Connect with us

National

HIV research sped development of COVID vaccine

Top NIH official says success in coronavirus will boost AIDS work

Published

on

ā€˜In many ways, the work for the past 25 years that weā€™ve done in HIV vaccines sped the development of coronavirus vaccines,ā€™ Carl W. Dieffenbach, Ph.D.

Since 1996, Carl W. Dieffenbach, who holds a Ph.D. in biophysics from John Hopkins University, has served as director of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, which is an arm of the U.S. National Institutes of Health or NIH.

In a June 10 interview with the Washington Blade, Dieffenbach gave an update on the extensive, ongoing research into the development of an HIV/AIDS vaccine that he has helped to coordinate for many years, including current human trials for a prospective AIDS vaccine taking place in the U.S., South America, and Africa.

One thing he feels passionate about is a development not widely reported in the media reports about the successful development of the COVID-19 vaccine. According to Dieffenbach, the extensive research into an AIDS vaccine in recent and past years, while not yet successful in yielding an effective AIDS vaccine, helped lay the groundwork for the rapid development of the different versions of a COVID vaccine.

ā€œBecause my division runs the largest clinical trials program in the word, we jumped in with both feet to help with coronavirus disease for both vaccines and drugs and things like that,ā€ he said. ā€œAnd the platforms that were used ā€“ the way they are making the coronavirus vaccines ā€“ the RNA vaccines with Moderna ā€“ were first piloted by NIH and Moderna to try to make an HIV vaccine,ā€ Dieffenbach says.

ā€œSo, in many ways, the work for the past 25 years that weā€™ve done in HIV vaccines sped the development of coronavirus vaccines,ā€ he told the Blade. ā€œAnd now itā€™s time to take what weā€™ve learned from coronavirus and take it back to HIV and start afresh or continue with what we have and build upon from what we have learned.ā€

Dieffenbach says one reason the development of a COVID vaccine came about before an AIDS vaccine, despite more than 20 years of AIDS vaccine research, is that the HIV virus is far more complex than the coronavirus, especially its ability to infect and remain embedded in the infected person for life. 

ā€œBack in 2007 we had the first hint that an AIDS vaccine might be possible with a study called RV144,ā€ Dieffenbach says. ā€œWe spent 10 years trying to replicate that, and we just completed that study ā€“ a study called HVTN702. And it showed no efficacy,ā€ he said, meaning it did not work.

ā€œSo that was a big disappointment to us,ā€ he says ā€œBut in the meantime, we had pushed forward with the J&J [Johnson and Johnson pharmaceutical company] vaccine and are pretty far along. Weā€™ll see what happens. We should know in the next several months whether the N26 version of an AIDS vaccine, and HIV vaccine works or not,ā€ he says. ā€œWeā€™re very close to an answer.”

Washington Blade: Where do things stand in the development of an HIV/AIDS vaccine in light of Dr. Fauciā€™s statement a few weeks ago that the development of a COVID-19 vaccine could provide a boost to developing an AIDS vaccine?

Carl Dieffenbach: Sure. So, maybe I can start by introducing myself to you as a way of putting this into a context.

So, Iā€™m the director of the Division of AIDS, which is the largest funder of HIV research in the world. And I report directly to Dr. Fauci. So, Iā€™m responsible for all AIDS, all the time. And that is my passion and purpose in life. Part of that is working toward a safe, effective, and durable HIV vaccine, which has been one of the two most challenging questions left in science today. The other is a cure. They are connected in some ways.

So, with that as background, when coronavirus disease came along ā€“ because my division runs the largest clinical trials program in the world ā€“ we jumped in with both feet to help with coronavirus disease for both vaccines and drugs and things like that. And the platforms that were used ā€“ the way they are making the coronavirus vaccines ā€“ the RNA vaccines with Moderna were first piloted by NIH and Moderna to try to make an HIV vaccine. So, weā€™ve being working on that platform with Moderna for several years.

The leadership at Pfizer used to be part of a group at Penn, where we were also working with them. The J&J vaccine ā€“ we currently have in two Phase III clinical trials for HIV, one in sub-Saharan Africa, specifically in young women and the other one in the Americas in men who have sex with men and transgender individuals. Both of those Phase IIIs are moving along. The womenā€™s study is fully enrolled. The menā€™s study was hit hard by COVID, but we worked through and will be fully enrolled by September.

One other vaccine just to talk about is the Oxford vaccine, the AstraZeneca vaccine. That is also using a platform at Oxford University, which has been used for HIV. So, in many ways, the work for the past 25 years that weā€™ve done in HIV vaccines sped the development of coronavirus vaccines. And now itā€™s time to take what weā€™ve learned from coronavirus and take it back to HIV and start afresh or continue with what we have and build upon from where we have learned.

Blade: Thatā€™s very interesting. But can we assume, then, from the clinical trials that have taken place for an HIV vaccine that they did not succeed in providing the immunity needed for an effective vaccine? 

Dieffenbach: So, thatā€™s exactly the problem we have. Back in 2007 we had the first hint that an AIDS vaccine might be possible with a study called RV144. We spent 10 years trying to replicate that, and we just completed that study ā€“ a study called HVTN702. And it showed no efficacy. So, that was a big disappointment to us. But in the meantime, we had pushed forward with the J&J vaccine and are pretty far along. Weā€™ll see what happens. We should know in the next several months whether the N26 version of an AIDS vaccine, and HIV vaccine works or not. Weā€™re very close to an answer.

Blade: So, the human trials are ongoing.

Dieffenbach: Oh, again ā€“ the study in young women in sub-Sahara Africa is fully enrolled. The menā€™s study will be fully enrolled in September. So, we have fought through the coronavirus epidemic to maintain, to nurse these trials along to make sure with the $100 million or so weā€™ve invested, that we didnā€™t want them to go down the drain literally because we lost too many people for follow-up. So, this was a herculean effort that has gone on all the time trying to do the vaccine studies for coronavirus disease, which we were also incredibly successful in.

Blade: Can we assume all of the people participating in the studies were HIV negative?

Dieffenbach: Yes, theyā€™re HIV negative. They are people who are at risk. And also, in South America, for example, the major countries weā€™re in are Peru and Brazil. And theyā€™ve had a strong research culture with us, going back more than a decade. For example, both of those countries played big roles in our studies of pre-exposure prophylaxis. A study called I-PREX that demonstrated that in men who have sex with men that [a PrEP drug] works well to prevent HIV acquisition in seronegative men who have sex with men.

So, weā€™ve been there. This is a really good setup for the countries, for the citizens that are in those countries that want to avail themselves to the research that has benefited everybody.

 Blade: Among those who are participating in these ongoing AIDS vaccine trials, can we assume they cannot be taking the PrEP anti-retroviral drugs that have been shown to be highly effective in preventing HIV infection?

Dieffenbach: So, what weā€™ve done is we ā€“ everything is by conversation. So, when somebody who is interested in the study comes in, we talk to them. What is your chief interest in being in this study? And a lot of people want to be in the study because then they can access PrEP. They want to make it easier to get a hold of pre-exposure prophylaxis. They feel that is the best way that they can protect themselves.

So, in that situation, what we do is we take those people and link them to PrEP services where they can easily get PrEP in their community. So, first itā€™s taking care of those people. Then there are people who really have no interest in PrEP. And we actually counsel them every time they come in for a study. Are you sure you donā€™t want to access PrEP? And those are the people we then say, if youā€™re not interested in PrEP, what do you think about participating in a vaccine trial?

Because theyā€™re the ones who have the most freedom of thought. They donā€™t have an opinion about the vaccine or about PrEP. So, those are the people weā€™ve been focusing on and enrolling. So, weā€™ve been very careful to make sure that if people wanted PrEP they not only have access, but they didnā€™t feel like somehow having to trade something in order to get it. The freedom to join a study should be a free choice. And it shouldnā€™t be a coercive thing to get PrEP. So, we just took that off the table and said if youā€™re truly interested in PrEP we can get you PrEP and make sure that was available. 

Blade: So, in that case, if they choose PrEP they would not be in the vaccine trial?

Dieffenbach: You know, itā€™s interesting that you ask it in that way. Because you have relationships with your community, many of the investigators have reported that people will say, you know I tried PrEP and it wasnā€™t for me. It made me gaseous. It upset my stomach. I wasnā€™t myself. I tried it. I couldnā€™t make it work for me. I want to stop PrEP. Am I still eligible for the [vaccine] study? And the answer is of course. Many people are very happy on PrEP and they come in for visits occasionally and say this is working for me and just have the relationship with the doctors there, so it works. So, again, itā€™s about maintaining contact with your communities.

Blade: Can you tell a little about what happens next after people become part of an HIV vaccine trial. Do you have to keep in touch with these people, and do they have to get an HIV test periodically?

Dieffenbach: Exactly. So, the vaccine consists of a series of injections. Itā€™s a mixture of vector systems that delivers a series of encoded HIV genes that are specifically designed to induce very broad immunity. Thereā€™s a whole computer-based process to design those components of the vaccine to make sure that it has sequence similarities with all the different versions of HIV circulating in the globe. And then at the end there is a protein boost. And we carry this out.

So, about every three to four months people come in. They get a shot. They fill out questionnaires. They give a blood sample. And theyā€™re tested for HIV and are given a boost or a placebo. And they stay in touch with the clinic. They come in and out of the clinic. And the retention is quite high in these situations because people really like having the attention of the clinic available to them. Itā€™s part of the community.

Blade: So, they go to a clinic for all of this?

Dieffenbach: Itā€™s a research clinic. Itā€™s not like a state-run health clinic. Itā€™s a research clinic. Clinic is just a term for where people are seen.

Blade: Are any of these AIDS vaccine trials that are going on taking place in the United States?

Dieffenbach: Yes. So, the study is called Mosaico. And itā€™s HVTN706. And we have sites throughout the United States as well as South America. But that study is limited to men who have sex with men ā€“ the one in the United States.

Blade: Is it broader than just men who have sex with men in other countries?

Dieffenbach: No, so we decided to really focus on specific at-risk populations. So, in the Americas we chose to focus on men who have sex with men and transgender individuals. And sub-Saharan Africa we focused on young women because that is the target of the study population. So, 705 is all women in sub-Saharan Africa. And in the Americas in North and South America it is all men who have sex with men and transgender individuals.

Blade: Can we assume that the researchers that are doing these studies have a sensitivity of LGBTQ people? Is there still an issue where people worry about being outed as being gay or transgender?

Dieffenbach: So, many of the sites that we work with have been part of our system for over 20 years. And so, they are trusted members of the LGBTQ community within their cities and states. And ā€˜statesā€™ is a literal term where itā€™s a state in Colombia or Peru or Brazil. And so, it is part of the fabric of the gay community in these places. Just like in San Francisco the San Francisco health clinic and the DCF clinics are part and parcel of everything the community does there.

And so, the lead physician in San Francisco is Susan Buchbinder. She has been a leader in health in this population for over 25 years or actually closer to 30 years at this point. Weā€™re all getting old. Do you know that? So, we have been at this a very long time. And really have tried to build structures that are durable and therefore are reliable to the community. And thatā€™s where we go back to the same groups time after time.

Blade: Have the locations of the vaccine testing sites been released publicly?

Dieffenbach: Yes, all of that is publicly available on clinicaltrials.gov. If you go into clinicaltrials.gov and search HVTN705 or HVTN706 you will get a version of the protocol, all the times itā€™s been modified, where we are ā€“ the protocol. All of that is public knowledge and available to you. HVTN705 is the womenā€™s study. HVTN706 is the menā€™s study.

Blade: Is there a timeframe for when these latest vaccine studies might be completed?

Dieffenbach: I think within the next several months. We will get an answer out of the womenā€™s study and then the menā€™s study is probably a year away. We were slowed a little bit because of COVID. We actually had to pause enrollment for several months. But weā€™re back on track.

Blade: Isnā€™t there a parallel research effort for an HIV/AIDS cure?

Dieffenbach: Yes, we have a very large program in cure research. It is a lot earlier in the discovery process and so itā€™s still very ā€˜researchy.ā€™ And we have a very large program called the Martin Delany Collaboratories for Cure Research. Martin Delany was an activist who really pushed NIH in so many wonderful ways to really take the need for a cure seriously. His argument was a cure is the next logical step after effective anti-retroviral therapy. You cannot stop with one pill once a day. Youā€™ve got to keep going. And he was pretty persistent. And unfortunately, he died several years go and we just thought the best way to honor him, and his memory was to name a program after him.

Editorā€™s note: Next week, in the second and final installment of his interview with the Blade, Dr. Dieffenbach discusses the progress in research and studies into an HIV/AIDS cure and explains from a scientific standpoint why an HIV vaccine is taking longer to develop than a COVID vaccine.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

Homophobe Anita Bryant dies at 84

Published

on

Anita Bryant (Screen capture via SuchIsLifeVideos/YouTube)

Anita Bryant, the singer and orange juice pitch woman who gained notoriety for a homophobic campaign against gay rights in the 1970s, died on Dec. 16 after a battle with cancer, according to a statement released by her family. She was 84.

Bryant was a former Miss Oklahoma, a Grammy-nominated singer, author, and recipient of the USO Silver Medallion for Service, according to her familyā€™s statement. Bryant, a fundamentalist Christian, performed at the White House and the Super Bowl, among other highlights of her singing career.

Bryant incurred the ire of the LGBTQ community after she fought successfully to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance that would have protected gay people from discrimination. Her ā€œSave Our Childrenā€ campaign led gay bars to boycott Florida orange juice. In 1977, while promoting her campaign in Iowa, Tom Higgins, a gay rights activist, threw a pie in her face, an iconic moment caught by photographers.Ā 

Bryantā€™s homophobic legacy lives on with Florida politicians like Gov. Ron DeSantis rolling back LGBTQ protections and enshrining discrimination in state law. 

Continue Reading

National

New Meta guidelines include carveout to allow anti-LGBTQ speech on Facebook, Instagram

Zuckerberg cozying up to Trump ahead of second term

Published

on

Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder, chairman, and CEO of Meta (Screen capture via Bloomberg Television/YouTube)

New content moderation policies governing hate speech on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads that were enacted by parent company Meta on Wednesday contain a carveout that allows users to call LGBTQ people mentally ill.

According to the guidelines, which otherwise prohibit use of such insults on the online platforms, “We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like ā€˜weird.ā€™ā€

Meta also removed rules that forbid insults about a personā€™s appearance based on race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, and serious disease while withdrawing policies that prohibited expressions of hate against a person or a group on the basis of their protected class and references to transgender or nonbinary people as ā€œit.ā€

In a video on Tuesday, Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s co-founder, chairman, and CEO, said the platforms’ “restrictions on topics like immigration and gender” were now “out of touch with mainstream discourse.ā€ 

ā€œWhat started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and itā€™s gone too far,ā€ he added.

In a statement to the Washington Blade, Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said “Everyone should be able to engage and learn online without fear of being targeted or harassed. While we understand the difficulties in enforcing content moderation, we have grave concerns that the changes announced by Meta will put the LGBTQ+ community in danger both online and off.”

“What’s left of Meta’s hateful conduct policy expressly allows users to bully LGBTQ+ people based on their gender identity or sexual orientation and even permits calls for the exclusion of LGBTQ+ people from public spaces,” she said. “We can expect increased anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, further suppression of LGBTQ+ content, and drastic chilling effects on LGBTQ+ users’ expression.”

Robinson added, “While we recognize the immense harms and dangers of these new policies, we ALL have a role to play in lifting up our stories, pushing back on misinformation and hate, and supporting each other in online spaces. We need everyone engaged now more than ever. HRC isn’t going anywhere, and we will always be here for you.”

As attacks against LGBTQ and especially transgender Americans have ramped up over the past few years in legislative chambers and courtrooms throughout the country, bias-motivated crimes including acts of violence are also on the rise along with homophobic and transphobic hate speech, misinformation, and conspiracy theories that are spread farther and faster thanks to the massive reach of social media platforms and the policies and practices by which the companies moderate user content and design their algorithms.

However ascendant certain homophobic and transphobic ideas might be on social media and in the broader realm of “political and religious discourse,” homosexuality and gender variance are not considered mental illnesses in the mainstream study or clinical practice of psychiatry.

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its internationally recognized Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders more than 50 years ago and more than 30 years ago erased “transsexualism” to use “gender identity disorder” instead before switching to “gender dysphoria” in 2013. These changes were meant to clarify the distinction between the patient’s identity as trans and the ego-dystonic distress experienced in many cases when one’s birth sex differs from one’s gender identity.

Research has consistently shown the efficacy of treating gender dysphoria with gender-affirming health interventions ā€” the psychiatric, medical, and surgical care that can bring patients’ brains and bodies into closer alignment with their self-concept while reducing the incidence of severe depression, anxiety, self-harm behavior, and suicide.

Just like slandering LGBTQ people as sick or sexually deviant, the pathologization of homosexuality and gender variance as disordered (or linked to different mental illnesses that are actually listed in the DSM) is not new, but rather a revival of a coarser homophobia and transphobia that until the recent past was largely relegated to a time well before queer people had secured any meaningful progress toward legal, social, and political equality.

Wednesday’s announcement by Meta marked just the latest move that seems meant to ingratiate the tech giant with President-elect Donald Trump and curry favor with his incoming administration, which in turn could smooth tensions with conservative lawmakers who have often been at odds with either Facebook, Instagram, and Zuckerberg ā€” who had enjoyed a close relationship with the Obama White House and over the years has occasionally championed progressive policies like opposing mass deportations.

Public signs of reconciliation with Trump began this summer, when Meta removed restrictions on his Facebook and Instagram accounts that were enacted following the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

In the months since, the company has continued cozying up to Trump and Republican leaders in Washington, including with Tuesday’s announcement that Meta platforms will no longer use professional fact checking, among other policy changes that mirror those enacted by Elon Musk after he took over Twitter in 2022, changed its name to X, and created conditions that have allowed hate and misinformation to proliferate far more than ever before.

In recent months, Musk, the world’s richest man, has emerged as one of the president-elect’s fiercest allies, spending a reported $277 million to support his presidential campaign and using his platform and influence to champion many of the incoming administration’s policy priorities, including efforts to target the trans community.

Last month, Zuckerberg and Apple CEO Tim Cook each donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee, with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and OpenAI’s Sam Altman each reportedly pledging matching contributions.

Continue Reading

National

As Jimmy Carter is eulogized at the Capitol, his daughter Amy wears a Pride pin

The 39th president supported LGBTQ rights

Published

on

Amy Carter, youngest child of the late former President Jimmy Carter, at the lying in state ceremony at the U.S. Capitol (Screen capture via PBS News/YouTube)

Amy Carter, the youngest child of former President Jimmy Carter, wore a pin with the rainbow LGBTQ Pride flag during the lying-in-state ceremony for her father at the U.S. Capitol building on Tuesday.

Vice President Kamala Harris, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) each delivered remarks and laid wreaths during the service.

Distinguished guests also included U.S. Supreme Court justices, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, dozens of other members of the Carter family, and members of the Biden Cabinet and former Carter administration.

President Joe Biden will eulogize the 39th president during the funeral on Thursday at the Washington National Cathedral with President-elect Donald Trump and former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama also in attendance.

Carter, who died on Dec. 29 at the age of 100, supported LGBTQ rights at a time when the community’s struggle for social, political, and legal equality was in its infancy, promising during his 1976 presidential campaign to support a gay civil rights bill because “I donā€™t think itā€™s right to single out homosexuals for abuse or special harassment.”

Two months after his inauguration the following year, the White House hosted a first-of-its- kind meeting at the White House with 14 gay rights leaders.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular