ABSTRACT
Background & objectives: The complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) have not been systematically evaluated for the management of HIV/AIDS patients. In a prospective, single-site, open-label, non-randomized, controlled, pilot trial, we evaluated a polyherbal formulation (PHF) for its safety and efficacy in treating subjects with HIV-AIDS. Methods: A total of 32 and 31 subjects were enrolled under the PHF and highly active antiretroviral treatment (HAART) arms, respectively, and followed up for a period of 24 months. Plasma viral RNA, CD4 cell count and blood chemistry were monitored at 3-month intervals. Following mid-term safety evaluation, 12 subjects from the PHF arm were shifted to HAART and were followed separately as PHF-to-HAART arm, for the rest of the period. Results: The HAART arm was characterized by significant improvements in CD4 cell count (154.4 cells/μl/year, P<0.001) and reduction in plasma viral load within 3 to 6 months (-0.431+ 0.004 log10 IU/month, P<0.001). In contrast, the PHF arm showed a profile of CD4 cell loss at remarkably slower kinetics (14.3 cells/μl/year, P=0.021) and insignificant reduction in the viral load. The PHF and HAART arms did not differ significantly in the occurrence of AIDS-related illnesses over the study period of 24 months. In the PHF-to-HAART arm, the rates of CD4 count and reduction in viral load were significant and comparable to that of the HAART group. In the PHF arm, at 1 month, a significant increase in CD4 cell count and a concomitant decrease in viral load were seen. Interpretation & conclusions: The PHF appears to have provided protection by delaying the kinetics of CD4 cell reduction. Given the several study limitations, drawing assertive inferences from the data is challenging. Future studies with a stringent study design are warranted to confirm these findings.
ABSTRACT
India has over a century old tradition of development and production of vaccines. The Government rightly adopted self-sufficiency in vaccine production and self-reliance in vaccine technology as its policy objectives in 1986. However, in the absence of a full-fledged vaccine policy, there have been concerns related to demand and supply, manufacture vs. import, role of public and private sectors, choice of vaccines, new and combination vaccines, universal vs. selective vaccination, routine immunization vs. special drives, cost-benefit aspects, regulatory issues, logistics etc. The need for a comprehensive and evidence based vaccine policy that enables informed decisions on all these aspects from the public health point of view brought together doctors, scientists, policy analysts, lawyers and civil society representatives to formulate this policy paper for the consideration of the Government. This paper evolved out of the first ever ICMR-NISTADS national brainstorming workshop on vaccine policy held during 4-5 June, 2009 in New Delhi, and subsequent discussions over email for several weeks, before being adopted unanimously in the present form.