Jump to content
World's Largest Herpes Support Group
Helpus

New herpes vaccine

Recommended Posts

Helpus

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5709553/Tremendous-potential-herpes-vaccine-protects-animals-catching-common-virus.html

Dr. Konstantin Kousoulas from Louisiana State University working in a new vaccine and planning to start human trials before May 2019. Does anybody have any information about this vaccine and what you guys think about this vaccine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trace67
31 minutes ago, Helpus said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5709553/Tremendous-potential-herpes-vaccine-protects-animals-catching-common-virus.html

Dr. Konstantin Kousoulas from Louisiana State University working in a new vaccine and planning to start human trials before May 2019. Does anybody have any information about this vaccine and what you guys think about this vaccine?

If it doesn't go latent, then it will be much safer than Rationals vaccine, but I don't think it will perform better.  I would guess it'd perform about the same which would not be so good. That is speaking therapeutically.

For a preventative, we will have to see. Might be interesting.

As far as the five years, that's just standard BULL SHIT talk. Don't count on that being accurate. When they say "we think," that's code for give me money to test it.

I'm not saying they shouldn't test it, so don't get your panties all knotted up. It could be a possible preventative in 10 years or not.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helpus
3 minutes ago, Trace67 said:

If it doesn't go latent, then it will be much safer than Rationals vaccine, but I don't think it will perform better.  I would guess it'd perform about the same which would not be so good. That is speaking therapeutically.

 

For a preventative, we will have to see. Might be interesting.

 

As far as the five years, that's just standard BULL SHIT talk. Don't count on that being accurate. When they say "we think," that's code for give me money to test it.

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't test it, so don't get your panties all knotted up. It could be a possible preventative in 10 years or not.

 

 

 

Do you know any vaccine that may be possible in the future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trace67
3 minutes ago, Helpus said:

Do you know any vaccine that may be possible in the future?

Sadly, no. I dont think any vaccine is going to do much therapeutically. Some form of Crispr is the only hope that I see as of now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thatguy604
8 hours ago, Trace67 said:

Sadly, no. I dont think any vaccine is going to do much therapeutically. Some form of Crispr is the only hope that I see as of now.

Wasn’t Gen 003 50% effective? I thought cutting outbreaks in half was good. Surprised they didn’t get funding 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trace67
2 hours ago, Thatguy604 said:

Wasn’t Gen 003 50% effective? I thought cutting outbreaks in half was good. Surprised they didn’t get funding 

It's not good enough. Most people will continue to take Valtrex rather than pay for an expensive vaccine that's not all that great. The investors know what they're doing. Sure, a few people won't agree and would still want it, at least until they find out how much it is. It needs to be significantly better than it currently is to attract investors. Someone may pick it up eventually and who knows but it could still fail phase 3. Its still considered risky by those with the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knaust

What's the name of this vaccine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tayelle

I'd rather pay for gen 003 then take valtrex.  There are plenty of people who want to be relieved of the burden and embarrassment of antivirals 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whymewhyus?
1 hour ago, tayelle said:

I'd rather pay for gen 003 then take valtrex.  There are plenty of people who want to be relieved of the burden and embarrassment of antivirals 

I'm sure the people who can't take the medication would pay for Gen 003.

I know I'm willing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trace67
1 hour ago, tayelle said:

I'd rather pay for gen 003 then take valtrex.  There are plenty of people who want to be relieved of the burden and embarrassment of antivirals 

I can certainly understand that, but it's not the few that matter to investors. They have to be certain that they will make an ass load of cash to be worth the risk. Realistically speaking, not many people are going to shell out 4k every three months or even once a year or whatever it ends up being.  Insurance probably won't pay for something that’s not significantly better than Valtrex.

 I should give it more credit than I do. It is significantly better than Halford's live virus vaccine, and nobody was injured so that’s a big plus.

Don’t get me wrong; I'm all for it if they can manage to pull it off. It certainly cant hurt to have it available for those that want it. I just don’t think it will happen, but we will see, you never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tayelle
21 hours ago, Trace67 said:

I can certainly understand that, but it's not the few that matter to investors. They have to be certain that they will make an ass load of cash to be worth the risk. Realistically speaking, not many people are going to shell out 4k every three months or even once a year or whatever it ends up being.  Insurance probably won't pay for something that’s not significantly better than Valtrex.

 

 I should give it more credit than I do. It is significantly better than Halford's live virus vaccine, and nobody was injured so that’s a big plus.

 

Don’t get me wrong; I'm all for it if they can manage to pull it off. It certainly cant hurt to have it available for those that want it. I just don’t think it will happen, but we will see, you never know.

 

That is true. But i think the compliance rate for valtrex isnt there. Most people are not on valtrex, and of those who do some only take it episodically.  You are right about insurance companies not wanting to pay for something that is not proven to be effective than valtrex.  But then again there are still 3 drugs out that have relatively the same efficacy. Some people do not tolerate these drugs as well, so that's something to consider.  We just need to advocate for ourselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnsonmency

Yes, you are absolutely correct, Herpes takes a toll on the mind..I am a Homeopath and delt with many people suffering from Herpes. It is correct that, virus can remain in dormant state in a few and may exhibit symptoms in others.. The reason behind this is your immune system..! When your immune system is strong the virus stays in dormant state, so that you don't even realize you have Herpes.. However, when your immune system gets weak, that is the time when the HSV flairs up to manifest symptoms.. Your mind, emotions, lifestyle, eating habits & proper supplementation with a mixture of herbs such as hypericum mysorense, lysine, sida cordifolia, monolaurin and cat's claw. Herpes gives you an opportunity to focus away from desires, calm your mind, lead a healthy & divine lifestyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp

I think many people would take GEN-003 if it continued to show 50% shedding / symptoms reduction.  

There are numerous reasons to take it.  You get some baseline protection that might last for 2+ years.  You get additional protection on top of valtrex.  That's kind of important, because at the moment, there is no combination therapy.  If you want to have sex, all you can do is increase the valtrex dose and hope for the best.  I think it would also help with the stigma issue.  You could tell your partner that, yes you have HSV, but there is a therapeutic vaccine which reduces shedding and you've taken it--on top of the valtrex.  It would sound more reassuring.  

I heard GEN-003 might only be a few hundred dollars.  But I can't remember where I read that.  Anyway, I remember feeling pleasantly surprised by the proposed cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StayingUpbeat

Sadly the number of people who would take something is not the driving factor for moving a treatment out of the lab and into the clinic.  It's whether or not there is commercial viability. 

Vaccines, especially STD vaccines, are a tricky proposition for several reasons.

  1. The most commercially attractive biochemicials are chronic treatments (i.e. pills taken for life)
    1. The goal of all commercial medicines is to get lots of people's health insurance (or medicare) to pay for that medicine over a long time
      1. Vaccines are a one time (or once every once in a while) treatment
      2. Since ~80% of people who have HSV-2 don't know they do; it would need to cost $100,000 per injection to make that math work
      3. Investors know that insurance companies won't pay that with much cheaper, highly effective generic alternatives (i.e. Valtrex, Famvir) available
  2. To pay for the ~$1 billion it takes to cover a Phase III clinical trial a treatment must have a very high likelihood of making several times that much
    1. Investors (or groups of investors) with that kind of money are very risk averse
      1. Vaccines in general are risky
      2. New vaccines, with only middling efficacy, are very, very, risky
  3. Vaccines for STDs face a bizarre right-wing resistance on grounds that they increase promiscuity
    1. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/jan/11/why-is-there-opposition-hpv-vaccine-cervical-cancer
    2. Generally not a show stopper but again something that decreases the likelihood of investors

So yes, Genocea's vaccine, if given the chance, would be a great addition to the arsenal of HSV-2 treatments.  For the reasons listed above however it is very unlikely a company/investor is going to step forward and push it over the Phase III trial hump to commercialization. 

These reasons are sadly the same ones driving why new antibiotics aren't coming to market.  A pill taken for a few days/weeks that cures an infection simply isn't lucrative enough these days to attract investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeHerp

I can't dispute those reasons you pointed out StayingUpbeat.

But I'd just point out in response that: 

The number that was bandied about for the phase 3 for GEN-003 was around $150 million if I recall correctly.  This could essentially be a shedding study, and wouldn't need to be the kind of massive long term prophylactic study that failed.  Cost would be lower.

Genocea suggested that it would be indicated to be taken with once a year boosters.  So there would be repeats, not a one off, for many people.

You mentioned that there's an effective alternative, but that statement needs to be heavily qualified.  I personally find that, as an episodic treatment, the pills aren't very effective.  It often seems too late for them to have much effect, and it doesn't effect the chance of the next flareup. Suppression is a bit better, but taking pills daily, isn't much fun, and I all other things being equal (whcih they aren't because valtrex is more effective), I'd prefer to get occasional vaccines than taking pills for years.

Insurance companies generally favor vaccines, with the logic that, vaccinations tend to decrease health care costs overall because of their preventative effects.  Here, GEN-003's argument is pretty weak, I'll admit because it's not that efficacious.  But some ppl might lay off the valtrex if they get vaccinated, and there could be some small reduction in transmissions from GEN-003 as well. 

I agree that most ppl don't know they are infected.  But, because a LOT are infected, it comes down to many people knowing.  If 15% are infected, and 20% of infected are aware, that's 3% of the population that could be a commercial target.  That's really quite a lot.  Several million in the US.  Realistically, only a fraction would get it, but I think it's still quite a lot of people. Genocea mentioned that their polls of health practitioners and potential patients suggested there could be some real demand for it.

A further factor which I think is hard to quantify, but it seems that HSV isn't as benign as people used to think.  Recently, it's been implicated in Alzheimers, though the causitive link hasn't been completely proven.  The HIV link has long been suspected.  That's putting a bit of a spotlight on HSV, whcih could potentially increase the possibility of regulatory approval, make testing and awareness more likely.  

Overall, I agree that the prospects for GEN-003 may be dim.  But I would not think they are hopeless.  If Genocea says that they are still having some talks with investors, then maybe they are still discussing.  You never know.  

 

 

Edited by MikeHerp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
readytostart

But I´ve seen articles where they mention higher doses of gen003 resulted in a better reduction of shedding and symptoms...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KG303
On 11/20/2018 at 10:40 PM, StayingUpbeat said:

Sadly the number of people who would take something is not the driving factor for moving a treatment out of the lab and into the clinic.  It's whether or not there is commercial viability. 

Vaccines, especially STD vaccines, are a tricky proposition for several reasons.

  1. The most commercially attractive biochemicials are chronic treatments (i.e. pills taken for life)
    1. The goal of all commercial medicines is to get lots of people's health insurance (or medicare) to pay for that medicine over a long time
      1. Vaccines are a one time (or once every once in a while) treatment
      2. Since ~80% of people who have HSV-2 don't know they do; it would need to cost $100,000 per injection to make that math work
      3. Investors know that insurance companies won't pay that with much cheaper, highly effective generic alternatives (i.e. Valtrex, Famvir) available
  2. To pay for the ~$1 billion it takes to cover a Phase III clinical trial a treatment must have a very high likelihood of making several times that much
    1. Investors (or groups of investors) with that kind of money are very risk averse
      1. Vaccines in general are risky
      2. New vaccines, with only middling efficacy, are very, very, risky
  3. Vaccines for STDs face a bizarre right-wing resistance on grounds that they increase promiscuity
    1. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/jan/11/why-is-there-opposition-hpv-vaccine-cervical-cancer
    2. Generally not a show stopper but again something that decreases the likelihood of investors

So yes, Genocea's vaccine, if given the chance, would be a great addition to the arsenal of HSV-2 treatments.  For the reasons listed above however it is very unlikely a company/investor is going to step forward and push it over the Phase III trial hump to commercialization. 

These reasons are sadly the same ones driving why new antibiotics aren't coming to market.  A pill taken for a few days/weeks that cures an infection simply isn't lucrative enough these days to attract investment.

This makes me feel like CRISPR might be the only hope for us suffering. I really hope that goes well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
floydmonk

This is encouraging to see a steady stream of new technology proving itself out every few months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.