Associated Press: U.S. Officials Knew of AIDS Drug Risks
(WHAT THE DISSIDENTS HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS. They lied about the side
effects. They lied!)
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
PaulKing - 15 Dec 2004 05:36 GMT
AIDS Research Chief Rewrote Safety Report
Tue Dec 14, 6:58 PM ET
Health - AP
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The government's chief of AIDS (news - web sites) research
rewrote a safety report on a U.S.-funded drug study to change its
conclusions and delete negative information. Later, he ordered the
research resumed over the objections of his staff, documents show.
Dr. Edmund Tramont, chief of the National Institutes of Health (news - web
sites)'s AIDS Division, took responsibility for both decisions. He cited
his four decades of medical experience and argued that Africans in the
midst of an AIDS crisis deserved some leniency in meeting U.S. safety
standards, according to interviews and documents obtained by The
Associated Press.
Tramont's staff, including his top deputy, had urged more scrutiny of the
Uganda research site to ensure it overcame record-keeping problems,
violations of federal patient safety safeguards and other issues that
forced a 15-month halt to the research into using nevirapine to prevent
African babies from getting AIDS from their mothers.
AP reported Monday that NIH knew about the problems in early 2002 but did
not tell the White House before President Bush (news - web sites) launched
a plan that summer to spread nevirapine throughout Africa. Now, officials
have new concerns the drug may cause long-term resistance in the hundreds
of thousands of African patients who received it, foreclosing future
treatment options.
"I am not convinced that the site is indeed prepared to become active,"
Dr. Jonathan Fishbein, an expert NIH hired to improve the agency's
research practices, wrote Tramont in July 2003.
Fishbein contended he should be given time to review Uganda's capabilities
and safety monitoring before letting the site reopen, or NIH would risk
being "toothless" in its new efforts to clean up sloppy research
practices. He added that professional safety monitors hired by NIH had
reservations about the site.
Tramont dismissed the safety monitors' concerns, saying he didn't believe
they fully understood AIDS.
"I am convinced that this site is ready to resume given the limitations of
doing research in any resource-poor, underdeveloped country," Tramont
wrote July 8, 2003, in response to Fishbein.
"I want this restriction lifted ASAP because this site is now the best in
Africa run by black Africans and everyone has worked so hard to get it
right as evidence by the fact that their lab is now certified," he wrote.
NIH officials acknowledge Tramont rewrote the report and overruled his
staff on the reopening, but said he did so because he was more experienced
and had an "honest difference of opinion" with his safety experts. They
noted he had no financial interest in nevirapine and that the troubled
study began well before he joined NIH in 2001.
Those who raised objections "were part of a large team of which Dr.
Tramont was the head, and it is important that the people involved in that
team should express their opinion and there should be discussion," said
Dr. H. Clifford Lane, the NIH's No. 2 infectious disease specialist and
one of Tramont's bosses. NIH designated Lane to speak to AP on Tramont's
behalf.
"But at the end of the day the final responsibility lies with the head of
the team and it is his job to put that together the way he sees it," Lane
said.
Lane said an internal NIH review concluded Tramont had not engaged in
scientific misconduct. Separately, the National Academy of Sciences (news
- web sites) continues to investigate whether the Uganda research was
valid.
NIH believes it helped save hundreds of thousands of African babies by
allowing nevirapine to be used in single doses to block the AIDS virus,
Lane said. But he acknowledged the research was imperfect, and NIH now
believes nevirapine should no longer be a first choice for newborn
protection — if other options exist — because of the newly discovered
problems about resistance.
Tramont wrote in 2003 e-mails that he reopened the clinics because he
didn't want NIH "perceived as bureaucratic but rather thoughtful and
reasonable" and that it was important to encourage Africans' fight against
AIDS "especially when the president is about to visit them."
Bush visited the continent a few days after Tramont ordered the clinics
reopened.
Tramont's actions, however, drew a blunt reply from his top deputy.
"I think we are cutting off our noses to spite our face here," AIDS
Division Deputy Director Jonathan Kagan wrote. "...We should not be
motivated by political gains and it's dangerous for you, of all people, to
be diminishing the value of our monitors."
Tramont prevailed and the research resumed. A few days later, Tramont sent
a note to his staff ordering the end of an 18-month-long debate inside NIH
over whether the science from the Uganda trials was valid and safe. That
debate began in early 2002 when two audits divulged widespread problems
with the research.
The Uganda trial "has been reviewed, re-monitored, debated and
scrutinized. To do any more would be beyond reason. It is time to put it
behind us and move on," Tramont wrote in a July 13, 2003 e-mail
instructing his staff that future issues about the drug be handled
directly by his office.
Five months earlier, Tramont surprised one of his own medical officers who
had written a report summarizing safety concerns uncovered during a second
review of the Uganda trial.
Dr. Betsy Smith's report, finished in January 2003, said the Uganda trial
suffered from "incomplete or inadequate safety reporting" and that records
on patients were "of poor quality and below expected standards of clinical
research."
She strongly urged NIH not to make sweeping conclusions about nevirapine
based on the Uganda research. "Safety conclusions from this trial should
be very conservative," she wrote.
Behind the scenes, Tramont asked to see Smith's report before it was
submitted to medical authorities, including the Food and Drug
Administration (news - web sites). "I need to see the primary data — too
much riding on this report," Tramont wrote Jan. 23, 2003.
A few weeks later, the safety report was published and sent to FDA (news -
web sites) without Smith's concerns and with a new conclusion.
The study "has demonstrated the safety of single dose nevirapine for the
prevention of maternal to child transmission," Tramont's version
concluded. "Although discrepancies were found in the database and some
unreported AEs (adverse reactions) were discovered ... these were not
clinically important in determining the safety profile."
In disbelief, Tramont's staff began inquiring how Smith's report got
changed. An answer came back from the top.
"I wrote it," Tramont responded.
___
On the Net:
Documents gathered by AP for this story are available at:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/nevirapine2.html
National Institutes of Health: http://www.nih.gov
john - 15 Dec 2004 09:31 GMT
The whole of allopathy is based on lies
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ploy5.html
"When you have power you don't have to tell the truth. That's a rule
that's been working in this world for generations. And there are a great
many people who don't tell the truth when they are in power in
administrative positions."---Dean Burk former head of National Cancer
Institute Research (interview on the Owen Spahn Talk Show, San Francisco,
june 1972)
> Associated Press: U.S. Officials Knew of AIDS Drug Risks
>
[quoted text clipped - 268 lines]
>
> Boehringer Ingelheim: http://www.boehringer-ingelheim.com
Derick Burns - 15 Dec 2004 09:39 GMT
Hmmm 32 yo interview
> The whole of allopathy is based on lies
> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ploy5.html
[quoted text clipped - 278 lines]
>>
>> Boehringer Ingelheim: http://www.boehringer-ingelheim.com
john - 15 Dec 2004 17:14 GMT
> Hmmm 32 yo interview
Nothing changes, it's worse now in case you hadn't noticed, eg the lies re
Iraq war--a million Iraqis died from that lie, so you think they care about
aids patients!
GMCarter - 15 Dec 2004 11:05 GMT
>Associated Press: U.S. Officials Knew of AIDS Drug Risks
>
>(WHAT THE DISSIDENTS HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS. They lied about the side
>effects. They lied!)
Guess what? They've lied a LOT about side effects over the years.
That's what pharma DOES. Always. About all drugs for all conditions
and more and more and more these days.
Does that mean drugs are ineffective? Sometimes, yes. Sometimes the
risk outweighs the benefit. Vioxx appears to be one such case in
point.
Antiretroviral drugs are treating a very often fatal condition. And as
such, the toxicities are less of a threat than dying of AIDS. I think
that was where Tramont was coming from.
So I'm sure you'll post this article about 50-60 times. Eh. that's
what delete keys are for!!
George M. Carter
PaulKing - 15 Dec 2004 22:39 GMT
About time.
How can anyone trust these people? How can anyone still trust their life
on the word of criminals?
How can anyone believe the myths they weave to make vast profits.
WE SAID THEY WERE LIERS AND SCUM...and we were right.
PaulKing - 16 Dec 2004 01:05 GMT
Seems apologists don't have much of a problem with liers......even if their
lies kill millions.
AIDS=AID$.
john - 16 Dec 2004 07:19 GMT
"PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message
> WE SAID THEY WERE LIERS AND SCUM...and we were right.
Too true, they kill 700,000 people every year just in admitted mistakes
http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html! That is before the deaths from lies
http://www.whale.to/a/hoaxmed.html
Pharma shills like Carter just keep the gullible pointing in the wrong
direction