Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Dissidents winning on every front. Look at the press this week.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
PaulKing - 15 Dec 2004 03:22 GMT
From Fox News and the BBC running the dissident story on Glaxco crimes
against children in New York to the Associated Press story confirming that
the authorities had lied about HAART side effects to the LA Weekly review
praising the new dissident film, The Other Side of AIDS........only one
conclusion is possible.

We are winning the battle and the tide is turning fast.

No pathetic smear article can hide that fact.
PaulKing - 15 Dec 2004 03:49 GMT
"President Bush’s recent trip to Africa has highlighted the need for
increased funding for development assistance and truly free trade, yet
development assistance to Africa remains stagnant, minus money for AIDS it
is actually decreasing."

WHAT GREAT NEWS.
PaulKing - 15 Dec 2004 04:03 GMT
CUTTING THE RIBBON.
No red carpet for the ultimate AIDS symbol?
Red ribbon, red ribbon, where art thou?

By Celia Farber
(New York Press cover story)

We were watching the Golden Globe Awards, and I suddenly noticed something
strange. The stars had no red ribbons on their lapels. None of them–not
even Meryl Streep, not even while she was accepting her award for Angels
in America.

Interesting.

The iconic red ribbon was created in 1991 by a group of artists who formed
an organization called Visual AIDS. The ribbon was meant to symbolize
"solidarity and tolerance with those often discriminated by the public–the
people living with HIV and AIDS."

Here are the four stated meanings of the color red, which you can find on
hundreds of AIDS websites around the world:

Red like love, as a symbol of passion and tolerance towards those
affected.

Red like blood, representing the pain caused by the many people that died
of AIDS.

Red like the anger about the helplessness by which we are facing a disease
for which there is still no chance for a cure.

Red as a warning not to carelessly ignore one of the biggest problems of
our time.

A noose, you might say, that strangles any emotional response other than
those dictated in this covenant. Should you stray beyond these boundaries
of prescripted emotion, you’ll be shamed, punished, vilified and driven
out of polite society on a rail. Just look at the language–it’s all there.
What begins unconvincingly with "love" and "tolerance" soon becomes
"blood," "pain," "anger" and finally "a warning."

I respect the millions of people who have used the ribbon simply to
express empathy with suffering. But the ribbon, like the slogan
"Silence=Death," has fascist implications. It has long reigned as the
official, global symbol not of AIDS itself, but of the dominant, immutable
ideology within AIDS. The core mandate of this ideology has been to
enforce and brand AIDS as the disease of all time, the disease without
scope, the disease that must rule over every mind whether awake or asleep,
from here to Cape Town to Bombay, and for the rest of time. It would be
the disease that no leader, no politician, really no living person, could
ever "care" about as much as the ribbon demands, because the ribbon is
insatiable.

Since 1980, American taxpayers have spent a total of $132.4 billion on a
blitzkreig of virtually fruitless research into the very ordinary nine
kilobase retrovirus, HIV, widely believed to cause the vast range of
symptoms gathered together as AIDS. (Widely believed, that is, by those in
its employment. Hundreds of virologists, biochemists and other scientists
believe nothing of the kind, and have stated their opposition vocally into
the small black hole reserved for people like them, that sits about 180
miles off the outer periphery of "responsible journalism.") That is more
than six times the amount NASA has spent putting every man it has thus far
put on the moon, and yet we haven’t saved one AIDS patient. Ask amFAR.

The first thing you will be asked to obliterate when you contemplate AIDS
is your sense of proportion. It is a religion, not a disease. But let’s
leave aside profoundly disturbing questions about whether the scientific
approach to AIDS has been linear and rational, if unproductive, as many
believe, or ill-conceived, myopic and disastrous, as others believe. Let’s
just look at the Red Ribbon and its curious sweep of the planet’s
consciousness.

Ideological and religious symbols seek to replicate themselves as far and
wide as possible. Every place where the symbol crops up, it is a sign that
its belief system has triumphed. The symbol amalgamates ideas and
responses, and short-circuits individual expression. It is a simplifier
and a unifier. In the dictatorship of the AIDS proletariat, the red ribbon
was the Lenin bust. It was mass-produced and distributed around the
world–pinned on every lapel, stamped on every available surface,
emblazoned on walls and windows and erected into giant statues. Nobody
holds the copyright; it is a symbol of compassion, remember, so the magic
of it is that everybody who wanted to show they "cared about AIDS" did
their part–made and folded their own ribbons in their own countries, and
distributed them with evangelical zeal. The ribbon, like red flags on May
Day, was in profligate bloom whenever an AIDS movie premiered or an actor
received an award for a stirring portrait of an AIDS victim. The flag of
contemporary rightness. Purity. Tolerance.

The website of Red Ribbon Deutschland tells us that "Red Ribbons are
folded manually by various volunteers throughout Germany. We have so many
supporters on our list that we don’t need any additional help at this
time" (emphasis theirs).

The website goes on to say that in addition to distributing the ribbons at
AIDS events, they are besieged by requests for red ribbons by German
citizens who want to "hand them out at their weddings and birthday
celebrations"–by shop owners who want them available at the counter and
companies who want them distributed to employees.

Like I said, it’s a symbol of purification, a means of purging guilt.

But guilt about what?

I watch the ups and downs of AIDS mania, searching, usually in vain, for
signs that it is sobering up, coming to its senses, maybe even developing
an interest in the objective reality outside the ever-protective
propaganda bubble.

The ribbon made its debut into mass consciousness at the 1991 Tony Awards,
for which Visual AIDS volunteers had sent letters and red ribbons to all
attendees. "Unfortunately," as several of the ribbon sites phrase it,
"Jeremy Irons was one of the very few celebrities wearing the Red Ribbon
that night."

The campaign continued, and soon stars were sent letters by volunteers,
imploring them to wear the ribbon at awards ceremonies. The rest is
history. I vaguely recall one actor refusing to wear one a few years back.
Was it Jack Nicholson?

Whoever it was, of course, was branded a callous homophobe. But the act of
defiance signaled something important: The wish to preserve our
inalienable human right to feel, respond, react as we ourselves decide
to–not as cogs in a vast machinery that has codified the feelings for us
and festooned us with its idealized emotions.

Why are they so maniacally controlling of our feelings about AIDS? And how
have these ribbons in all their redness and rightness served to drain us
of the very humanity they purport to impart?

Do we really need amFAR or Bono or Sharon Stone to tell us what sad means?
What loss means? What death means?

I’ll tune in to the Oscars, if nothing else, to check for ribbons. And if
they’re absent, it will mean that new borders are opening up through which
vital discourse can at last take place on a disease long trapped in a
hagiography that has made real science, i.e., real caring, impossible.
PaulKing - 15 Dec 2004 04:40 GMT
AIDS Project Arizona closed its doors this week

Before AIDS Project Arizona closed its doors this week, the non-profit
used about $20,000 from a charity-walk account to pay employees, forcing
organizers to cancel the event.
The money for the walk, scheduled for Nov. 7, came from event sponsors and
walkers who pre-registered for the event.
Arcelious Stephens, APAZ's board chairman, said members decided to use
funds from both the APAZ bank account and AIDS Walk Arizona to make the
agency's final payroll
All but one of 22 APAZ employees received their full paychecks, he added.
"The livelihoods of these people are very dependent on their paychecks,"
he said. "We had to make a moral judgment, an ethical judgment if you
will."
The Scottsdale-based Go Daddy Group, which specializes in Internet
domain-name registrations, paid $20,000 to be the title sponsor for the
walk, which raised money and awareness for HIV/AIDS.
In a statement, company President Bob Parsons said, "We were extremely
disappointed to learn both of the cancellation of this important event and
of the misappropriation of the funds Go Daddy provided for the specific
purpose of sponsoring the AIDS Walk."
APAZ, the state's oldest HIV/AIDS support and advocacy group, provided
education, testing and other services for more than 2,500 people infected
or affected by HIV/AIDS.
Stephens said the agency was forced to close, in part, because of a
dispute with county health officials over getting reimbursed for
services.
He also said that APAZ would be getting less government money next year
because of budget cuts, making it "unfeasible" for the agency to provide
certain services.
 
Its closure Monday caught Maricopa County health officials by surprise,
even though they have known of financial and management problems at the
non-profit organization for the past year.
"Unfortunately, the financial situation that was bad a year ago has gotten
worse and worse," said Dr. Jonathan Weisbuch, chief health officer for the
Maricopa County Department of Public Health.
The agency has a $700,000 contract this fiscal year with APAZ to provide
services, including HIV testing, family support, food services, HIV
education, and outreach to Black men and men having sex with men.
APAZ's closing apparently wasn't a surprise to clients and their family
members, said Brian Helander, executive director of Body Positive, another
HIV/AIDS support group in the Valley.
"Even though it's a sudden announcement, the buildup to this has been over
some time. They (clients) have already made their way to other agencies.
It's not a break-the-glass emergency," he said.
 
Several other HIV/AIDS groups, such as Body Positive and Ebony House,
provide similar services once provided by APAZ.
"There will be no gaps in services. People will get what they need. People
with HIV will be taken care of in every way," Helander said.
In an open letter on the www.aidswalkaz.com Web site Tuesday, former AIDS
Walk Arizona Director Scott Hummel said the event "has been canceled by
the APAZ Board of Directors."
PaulKing - 15 Dec 2004 06:24 GMT
AP: U.S. Officials Knew of AIDS Drug Risks

Mon Dec 13, 3:11 PM ET
   
 White House - AP

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Weeks before President Bush (news - web sites) announced a
plan to protect African babies from AIDS (news - web sites), top U.S.
health officials were warned that research on the key drug was flawed and
may have underreported thousands of severe reactions including deaths,
government documents show.

AP Photo

AP Photo

Slideshow: HIV/AIDS

     

The 2002 warnings about the drug, nevirapine, were serious enough to
suspend testing for more than a year, let Uganda's government know of the
dangers and prompt the drug's maker to pull its request for permission to
use the medicine to protect newborns in the United States.

But the National Institutes of Health (news - web sites), the
government's
premiere health research agency, chose not to inform the White House as
it
scrambled to keep its experts' concerns from scuttling the use of
nevirapine in Africa as a cheap solution, according to documents obtained
by The Associated Press.

"Everyone recognized the enormity that this decision could have on the
worldwide use of nevirapine to interrupt mother-baby transmission," NIH's
AIDS research chief, Dr. Edmund C. Tramont, reported March 14, 2002, to
his boss, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy
and
Infectious Diseases (news - web sites).

The documents show Tramont and other NIH officials dismissed the problems
with the nevirapine research in Uganda as overblown and were slow to
report safety concerns to the Food and Drug Administration (news - web
sites).

NIH's nevirapine research in Uganda was so riddled with sloppy record
keeping that NIH investigators couldn't be sure from patient records
which
mothers got the drug. Instead, they had to use blood samples to confirm
doses, the documents show.

Less than a month after Bush announced a $500 million plan to push
nevirapine across Africa to slow the AIDS epidemic, the Health and Human
Services (news - web sites) Department sent a nine-page letter to Ugandan
officials identifying violations of federal patient protection rules by
NIH's research.

The NIH research "may have represented a failure to minimize risk to the
subjects," the Office of Human Research Protections told Ugandan
authorities in summer 2002.

Africa accounts for more than two-thirds of the world's AIDS cases, with
27 million infected, and the United States sought to help slow the
disease's spread across the continent.

Nevertheless, NIH officials told AP they remain confident after
re-reviewing the Uganda study and other research that nevirapine can be
used safely in single doses by African mothers and children to prevent
HIV
(news - web sites) transmissions during birth. But they acknowledged
their
Uganda research failed to meet required U.S. standards.

As a result, NIH recently asked the National Academy of Sciences (news -
web sites) to investigate its science in the case, and has spent millions
in the last two years improving its safety monitoring and record keeping.

"I would say there are many lessons that we have learned from this review
that will help us do our clinical research, both domestically and
internationally, much better," said Dr. H. Clifford Lane, NIH's No. 2
infectious disease official.

One lesson derived from a closer review of the Uganda research is that
even single doses of nevirapine can create instant resistance, meaning
patients may not be able to use the drug or others in its class again
when
their AIDS worsens, Lane said.

"It was unexpected, and what it means is nevirapine probably shouldn't be
a drug of first choice if other options are available," Lane said.

Lane said NIH officials were aware in spring 2002 about the impending
White House announcement on nevirapine but did not tell presidential
aides
of the problems because they were confident, even before reviewing the
Uganda research, that the underlying science was solid.

The White House — though unaware of the NIH concerns — also remains
confident in Bush's $500 million plan in 2002 to send nevirapine to
Africa. Bush approved $2.9 billion for global AIDS fighting next year.

"The president's mission is to try to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa
and to come at it from a new angle, and that is what this is all about,"
spokesman Trent Duffy said.

     

Nevirapine is an antiretroviral drug marketed in the United States as
Viramune that has been used since the 1990s to treat adult AIDS patients
and is known to have potentially lethal effects like liver damage and
severe rashes when taken over time.

In 1997, NIH began studying in Uganda whether it could be given safely in
single doses to stop mother-to-baby transmissions. That research showed
it
could reduce transmission in as many as half the births.

But by early 2002, an NIH auditor, the agency's medical safety experts
and
the drug's maker all disclosed widespread problems about the U.S.-funded
research in Uganda.

Boehringer Ingelheim, the Connecticut-based company that makes
nevirapine,
told NIH it identified at least one "critical compliance issue" that
compromised the integrity of the study and more than four dozen issues it
described as "serious" and "major."

Boehringer and NIH auditors cited concerns such as failing to get
patients' consent about changes in the experiment, administering wrong
doses and delays and underreporting of "fatal and life threatening"
problems.

"It appeared likely, in fact, that many adverse events and perhaps a
significant number of serious adverse events for both mother and infant
may not have been collected or reported in a timely manner," Westat Corp.
reported in March 2002. Westat is a professional medical auditing firm
hired by NIH to visit and audit the Uganda site.

Westat reported there were 14 deaths not reported in the study database
as
of early 2002 and that the top two researchers in Uganda acknowledged
"thousands" of bad reactions that weren't disclosed.

NIH said the subsequent review whittled that list down significantly, all
deaths were eventually recorded and the majority of bad reactions are
believed to have been caused by the poor health of patients, not the
single dose of nevirapine. But they conceded it was incumbent on a U.S.
research project to fully and quickly disclose them.

Officials said the problems began when NIH converted the research from
determining the drug's usefulness to supporting FDA (news - web sites)
approval for the drug. Paperwork in Uganda wasn't kept to the FDA
standards, they said.

"We may not have reported exhaustively, but we reported all serious side
effects," said Professor Francis Mmiro, a lead doctor in the Uganda
study.
"What you may call a serious side effect in the U.S. is not a serious
side
effect in Kampala."

NIH officials reviewed the bad news in early March 2002.

Meeting minutes, written in shorthand, raised broad concerns: Half the
babies in the study were also enrolled in a vitamin A study that could
have affected the outcome, and medical staff running the trials didn't
follow procedures for divulging serious adverse events (SAEs).

"No mtg minutes, no training doc(umentation), site used their own
criteria
for grading SAEs. No lab normal values & serious underreporting of SAEs,"
the minutes stated.

The minutes quote an NIH official who visited Uganda as saying, "The site
staff doesn't know what they don't know."

But Tramont, the AIDS research chief, and other top NIH officials
repeatedly dismissed the concerns as preliminary or overblown, and sought
to salvage the flawed research's underlying conclusions rather than start
over.

"There is presently no evidence that the study's scientific results are
invalid," said a report Tramont sent to his staff less than two weeks
after getting the March 2002 Westat audit.

In January 2002, Boehringer sent NIH an early copy of its report. But the
drug maker, fearing publicity about the report might destroy its chance
to
get the FDA approval of the drug for domestic use, asked NIH to destroy
it
before FDA regulators could learn about it.

"Sensitive information. Asked for it to be destroyed when audit is upon
us," NIH official Mary Anne Luzar wrote on the cover page of Boehringer's
report.

Boehringer says it never requested the document be destroyed, saying "our
actions throughout the study evaluation were proactive and forthcoming."

Lane said the request to destroy the report was inappropriate and NIH
never complied. But he conceded his agency inappropriately kept the audit
from FDA for weeks, saying, "It shouldn't have happened that way."

NIH at first sought to postpone the FDA review of nevirapine, then top
NIH
and FDA officials arranged for the drug maker to pull its U.S.
application
rather than risk a public rejection that might scare African countries
looking for U.S. guidance on the drug.

Unaware of the internal NIH concerns, Bush announced in June 2002 a $500
million effort to fight the spread of AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean.
The plan's centerpiece was nevirapine.

"This major commitment of my government to prevent mother-to-child HIV
transmission is the first of this scale by any government, anywhere,"
Bush
said in a Rose Garden announcement. The White House hoped the initiative
would reach up to 1 million women a year and cut mother-to-child
transmission of HIV by up to 40 percent.

Two years later, after hundreds of thousands of doses of nevirapine have
been distributed to African mothers and children, the FDA has recommended
NIH stop using the drug with certain patients. It also has demanded
stronger warnings to doctors and patients about possible lethal liver
damage and rashes in patients who take nevirapine for longer periods of
time.

African health officials are having second thoughts. South African
officials in July recommended ending the single-use treatment because of
the new concerns about drug resistance.

African doctors said they weren't aware of the full extent of NIH's
concerns but feel comfortable — at least until better options emerge —
administering it in single doses to AIDS-sickened mothers who have few
other choices to protect newborns.

"It's not ideal, but it works," said Dr. Ashraf Coovadia of Coronation
Mother and Child Hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa. Without it,
"many, many more babies would be born with HIV."

Boehringer Ingelheim said it has donated enough doses to treat more than
411,000 mothers and infants in Africa, and self disclosed the problems it
found with the Uganda research. But it says it has research from other
locations, like Thailand and South Africa, showing single dose usage at
birth is safe and effective.

"The bottom line is there were these procedural issues, such as the speed
of reporting adverse events, and the like. But the important scientific
data was intact, and found to be valid," said Dr. Patrick Robinson, a top
Boehringer AIDS specialist.

Still, the German-owned company no longer is seeking FDA permission to
use
nevirapine for protecting U.S. infants because better treatments have
emerged, he said.

___

AP reporter Alexandra Zavis in Johannesburg, South Africa, contributed to
this story.

On the Net:

Documents gathered by AP for this story are available at:
http://wid.ap.org/nevirapine1.html

National Institutes of Health: http://www.nih.gov

Boehringer Ingelheim: http://www.boehringer-ingelheim.com

Mon Dec 13, 3:11 PM ET
   
 White House - AP

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Weeks before President Bush (news - web sites) announced a
plan to protect African babies from AIDS (news - web sites), top U.S.
health officials were warned that research on the key drug was flawed and
may have underreported thousands of severe reactions including deaths,
government documents show.

AP Photo

AP Photo

Slideshow: HIV/AIDS

     

The 2002 warnings about the drug, nevirapine, were serious enough to
suspend testing for more than a year, let Uganda's government know of the
dangers and prompt the drug's maker to pull its request for permission to
use the medicine to protect newborns in the United States.

But the National Institutes of Health (news - web sites), the
government's
premiere health research agency, chose not to inform the White House as
it
scrambled to keep its experts' concerns from scuttling the use of
nevirapine in Africa as a cheap solution, according to documents obtained
by The Associated Press.

"Everyone recognized the enormity that this decision could have on the
worldwide use of nevirapine to interrupt mother-baby transmission," NIH's
AIDS research chief, Dr. Edmund C. Tramont, reported March 14, 2002, to
his boss, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy
and
Infectious Diseases (news - web sites).

The documents show Tramont and other NIH officials dismissed the problems
with the nevirapine research in Uganda as overblown and were slow to
report safety concerns to the Food and Drug Administration (news - web
sites).

NIH's nevirapine research in Uganda was so riddled with sloppy record
keeping that NIH investigators couldn't be sure from patient records
which
mothers got the drug. Instead, they had to use blood samples to confirm
doses, the documents show.

Less than a month after Bush announced a $500 million plan to push
nevirapine across Africa to slow the AIDS epidemic, the Health and Human
Services (news - web sites) Department sent a nine-page letter to Ugandan
officials identifying violations of federal patient protection rules by
NIH's research.

The NIH research "may have represented a failure to minimize risk to the
subjects," the Office of Human Research Protections told Ugandan
authorities in summer 2002.

Africa accounts for more than two-thirds of the world's AIDS cases, with
27 million infected, and the United States sought to help slow the
disease's spread across the continent.

Nevertheless, NIH officials told AP they remain confident after
re-reviewing the Uganda study and other research that nevirapine can be
used safely in single doses by African mothers and children to prevent
HIV
(news - web sites) transmissions during birth. But they acknowledged
their
Uganda research failed to meet required U.S. standards.

As a result, NIH recently asked the National Academy of Sciences (news -
web sites) to investigate its science in the case, and has spent millions
in the last two years improving its safety monitoring and record keeping.

"I would say there are many lessons that we have learned from this review
that will help us do our clinical research, both domestically and
internationally, much better," said Dr. H. Clifford Lane, NIH's No. 2
infectious disease official.

One lesson derived from a closer review of the Uganda research is that
even single doses of nevirapine can create instant resistance, meaning
patients may not be able to use the drug or others in its class again
when
their AIDS worsens, Lane said.

"It was unexpected, and what it means is nevirapine probably shouldn't be
a drug of first choice if other options are available," Lane said.

Lane said NIH officials were aware in spring 2002 about the impending
White House announcement on nevirapine but did not tell presidential
aides
of the problems because they were confident, even before reviewing the
Uganda research, that the underlying science was solid.

The White House — though unaware of the NIH concerns — also remains
confident in Bush's $500 million plan in 2002 to send nevirapine to
Africa. Bush approved $2.9 billion for global AIDS fighting next year.

"The president's mission is to try to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa
and to come at it from a new angle, and that is what this is all about,"
spokesman Trent Duffy said.

     

Nevirapine is an antiretroviral drug marketed in the United States as
Viramune that has been used since the 1990s to treat adult AIDS patients
and is known to have potentially lethal effects like liver damage and
severe rashes when taken over time.

In 1997, NIH began studying in Uganda whether it could be given safely in
single doses to stop mother-to-baby transmissions. That research showed
it
could reduce transmission in as many as half the births.

But by early 2002, an NIH auditor, the agency's medical safety experts
and
the drug's maker all disclosed widespread problems about the U.S.-funded
research in Uganda.

Boehringer Ingelheim, the Connecticut-based company that makes
nevirapine,
told NIH it identified at least one "critical compliance issue" that
compromised the integrity of the study and more than four dozen issues it
described as "serious" and "major."

Boehringer and NIH auditors cited concerns such as failing to get
patients' consent about changes in the experiment, administering wrong
doses and delays and underreporting of "fatal and life threatening"
problems.

"It appeared likely, in fact, that many adverse events and perhaps a
significant number of serious adverse events for both mother and infant
may not have been collected or reported in a timely manner," Westat Corp.
reported in March 2002. Westat is a professional medical auditing firm
hired by NIH to visit and audit the Uganda site.

Westat reported there were 14 deaths not reported in the study database
as
of early 2002 and that the top two researchers in Uganda acknowledged
"thousands" of bad reactions that weren't disclosed.

NIH said the subsequent review whittled that list down significantly, all
deaths were eventually recorded and the majority of bad reactions are
believed to have been caused by the poor health of patients, not the
single dose of nevirapine. But they conceded it was incumbent on a U.S.
research project to fully and quickly disclose them.

Officials said the problems began when NIH converted the research from
determining the drug's usefulness to supporting FDA (news - web sites)
approval for the drug. Paperwork in Uganda wasn't kept to the FDA
standards, they said.

"We may not have reported exhaustively, but we reported all serious side
effects," said Professor Francis Mmiro, a lead doctor in the Uganda
study.
"What you may call a serious side effect in the U.S. is not a serious
side
effect in Kampala."

NIH officials reviewed the bad news in early March 2002.

Meeting minutes, written in shorthand, raised broad concerns: Half the
babies in the study were also enrolled in a vitamin A study that could
have affected the outcome, and medical staff running the trials didn't
follow procedures for divulging serious adverse events (SAEs).

"No mtg minutes, no training doc(umentation), site used their own
criteria
for grading SAEs. No lab normal values & serious underreporting of SAEs,"
the minutes stated.

The minutes quote an NIH official who visited Uganda as saying, "The site
staff doesn't know what they don't know."

But Tramont, the AIDS research chief, and other top NIH officials
repeatedly dismissed the concerns as preliminary or overblown, and sought
to salvage the flawed research's underlying conclusions rather than start
over.

"There is presently no evidence that the study's scientific results are
invalid," said a report Tramont sent to his staff less than two weeks
after getting the March 2002 Westat audit.

In January 2002, Boehringer sent NIH an early copy of its report. But the
drug maker, fearing publicity about the report might destroy its chance
to
get the FDA approval of the drug for domestic use, asked NIH to destroy
it
before FDA regulators could learn about it.

"Sensitive information. Asked for it to be destroyed when audit is upon
us," NIH official Mary Anne Luzar wrote on the cover page of Boehringer's
report.

Boehringer says it never requested the document be destroyed, saying "our
actions throughout the study evaluation were proactive and forthcoming."

Lane said the request to destroy the report was inappropriate and NIH
never complied. But he conceded his agency inappropriately kept the audit
from FDA for weeks, saying, "It shouldn't have happened that way."

NIH at first sought to postpone the FDA review of nevirapine, then top
NIH
and FDA officials arranged for the drug maker to pull its U.S.
application
rather than risk a public rejection that might scare African countries
looking for U.S. guidance on the drug.

Unaware of the internal NIH concerns, Bush announced in June 2002 a $500
million effort to fight the spread of AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean.
The plan's centerpiece was nevirapine.

"This major commitment of my government to prevent mother-to-child HIV
transmission is the first of this scale by any government, anywhere,"
Bush
said in a Rose Garden announcement. The White House hoped the initiative
would reach up to 1 million women a year and cut mother-to-child
transmission of HIV by up to 40 percent.

Two years later, after hundreds of thousands of doses of nevirapine have
been distributed to African mothers and children, the FDA has recommended
NIH stop using the drug with certain patients. It also has demanded
stronger warnings to doctors and patients about possible lethal liver
damage and rashes in patients who take nevirapine for longer periods of
time.

African health officials are having second thoughts. South African
officials in July recommended ending the single-use treatment because of
the new concerns about drug resistance.

African doctors said they weren't aware of the full extent of NIH's
concerns but feel comfortable — at least until better options emerge —
administering it in single doses to AIDS-sickened mothers who have few
other choices to protect newborns.

"It's not ideal, but it works," said Dr. Ashraf Coovadia of Coronation
Mother and Child Hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa. Without it,
"many, many more babies would be born with HIV."

Boehringer Ingelheim said it has donated enough doses to treat more than
411,000 mothers and infants in Africa, and self disclosed the problems it
found with the Uganda research. But it says it has research from other
locations, like Thailand and South Africa, showing single dose usage at
birth is safe and effective.

"The bottom line is there were these procedural issues, such as the speed
of reporting adverse events, and the like. But the important scientific
data was intact, and found to be valid," said Dr. Patrick Robinson, a top
Boehringer AIDS specialist.

Still, the German-owned company no longer is seeking FDA permission to
use
nevirapine for protecting U.S. infants because better treatments have
emerged, he said.

___

AP reporter Alexandra Zavis in Johannesburg, South Africa, contributed to
this story.

On the Net:

Documents gathered by AP for this story are available at:
http://wid.ap.org/nevirapine1.html

National Institutes of Health: http://www.nih.gov

Boehringer Ingelheim: http://www.boehringer-ingelheim.com
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.