RITA - Fall - 2003Important note: Information in this article was accurate in Fall 2003. The state of the art may have changed since the publication date.
Click here to return to RITA main menu
DonateNow
Print this Article

Is autovaccination dead?

Research Initiative Treatment Action (RITA!); Vol 9, No. 2 Fall 2003
Bernard Hirschel, MD
Division des Maladies Infectieuses, University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland


"Long-term non-progressors have a strong cellular anti-HIV immune response." Thus starts many a review article on HIV immunology. And many readers therefore conclude, "After induction of a strong anti-HIV immune response, an ordinary patient with HIV infection will be transformed into a long-term non-progressor."

But how to induce a strong anti-HIV immune response? In the absence of effective HIV vaccines, the virus itself will have to do. Stop HAART, have the virus rebound, start treatment again, and repeat the stop-start cycle a few times. This schedule would expose patients to several pulses of HIV antigen, and presumably jolt the immune system into responding. Such "autovaccination" would be followed by withdrawal of HAART. Hopefully, the newly stimulated immune system would then contain the virus without drugs.

Too good to be true? Despite widespread skepticism, data from experiments in monkeys with Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV), as well as isolated case reports, suggested that the idea might have merit.

It has now been put to the test in 133 patients recruited in Switzerland and Spain. HAART was interrupted for 2 weeks, then restarted and given for 8 weeks. The off-on cycle was repeated 4 times. After week 40, treatment was suspended indefinitely, unless CD4 T cell counts dropped dangerously or viral loads became excessive. The level of post-trial viremia after 12 weeks off therapy was measured and compared to the level before HAART, with the hope that viremia post-trial would be lower than pre-HAART.

Anti-HIV immune responses were indeed stimulated, as measured by the number of lymphocytes reacting to HIV antigens, which rose from 300 to 2000 per million. But the treatment interruptions did not significantly influence the post-trial viremia, which rose close to the level before HAART. Moreover, a strong anti-HIV immune response in no way predicted low post-trial viremia; to the contrary, patients with strong stimulation of anti-HIV immune responses tended to have higher, not lower, viremia after interruption of therapy.

These results provide strong arguments against the hypothesis that "autovaccination" helps to improve immune control of HIV. They also cast a shadow of doubt on the prospects of therapeutic vaccination. Indeed, the immune response induced by the treatment interruptions was stronger than the most vigorous immune responses induced so far by experimental vaccines, and of course, the "vaccine" and the "challenge" viruses were exactly the same—no worries regarding mutants and variations in subtypes! If such an immune response is ineffective, so would a less vigorous response induced by a heterologous therapeutic vaccine.

Is autovaccination dead? Pretty much so, at least for the vast majority of patients who started therapy during chronic HIV infection. The concept of intermittent therapy may still have value—not because it provides effective autovaccination, but because lowering exposure to HAART might diminish side effects and diminish costs. Prospective trials comparing intermittent with continous treatment are ongoing.

20031010
RI031204


Copyright © 2003 - Research Initiative Treatment Action (RITA!). Reproduced with permission. RITA! is published by The Center for AIDS. Contact Thomas Gegeny, MS, ELS, Editor, RITA! for permission to reproduce RITA!. tom@centerforaids.org. http://www.centerforaids.org

ÆGiS is made possible through unrestricted grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, iMetrikus, Inc., the National Library of Medicine, and donations from users like you. Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2003. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

ÆGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1985, 2003. ÆGiS . All materials appearing on ÆGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of ÆGIS , or the party credited as the provider of the content.