1. Patients launch a $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
ME/CFS: In Free Fall Through the Looking Glass
Jody Smith continues to try to put into words the horror of the altered state that hobbles the brains of those with ME/CFS...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Ampligen study published in PLoS One 14mar2012

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by mhj, Mar 14, 2012.

  1. mhj

    mhj

    Messages:
    21
    Likes:
    7
    Norway
  2. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,088
    Likes:
    4,857
    Thanks. I'll just post up my instinctive thoughts to reading it, to get the discussion going.

    I couldn't really tell, at first glance, how significant the improvement was.

    Their primary outcome measure was treadmill exercise tolerance, and I'm not familiar with this as a measure of disability.

    They kept mentioning their protocol, and following PACE I recognise how important it is for researchers to present their data and outcome measures as was laid out prior to conducting their trial.

    As I was reading it, I was aware of how instinctively cynical I've become about those claiming to have a meaningful treatment for CFS since we saw how PACE was spun. Hermispherx clearly have a big incentive to demonstrate efficacy, but this look like they've done so, to some extent, in a blinded RCT.

    It will be interesting to see other's views on this.

    The fact that it's PLoS ONE might dampen down my excitement too, although post-XMRV, I wouldn't be surprised if lots of bigger journals were keen to avoid CFS. There's lots of good research on PLoS ONE too, and lots of crap in Science and Nature.
  3. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes:
    1,663
    Compare and contrast with the best result on the only objective measure reported for PACE (6 minute walking distance for the GET arm), which didn't even reach minimal clinical significance.
    Dolphin likes this.
  4. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,460
    Likes:
    1,839
    Sofa, UK
    It's a Phase III, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial, in 234 patients, of a drug treatment for severe ME/CFS, replicating and extending previous positive research results with this drug, and finding a difference between the placebo control and treatment groups roughly twice the size considered medically significant by regulatory agencies! That deserves at least three exclamation marks, surely?!!!

    The primary endpoint measure of exercise tolerance (presumably based on the Lights' work) seems to me like a more relevant and objective measure than the traditional measures, but they also showed significant improvement on the other, secondary, endpoints, which included drug usage, the Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS), Activities of Daily Living (ADL), and Vitality Score (SF 36). So the more typical SF36 figures are there as well.

    Unless I'm missing something, the fact that it's Phase III puts it firmly in the frame to be considered as a scientifically validated treatment option. Surely it should now be on the table for NICE to consider? Do we have any other treatments that have got through a Phase III trial? I don't think so...

    I think this is very exciting news. I imagine it was published in PloS ONE at least partly to get the news out there as quickly as possible. It should not require a major traditional journal to gain considerable attention for this study.

    This news should really be in all the papers in the next few days...and in the next BMJ...but being UK-based, I'm not holding my breath on that one. It should also be up for consideration by NICE now; even though I doubt it would be approved (it is not cheap), that argument should now begin, if only to be advanced is clear evidence that ME is indeed (and of course) a physical illness, but I don't know how realistic that expectation is.

    Of course we should view all research with a sceptical eye, and I'm sure members will dissect the paper in the coming days and weeks, but they will have to come up with something fairly major to dampen my enthusiasm...
    ahimsa, Dolphin and justy like this.
  5. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,460
    Likes:
    1,839
    Sofa, UK
    Correction: the ET test is a standard test recognised as a regulatory standard, not the Lights' test:

    "Cardiopulmonary exercise tolerance (ET) testing is an objective measurement of treatment efficacy for fatigue and is accepted as a regulatory standard for drugs ameliorating exertional fatigue by exhibiting an average improvement of at least a 6.5% in intra-group, placebo-adjusted ET [16][19]."
  6. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,203
    Likes:
    1,535
    Australia
    I haven't properly read this yet, but a few initial thoughts:

    I feel ETT is still an unusual choice for a primary outcome.
    Looking at the secondary outcomes, the effects are either small to modest, or only a subset of patients responded, but I haven't yet read enough to see if there is such analysis.
    The safety assessment discussion is rather colourful.
  7. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,460
    Likes:
    1,839
    Sofa, UK
    Ah...another correction, we have kind of had a successful Phase III before...last time round with Ampligen - Wikipedia:

    But this time round, the FDA were involved in the study design, and auditing of the study...so hopefully that 8-year delay to the rollout of an effective treatment has now been overcome...

  8. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,460
    Likes:
    1,839
    Sofa, UK
    They do say it's a regulatory standard for fatigue treatments, and I think there was a line suggesting that the FDA were involved in the choice of this measure (?)

    I got the impression that the drug use outcome was just as positive, and maybe the Karnovsky, but I didn't find the detail of all the other measures, which was a little disappointing. I was hoping to compare the SF36 figures favourably with PACE; that would seem to be an important point of comparison but I couldn't find the figures. Perhaps I didn't read it thoroughly enough...

    Quite! :eek:

    But nothing indicating safety concerns or indicating significant harms, as I read it.
  9. Persimmon

    Persimmon Senior Member

    Messages:
    108
    Likes:
    114
    During a quick scan of the article, one thing caught my attention.

    Table 4 reported secondary performance scores (Karnofsky; Activities of Daily Living; and 2 of the SF-36 sub-categories). If I've got this right,
    (i) Those patients on Ampligen (as a group) had statistically significant improvements on all of the secondary measures except for the SF-36 measure of how they perceived their health (ie they improved but didn't feel that they'd improved);
    while
    (ii) Those patients on placebo (as a group) had no statistically significant improvement on any of the secondary measures except for the SF-36 measure of how they perceived their health (ie they didn't improve but felt as if they had).

    Pt (ii) is unsurprising: a placebo-effect.
    However, the contrast between Pts (i) & (ii) would suggest that the blinding was effective.
    ahimsa and Dolphin like this.
  10. CBS

    CBS Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,356
    Likes:
    216
    Western US
    I noticed the same thing. Subjects given Ampligen also had higher rates of "adverse events." Could the adverse events have effected perception of their health status while not being severe enough (or of a particular type) to have limited performance on the Exercise Testing?
  11. Persimmon

    Persimmon Senior Member

    Messages:
    108
    Likes:
    114
    Adverse effects is a possible explanatory factor.

    Another might be that more of the Ampligen cohort than the placebo-cohort reduced their other medications during the course of the trial (see Table 3). That is, if you felt able to cut back on other meds, then you might be improving while the feel-good aspect of that improvement is counter-balanced by the withdrawal of meds that were focused on superficial symptom amelioration.
    Dolphin likes this.
  12. Marco

    Marco Old blackguard

    Messages:
    1,136
    Likes:
    737
    Near Cognac, France
    Just a few points :

    If I understand correctly, the Ampligen story has been ongoing for some time but are these dates correct?

    Given that the FDA was intimately involved in the study design and analysis, what held up publication for 8 years?

    I do like the use of intra-patient measures which strike me as much more preferable to group means, particularly if you suspect that your cohort contains sub-sets. Its a pity the 'gold standard' PACE trial didn't report such measures.

    I'm a little concerned though at the lack of a strong theoretical underpinning for the use of and efficacy of Ampligen in ME/CFS beyond suspected viral triggers and some sort of immune dysfunction. Tying the exercise results and self reported measures to some immune parameters would have been much more persuasive. I appreciate that many drugs may work without knowing the exact mode of action but I would have expected some, even post-hoc, discussion that was a little more specific.
  13. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,648
    Likes:
    9,727
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Hi Marco, that must be the previous study, this study wasn't even applied for till 2005 if you follow the link in the paper for clinical trial approval. Bye, Alex
  14. Vitalic

    Vitalic Senior Member

    Messages:
    108
    Likes:
    46
    Have they hypothesised on what caused the improvements?
  15. Nielk

    Nielk

    Messages:
    5,073
    Likes:
    4,603
    Queens, NY
    Why does it say:
    , right in the trial design? the last patient completed on 8/16/04?
  16. LaurelW

    LaurelW Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Likes:
    91
    Utah
    I was in that study, which did indeed end in 2004. I'm pretty sure the study results have been published before, but I think they must have repackaged them to be more in line with the FDA requirements that were outlined when the NDA was rejected just over a year ago.

    As far as exercise testing being the measure of improvement, I think they used that because there really isn't much else they could have used that is objective. I remember the criteria being solely how long you could walk on the treadmill, but I don't think that tells the whole story. For example, being on Ampligen raised my aerobic threshhold, reduced pain, gave me a lot more energy and made life in general much easier. I remember having to wear an activity monitor several times, but I don't know what they did with that data.

    Personally, I wish to heck they'd approve the darn drug so that insurance would pay for it--it's incredibly expensive and is still the only viable option.
    Dolphin likes this.
  17. Rooney

    Rooney

    Messages:
    75
    Likes:
    19
    SE USA
    Speaking of expense, are you able to have a reduced dose?
  18. LaurelW

    LaurelW Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Likes:
    91
    Utah
    I personally don't want a reduced dose, since I do fine on the full dose. I've heard of some people that get less, though, but since the bottles come in 200 mg sizes, if you get 100 mg you still have to pay for the 200 mg bottle since it can't be saved or shared.
  19. Nielk

    Nielk

    Messages:
    5,073
    Likes:
    4,603
    Queens, NY
    The fact that Ampligen has not been approved yet by the FDA is another one of the big "mysteries" of this disease.
    Kati likes this.
  20. Sam Carter

    Sam Carter Guest

    Messages:
    296
    Likes:
    184
    Hi Alex,

    I think we need Hemispherx to clarify whether this is in fact a new study; the following is taken from the "Competing Interests" section of the paper: "A patent for the use of rintatolimod for CFS was granted to Hemispherx during the conduct of this study (patent number is 6,130,206 and the date is October 10, 2000).

    ETA: reading Laurel's post above it looks like this is a re-analysis of data from an old study.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page