In my opinion, the article, and the headlines are biased and sensational. I am very disappointed to see this coming from thestreet.com.
The reporter describe the study as "a small,key, albeit FAR FROM DEFINITIVE STUDY". 22 patients followed. data presented on 8 patients. but gives it prominent headlines.
The reporter admits that the study was, "OPEN-LABEL" meaning that it wasn't double-blinded or placebo-controlled" , and is more like coming from a database rather than a "rigorous clinical trial." The study was conducted by Bronx Lebanon Hospital and St. Vincent's Hospital.
It is a misrepresentation of the facts to say that "this study supplies the first data in people that tracks this question, though many other such studies are also taking place."
There are studies listed on the prgram and in the abstracts, being presented at ICAAC in the next several days, that deal with this issue. The studies to be presented contradict these findings. I believe there have already been studies on cross-resistance presented previously. The studies on Viracept showing favorable cross-resistance have not been presented at ICAAC yet. How convenient.
Studies on Viracept are to be presented on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
Real scientific studies, that are on the schedule.
The article implies that this semi-scientific study was curiously slipped in at the last minute.
The article does admit that the study is at odds with what many doctors believe about Viracept.
Dr. Joseph Eron, an AIDS expert at the University of North Carolina says that 6 months ago, he was "pissed off at Agouron" for what he thought was a marketing ploy: i.e. the resistance data. Now he says "his clinical experience has been a good experience"
Also quoted in the article is Dr. Richard D'Aquila, an AIDS research at Harvard, "Everyone agrees that some patients who fail have viral cross-resistance. The question is what percentage."
Furthermore,the article admits that in this study, patients were taken off Viracept later than most doctors would recommend, giving them little chance of responding to any PI. Patients were not switched when resistance was first seen, which would give them a better chance of responding.
The article admits that the study is"too small to be definitive"
But big enough in the eyes of some to give it prominent headlines.
Strange that they don't mention the abstract by Keith Henry 1-204, which IS on the program and which deals with the same subject- favorable results in 7/9 patients who became resistant to Nelfinavir, but who responed well to Ritonavir/Saquinavir. Data is expected on more patients over a longer time, when this abstract is presented.
Keith Henry has co-authored articles on HIV that have appeared in Nature, and Science and that are referred to in the Journal of the American Medical Association, June 25, 1997, the issue that presents the updated Recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA panel for Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV Infection in 1997.
Does anyone know who the the authors are of this "Late-breaking study?
Would anyone like to venture a guess as to who supported the "study?" |
