By W. Ian Lipkin, MD Director, Center for Infection and Immunity:
Posted 12/28/2011 3:40:37 PM
December 28, 2011
Dear Colleagues and Friends in the CFS/ME Community:
This letter is written to clarify the status of the XMRV/MLV CFS/ME study I am coordinating at the request of the National Institutes of Health. Although frequently described as the “Lipkin Study,” it is in fact the Alter, Bateman, Klimas, Komaroff, Levine, Lo, Mikovits, Montoya, Peterson, Ruscetti, and Switzer study, designed by these 11 investigators to bring their best methods for case ascertainment and characterization and state-of-the-art molecular and serological diagnostic tools to address the question of whether a retrovirus is associated with disease. My role in conjunction with Mady Hornig and Bruce Levin at Columbia University is to ensure that the study represents an appropriately powered, definitive, representative sample of CFS/ME patients across the United States; to receive and distribute samples; and to assess results obtained in individual laboratories for consistency and evidence for or against an association between retroviral signal and disease. I use the term “signal” because any finding related to a retrovirus, whether infectious or noninfectious, genetic material, protein, or antibody, may provide insights into disease or allow development of diagnostic tests even if a causative relationship is not established. My condition on accepting this charge from the NIH and the clinical and laboratory investigators is that each participant agree to unconditionally accept group criteria for defining cases to be used in this study. Laboratory investigators were also required to unequivocally endorse their results at the conclusion of the study. Several months were required to develop clinical criteria for case and control definition and to complete approvals for human subject protection. We encountered additional delays when Dr. Mikovits could no longer pursue her work at the WPI. At that juncture, some parties suggested that the work proceed at WPI without her. However, in my judgment, the value of this study rests in its inclusion of the original investigators who reported the XMRV/MLV findings. Thus, I was grateful when we found a way to fully engage Dr. Mikovits. At the time of this writing we have collected and distributed for laboratory analysis samples from 123 CFS/ME patients and 88 matched control subjects. We intend to complete collection and analysis of samples from 150 patients and 150 controls in early 2012.
There is criticism in some quarters that this study is unnecessary given results obtained by other investigators with other samples. However, the participating clinical and laboratory investigators and our team at Columbia do not agree. We are fully committed to completing the work rapidly and rigorously. For those who continue to express concerns that this study is an inappropriate use of resources in a challenging fiscal environment, please be assured that more than 85% of the funding associated with this initiative is invested in patient recruitment and characterization and sample collection, archiving, and distribution. Thus, irrespective of study outcome there will be unprecedented opportunity to explore hypotheses other than that disease is due to XMRV or MLV infection.
Sincerely yours,
W. Ian Lipkin, MD
Director, Center for Infection and Immunity
Director, Center for Infection and Immunity
4 comments:
Subjects: 123 CFS/ME patients and 88 matched control subjects
What the hell is the definition of a CFS/ME patient? Any data collected will be useless for real patients diagnosed with ME and real patients diagnosed with CFS. Lipkin should blush to promote such scientific garbage.
I would like to applaud Dr Lipkin and co. for continuing with this study against the flow of general scientific opinion and would recommend that unless you are an insider and know all that is going on, everyone refrains from being negative.
I like many others, just want the truth so that research into the most appropriate areas goes ahead. If it is not a retrovirus, so be it but I believe that in the current climate there is at last a chance of finding a (or more) cause(s).
It is vital that the diagnosis of ME is at onset of disease and hence immediate instiution of management of aggressive rest and therapeutics which will not make the patient worse
Lipkin on cii site says using his own group's consensus criteria for definition, but then cites the nih cfs fukuda definiton
so any case of ME, especially frank unequivocal ME is excluded from the Lipkin study by definition, and the results cannot be applied to ME patients.
same problem with canadian consensus and international consensus criteria of cfs/me which is still a fatigue definition sloppy and excludes ME.
.per the nice guidelines blog....me is abnormally delayed recovery fr trivial muscle use... this is primary and just not weakness or extreme fatigue as cfs on lipkin site.
re kew
applaud dr lipkin indeed but for looking for clarity of the virus connexion in cfs, but condemn him and his group for deliberately extending the obfuscation by making his group's work worthless by using neither cfs nor me criteria for the 123 patients. this is useless and a waste of time, money, and lives.
Post a Comment