immune system and replacing
| it with one from a donor with CCR-5 delta 32. As far as
| anyone's aware, this was only done with 2(?) patients who also
| had blood cancers.
|
| Everyone else is popping antiviral cocktails and living with
| both the stigma of the disease and the risk of a relapse if
| they ever end up not being able to afford the drugs.
|
| So... not quite solved. Hopefully this'll get us closer.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| No it isn't. The costly treatment can have heavy side
| effects... for the people who can afford it, i.e. not most of
| people who are infected in Africa...
| dj_mc_merlin wrote:
| Interested to hear from people in the know: how good does this
| look?
| dheera wrote:
| Interested to hear the same.
|
| In particular, how easy will distribution be, considering that
| HIV is extremely easily preventable but it still spreads,
| because of lack of distribution of knowledge, I assume.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _In particular, how easy will distribution be, considering
| that HIV is extremely easily preventable but it still
| spreads, because of lack of distribution of knowledge, I
| assume._
|
| This is a huge problem in the US. Truvada must be taken
| everyday to prevent HIV, and in 2015, it cost $1400 for a 30
| day supply. In 2021, it costs between $1900 and $2500+ for a
| 30 day supply in the US.
|
| Elsewhere in the world, Truvada might cost $40. In Australia,
| Truvada costs $8 for a 30 day supply[1].
|
| The only other drug approved for PrEP in the US is Descovy,
| which is manufactured by Gilead, too, and costs $2300+
| minimum for a 30 day supply.
|
| HIV could virtually eliminated in the US if PrEP was made
| available and affordable to at-risk populations.
|
| [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-
| politic...
| taurath wrote:
| Cost is the largest factor. HIV could be nearly eliminated
| entirely if PREP wasn't a cash cow for Gilead.
| fny wrote:
| Uhm... Last I checked many pharmaceuticals that compete
| with Gilead also operate in the HIV space.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| No, the only two drugs approved for PrEP in the US are
| Truvada and Descovy, both of which are Gilead drugs.
| [deleted]
| tjohns wrote:
| Gilead's patent on Truvada (the most common drug used for
| PREP) just expired. As of a few months ago it's available
| as a generic.
| ChickeNES wrote:
| Why does this falsehood keep being repeated as the truth?
| supernova87a wrote:
| From NPR interviews I listened to during the early days of the
| mRNA vaccines showing incredible promise, I understood that one
| of the problems with HIV is that the human body does not
| naturally have strong defense mechanisms (antibodies, etc) for
| this type of virus. Hence, the usual vaccine path (or mRNA
| derived method) of accelerating the learning of the body's
| T-cells, etc. to manufacture its own defenses is not very
| effective -- they are not there to begin with.
|
| Is that not correct? What are they doing differently here?
| briefcomment wrote:
| Does this require everyone to get it?
| jason0597 wrote:
| I presume it would only be recommended for those who are
| sexually active (particularly homosexuals like me) and those
| who regularly use needles.
| floatingatoll wrote:
| Many who are 'sexually active' are also unwillingly so. By
| that criteria, it would be best to recommended it to _all_
| women and _all_ prisoners in the United States, due to how
| common rape is among those populations here. I 'd like to say
| "we are better as a society" but that's not true yet, and in
| the meantime, at least I won't have to worry about AIDS when
| it's my turn to be raped.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| HIV is sexually transmitted, so only sexually active people
| would need the vaccine.
| nkozyra wrote:
| The high risk group is larger than that, though.
| mekster wrote:
| Wtf are you talking about?
| SquareWheel wrote:
| Drug users are also high risk, as are any medical
| professionals that work around needles.
|
| Of course many couples have one partner who is infected, too.
| Such a vaccine would do wonders for their peace of mind.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| I don't understand this well enough to fully know how this
| vaccine works.
|
| But HIV integrates into the human genome so you can never really
| get rid of it. So I'm not sure exactly how this treatment would
| play out.
| zizee wrote:
| Vaccines trigger an immune response, preparing the body to
| fight of the infection. This allows the body to "beat" the
| infection before it takes hold.
|
| Afaik vaccines are not useful after the fact. I.e. this HIV
| vaccine won't be given to people already infected.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| Right but for a virus that integrates into the genome once it
| takes hold it's game over.
|
| And even vaccine mediated immune responses are via memory
| cells and take time to ramp up to generate the antibodies to
| attack the virus.
|
| So I guess my question is: Is the window of opportunity while
| ramping up the immune system for a vaccine big enough for HIV
| to take root in a body.
|
| Does your knowledge stop at "Vaccine stop infection?" Isnt
| that just common knowledge?
| XzAeRosho wrote:
| >Right but for a virus that integrates into the genome once
| it takes hold it's game over.
|
| The same could be said about any other successful vaccine,
| like Polio and Measles vaccines. Not that those diseases
| behave like HIV, but the way we handle vaccination against
| them.
|
| >And even vaccine mediated immune responses are via memory
| cells and take time to ramp up to generate the antibodies
| to attack the virus.
|
| That's why there are vaccination campaigns, to immunize
| target groups before they contract the aforementioned
| sickness.
|
| >Is the window of opportunity while ramping up the immune
| system for a vaccine I mean unresponse big enough for HIV
| to take root in a body.
|
| A vaccine is always a good opportunity to prevent adverse
| effects, even "if takes time" to ramp up your immune
| system.
| jacoblambda wrote:
| Like previously stated, HIV hides inside of cells for an
| indeterminate amount of time. As you mentioned immune
| memory can take a little bit of time to kick in. Once it
| kicks in however, it is extraordinarily effective at
| hunting down viruses and actively (non-dormant) infected
| cells. With a small enough viral load however, the immune
| system can fend off HIV well enough.
|
| During an initial infection either the immune system will
| fight off the virus if the load is small enough and it gets
| lucky or the virus takes hold of some cells and starts
| reproducing. In this latter case, the immune memory allows
| the immune system to effectively fight off the virus before
| it can properly take hold. Of course some of the virus may
| lay dormant in a few cells but since it never gets a chance
| to take hold of the body the quantity of dormant infected
| cells is relatively low.
|
| Now due to the low quantity of dormant infected cells, it
| is extremely unlikely that there will be enough "activated"
| cells at any given time that the immune system is not able
| to handle the threat before it escalates. Over time you can
| expect the dormant HIV to slowly be exterminated or at very
| least prevented from growing in count.
|
| ---
|
| Now this isn't anything terribly new. The real breakthrough
| with this vaccine over other attempts in the past is that
| it results in the production of a specific type of antibody
| that can act on all known HIV strains with essentially the
| same efficacy (where as prior vaccines couldn't result in
| the production of antibodies that worked reliably on even
| small portions of the thousands of different HIV strains).
| sp332 wrote:
| You can keep it from spreading quickly within a person's body,
| and reduce the chances of transmission, if you can reduce the
| amount of viral particles that exist outside of host cells.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| Seems like even vaccine mediated immune response takes time
| to ramp up and generate antibodies.
|
| Especially from memory cells.
|
| I don't know if that window of opportunity is sufficient for
| HIV to integrate into the host genome.
| sp332 wrote:
| I meant vaccinating the person who already has the
| infection. Their own immune system will remove the virus
| particles before they can travel.
| _Microft wrote:
| As I understand, this integration might happen but would be
| meaningless because viruses ejected from infected cells
| will subsequently be intercepted.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Depending on the immune response, infected cells can also
| be destroyed.
| olliej wrote:
| What the hell are you talking about? It does not "integrate
| with the human genome".
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| What the hell are you talking about?
|
| Does every Dunning Kruger moron on the planet just talk with
| authority about science now because they posted the hashtag
| #believeInScience during Coronavirus?
|
| The numb skulls in this thread need to gooogle retrovirus,
| integrase, and reverse transcriptase before even typing or
| better yet even thinking they know anything about biology
| just because they know how to write a JavaScript component.
| programmarchy wrote:
| The mechanism is called reverse transcription. It's a well
| known exception to the "central dogma of molecular biology".
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| Thank you. And it uses the enzyme integrase to integrate
| into the host cells genome and reverse transcriptase to
| create DNA from RNA.
|
| Anyone who has looked into any science beyond what the
| media talks about knows this about HIV.
|
| What's even more interesting is that there's latent
| reservoirs in a person's body that we don't know where they
| are so that even after we get someone's viral count
| undetectable with meds, if they stop the medicine hov can
| come back
| nlitened wrote:
| I don't know much about it, but, from my understanding, HIV
| is a "retrovirus", which means that it integrates into host
| cell's DNA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus
|
| I'd really appreciate some input from someone who knows more
| on this topic.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| That HIV can and does do that is consistent with what I've
| read. Some percentage of cells HIV can lay dormant for an
| indefinint amount of time.
| tjohns wrote:
| Yes, that's correct.
|
| After entering a CD4+ cell, HIV uses reverse transcriptase
| to copy it's RNA into DNA, enters the cell's nucleus, then
| uses integrase to splice that DNA into the host cell's
| genome. From that point on the host cell is permanently
| infected. This is one of the few exceptions to the "central
| dogma of molecular biology", which otherwise says
| information can't flow back into the nucleus.
|
| The reverse transcription process is notoriously error
| prone, which is the reason why HIV is able to mutate so
| easily and develop resistance to antiviral drugs.
|
| Most cells will go on to immediately begin building new HIV
| copies; these cells will quickly die out. A small number
| will go back to a resting state, only to reactivate months
| or years later. This "latent reservoir" of dormant cells
| means that even if you eradicate all the viremia from a
| patient, the infection will come back. This is why we can't
| cure HIV.
|
| There is a very small window after infection before the
| virus has had a chance to establish a latent resevior where
| it can be successfully eradicated. This is how prophylactic
| drugs as part of PEP can work - if given quickly enough.
|
| There's a really good animation someone posted here a few
| days ago that illustrates the mechanics:
| https://vimeo.com/260291607
| david38 wrote:
| Ah... no. It's special because it attacks white blood cells
| and white blood cells are what are supposed to attack it.
| retrac wrote:
| HIV does not generally infect the germ cells that produce
| sperm or eggs, so it is not heritable, which is maybe the
| sense you interpreted OP's comment.
|
| Still, HIV is a provirus. Retroviruses write themselves into
| the genome of the host cell. Cells which are infected and
| survive to reproduce carry the HIV provirus. As will their
| descendants, and so on. They will produce HIV when mature
| even without any HIV particles in the cell. This is
| integration with the host genome.
|
| This is why HIV cannot be cured with antivirals which fully
| inhibit its replication. It's also why complete destruction
| of the immune system (in the process destroying all the cells
| which are the specific hosts) while flooding the body with
| high dose antivirals, and then grafting innately immune
| T-cells, is an effective, if rather drastic, cure.
| stunt wrote:
| So many vaccine news on HN now. Why are we discussing them here?
| I visit other websites for vaccine news.
| arbitrage wrote:
| Why are you complaining about an article you don't want to read
| on a site you don't want to read it on? Nobody's forcing you to
| be here.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Because as a member of the community, He is trying to shape
| the discourse and culture here. We all should be doing that,
| to maintain the high quality content.
| amznthrwaway wrote:
| Be honest.
|
| He's a bigoted right-wing conservative who doesn't want to
| hear about interesting scientific developments that he
| views as benefiting people with lifestyles that he
| condemns.
|
| You're showing your bigoted ass by defending his bigoted
| ass. Fuck both of you.
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| From a now-dead comment:
|
| > He's a bigoted right-wing conservative who doesn't want
| to hear about interesting scientific developments that he
| views as benefiting people with lifestyles that he
| condemns.
|
| Perhaps not here, but I think this is a view worth
| discussing. I'm moderately conservative, and some of that
| comment's criticism resonates with my own thoughts.
|
| With cases like HIV/AIDS, I find myself pulled between
| several competing virtues:
|
| One one side there's mercy and compassion; I'd like to
| minimize the suffering of hurting people. Even if someone
| is in dire straights because of actions that _I_ view as
| unwise (extramarital sex, recreational drug use, etc.), I
| still want to want what 's best for that person.
|
| On the other side, there's justice. I live in a society
| where _everyone_ pays, to some degree, for individuals '
| unwise behavior. E.g., Medicare/Medicaid for smokers' lung
| cancer or HIV treatment for persons who chose to indulge in
| risky behavior. I'm not okay with forcing the community at
| large to cover the costs of (what _I_ view as) individuals
| ' selfish actions.
|
| I don't know what the right balance to this is. More
| generally, I'm not sure if there are _any_ good principles
| for finding the right tradeoff between two virtues. I wish
| I knew. I want to do good, but the path is often obscure.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| purerandomness wrote:
| Quoting the "Hacker News Guidelines":
|
| "What to Submit
|
| On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting.
| That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to
| reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that
| gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
| sho_hn wrote:
| From the OP:
|
| > I visit other websites for vaccine news
|
| Now I'm curious what a good website for vaccine news is ...
| dcminter wrote:
| I've found Derek Lowe's commentary to be very enlightening:
| https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/
| stunt wrote:
| > Now I'm curious what a good website for vaccine news is
| ...
|
| Health science journals or communities perhaps.
|
| I was triggered by seeing multiple posts about AstraZeneca
| blood clot all from major news websites. But somehow I
| ended up leaving comment on this post unintentionally.
|
| For that (COVID-19 vaccine updates) I like NYT vaccine
| tracker[1] and Our World in Data[2] but I don't really
| check them regularly since it's impossible to miss any
| COVID-19 related update these days anyway.
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/corona
| virus...
|
| [2] https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-04 23:00 UTC)