New doubts have been raised about a seemingly promising AIDS vaccine trial that was conducted here in Thailand by Thai and U.S. Army researchers. The results were announced — and widely reported — in late Sept.
From the New York Times:
When AIDS researchers released results last month from a six-year trial in Thailand of a new AIDS vaccine, they said it showed some promise for new avenues of research, though they freely admitted their data was weak.
Now two published accounts citing anonymous AIDS researchers who were given confidential briefings about the trial results have reported that the data, released on Sept. 24, may be even weaker than the authors admitted — essentially, instead of being 31 percent better than nothing, the vaccine might be only 26 percent better.
And here’s the Wall Street Journal:
Researchers from the U.S. Army and Thailand announced last month they had found the first vaccine that provided some protection against HIV. But a second analysis of the $105 million study, not disclosed publicly, suggests the results may have been a fluke, according to AIDS scientists who have seen it.
The second analysis, which is considered a vital component of any vaccine study, shows the results weren’t statistically significant, these scientists said. In other words, it indicates that the results could have been due to chance and that the vaccine may not be effective.
(Emphasis mine.)
2 replies on “How successful was the Thailand AIDS vaccine trial?”
The point of the matter for me is that they are making some headway. Even if the trial was a complete failure, they can at least move on and focus their efforts on different methods.
On top of this, their goal is to receive more funding. Even if they have to stretch their results a bit to continue with this much needed research, I am fine with turning a blind eye to conflicting reports.
Years ago when VaxGen was testing their HIV vaccine 30% efficacy was the threshold they were shooting for. The question here seems to be whether they met that rather arbitrary threshold. It sounds like the data averages to 31%, but the bottom of the statistical confidence interval is 26%.
Bottom line I don’t think the new news is as horrible as you make it sound since neither 26% or 31% efficacy is all that effective. To me the real problem is calling 30% “effective”.