
Firm tried to block report on failure of AIDS vaccine
A Californian biotechnology
company tried to block publication of a major AIDS study that
found that the experimental
treatment the company was
developing failed to improve the
health of patients, the scientists
conducting the research said.
The Immune Response company of Carlsbad, California,
opposed publication of the study
because it did not include a subanalysis it believed showed that
the treatment boosted the
immune systems of some patients.

Receptors involved in HIV viral attachment and entry (PRNEWSFOTO/ PHYLOMED) |
But despite the objections of
the company, the researchers,
led by James Kahn of the University of California at San Francisco, submitted their results to
JAMA, which published them.
The study, of 2527 patients
at 77 hospitals, tested a therapeutic vaccine, marketed under
the trade name Remune,
designed to boost the immune
systems of people infected with
HIV. The researchers concluded
that Remune failed to show any
advantage in survival or in slowing progression of AIDS. The
number of people whose health
had worsened after two years
was exactly the same as that in a
placebo group. The findings
were disappointing to patients
and researchers, who had hoped
that the substance, manufactured from killed and dismantled HIV, would attenuate the
course of the disease (JAMA
2000;284:2193-202).
"Companies are frantic to get
out positive results, but not neutral or negative results," Dr Kahn
said. "It's very hard to publish a
study that's either neutral or negative on a commercial product."
Drummond Rennie, the
deputy editor of JAMA, said that
the journal had gone ahead with
publication to "prevent the bias
that comes from reporting only
those results favorable to sponsors' products."
At issue was whether an analysis of data from 250 patients out
of the 2527 in the study should
have been included in the published report. The vaccine's manufacturer believed that the
subanalysis would not change the
outcome of the trial but was highly informative and should have
been included. Dr Kahn believed
the analysis was misleading and
should have been excluded.
In September the vaccine's
manufacturer refused to provide
all the study data to Dr Kahn and
his colleagues, and Dr Kahn
refused to put what the company
wanted in the paper.
The analysis that Dr Kahn
and his colleagues performed
showed no benefit, as measured
by survival or health improvement rates, between the vaccine
and placebo groups. This was
also true of a subpopulation of
250 patients, in whom blood
samples had been taken more
frequently than in the others. In
that group, however, the
patients taking Remune had a
more vigorous immune system
response than those taking the
placebo.
Dr Kahn's paper reported
these results, but the company's
researchers believe that Dr Kahn
and his team should have noted
that patients in the subpopulation taking Remune had a steep-
er drop in viral load than those
taking placebo.
Dr Kahn and his colleagues
viewed that analysis as "data
dredging." The statistical test
that the company used to show
the connection between Remune and viral load in the subpopulation was not specified in
advance in the experiment's
protocol, Dr Kahn said.
Ronald Moss, vice president
of medical affairs at Immune
Response, said: "The published
article excludes the full presentation of results showing that
Remune did cause enhanced
immune system activity." He said
the company tried to stop publication "only because we think
there was important information
excluded." He said the company
still planned to publish such
data from the study.
Scott Gottlieb New York

|