HIV Vaccine Development: 35 Years of Experimenting in the Funding of Biomedical Research.

Funding vaccine development research is more complicated than simply putting out an announcement of funds available. The funders must decide whether product development can be accomplished by purely applied research, or whether more fundamental knowledge is needed before product development can be started. If additional basic knowledge is needed, identifying the specific area of the knowledge gap can be a challenge. Additionally, when there appears to be a clear path of applied research sometimes obstacles are encountered that require a return to more basic work. After deciding on the work to be done, funders must attract the scientists with the broad range of needed skills to cover all the stages of development. Collaborations must be promoted and alliances with other funders and industry must be developed. Funders use multiple tools and strategies to accomplish these tasks with varying success.

Lessons for general vaccinology research from attempts to develop an HIV vaccine.

In the past when large investments have been made in tackling narrow scientific challenges, the enormous expansion in our knowledge in one small area has had a spill-over effect on research and treatment of other diseases. The large investment in HIV vaccine development in recent years has the potential for such an effect on vaccine development for other diseases. HIV vaccine developers have experienced repeated failure using the standard approaches to vaccine development. This has forced them to consider immune responses in greater depth and detail. It has led to a recognition of the importance of epitopic specificity in both antibody and T cell responses. Also, it has led to an understanding of the importance of affinity maturation in antibody responses and the quality of T cell responses in T cell-mediated immunity. It has advanced the development of many novel vaccine vectors and vehicles that are now available for use in other vaccines. Further, it has focused attention on the impact of research funding mechanisms and community engagement on vaccine development. These developments and considerations have implications for vaccinology more generally. Some suggestions are made for investigators working on other "hard-to-develop" vaccines.

A proposal to use iterative, small clinical trials to optimize therapeutic HIV vaccine immunogens to launch therapeutic HIV vaccine development.

The HIV cure agenda has rekindled interest in the development of a therapeutic HIV vaccine. An iterative clinical trial strategy that proved successful for the development of effective cancer chemotherapies in the 1960s may be applicable to the development of a CD8 T lymphocyte-based therapeutic HIV vaccine. However, while cancer chemotherapy development could begin with iterative clinical trials to improve the use of active drugs, the first step in therapeutic HIV vaccine design should be discovery of immunogen constructs with potential for activity and their optimization to meet the challenges of HIV-1 sequence diversity and human polymorphism in T cell antigen presentation. A strategy for doing this is discussed in this article. The proposed strategy relies on a major commitment by funding organizations to fund organized and coordinated manufacture and clinical testing of a series of first- and second-generation constructs to test basic concepts in product design. This is presented as an alternative to funding a more traditional competition among private manufacturers and product champions of individual, already designed products.

Clinical development of candidate HIV vaccines: different problems for different vaccines.

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.

HIV vaccine development: strategies for preclinical and clinical investigation.

This article discusses HIV vaccine discovery and candidate vaccine testing in the context of current realities of funding and clinical trial practice. Lacking perfect animal models for testing candidate HIV vaccines, clinical investigators have proposed a strategy of iterative exploratory clinical trials in the model of cancer chemotherapy development. Problems with the appropriateness of this model to HIV vaccine development are discussed. Also, the future feasibility of this strategy in the context of increasing clinical trial costs and emerging new, efficacious prevention modalities is questioned. Strategies for making better use of animal models are presented as an alternative to iterative exploratory clinical efficacy testing. Some ways in which better data from preclinical studies can refine clinical product development are described. Finally, development of an HIV vaccine under the FDA's "Animal Rule" pathway to licensure when human efficacy studies are not feasible is discussed as a fall-back approach. Not making a preventive vaccine against HIV infection is simply not an option because eradication of AIDS will require a preventive vaccine.