Volume 9 Issue 8 | November 2002
 C o n t e n t s 
#1 SSITT Snapshot
#2 Altered States: the Imperiled Future of STI Research
#3 TAG at Ten: The Year 1997
#4 Marking Time: Radioactive reindeer
#1SSITT Snapshot


Pre-treatment
Viral Setpoint
Viral Setpoint
Post-Rx+STIs
Pt. 1561,831 cps/mL76,805 cps/mL
Pt. 280,60021,393
Pt. 334,752115,546
Pt. 4122,72919,344
Pt. 532,1406,459
Pt. 6467,59831,500
Pt. 716,9273,140
Pt. 8150,39040,176
Pt. 9164,77265,941
Pt. 1011,2984,623
Pt. 1125,417106,928
Pt. 129,40420,236
Pt. 13537105
Source: Journal of Virology, 10/2002
#2Altered States
Nattering Nabobs' Noxious Spin, And the Imperiled Future of STI Research
'The ELISpot conundrum'

When an investigational drug causes a 0.4 log drop in viral load,
it's evidence of biological activity.

When the first large auto-vaccination study produces the same result,
it signals the end of an entire field of HIV research. -RJ

October saw the first publication of results from the Swiss-Spanish Intermittent Treatment Trial (SSITT), the largest study of structured treatment interruptions in chronic HIV infection conducted to date.

The design of SSITT was based on the "auto-vaccination hypothesis": the idea that short interruptions of HAART might augment the immune response to HIV by exposing the immune system to brief, controlled bursts of viral replication. If the media stories that accompanied the release of the data (published in two papers in J. Virology and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) are to be believed, SSITT was an abject failure: "Drug Holidays Not Beneficial for Fighting HIV," quoth Reuters. A commentary accompanying the PNAS paper, authored by Ume Abbas and John Mellors, was headlined with a lengthy dismissal: "Interruption of antiretroviral therapy to augment immune control of chronic HIV-1 infection: Risk without reward."

It may thus come as a surprise that, in fact, the SSITT investigators obtained a statistically significant result—it just wasn't a result that they think anyone should pay much attention to. Perhaps the researchers will turn out to be correct, but the rush to embrace a negative interpretation of the SSITT results appears to be running ahead of the actual data.

The SSITT Data: Overview
The first broad overview of the SSITT results was provided by principal investigator Bernard Hirschel at the February Retrovirus Conference. The trial enrolled 133 chronically infected individuals with CD4 counts >300 and viral loads <50 copies on HAART, with a history of at least six months suppression to less than 500 copies prior to study entry. Participants underwent a two week interruption of treatment followed by eight weeks of re-treatment, and this cycle was repeated four times prior to an open-ended treatment interruption at week 40.

Anyone whose viral load was not re-suppressed to <50 copies/mL during the eight week re-treatment periods was automatically excluded from the protocol. [NB: Many of the details of the Swiss-Spanish treatment interruption study, such as entry criteria, structure of time on and off treatment, as well as rules for expulsion from study and definitions of success and failure, represent "best guess" inputs and in some cases are clearly arbitrary. Future STI and SIT studies will need to experiment with these variables in an attempt to fine-tune these parameters and help to bring the immunity picture into clearer focus.]

At week 52 of the trial, 67 participants remained enrolled. Of these, 23 maintained viral loads below a pre-defined "responder" threshold of 5,000 copies, but seven had viral loads in this range before ever starting HAART. The other 44 had viral loads above this threshold, but did not meet the protocol-mandated criteria for restarting therapy.

At the Retrovirus meeting earlier this year, Dr. Hirschel graphically illustrated his interpretation of the data as regards stimulating HIV-specific immunity. He put up a slide of a gravestone, inscribed "Herein Lies the Auto-vaccination Hypothesis." The primary basis for this provocative conclusion was the analyses of HIV-specific CD8 T cell responses, which were—confoundingly—of a greater magnitude in the non-responders than the responders, at least as measured by the ELISpot assay employed in the study.

The newly published studies represent a more detailed exploration of the data described by Hirschel, focusing on the immunological and virological outcomes. In PNAS, the research team—led by immunologist Annette Oxenius from the Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK—reports on the 97 participants in the trial that were recruited in Switzerland. In the Journal of Virology, the same team focuses on a subset of 13 individuals for whom detailed data on CD8 T cell responses and HIV viral load were available. The titles of the papers serve as pithy summaries of the conclusions: "Stimulation of HIV-specific cellular immunity by structured treatment interruption fails to enhance viral control in chronic HIV infection" (PNAS) and "HIV-Specific CD8 T-Cell Responses Do Not Predict Viral Growth and Clearance Rates during Structured Intermittent Antiretroviral Therapy" (J Virology).

The Numbers
Taking the larger PNAS study first, the logical presumption from the title is that the participants' viral load remained unchanged compared to their pre-therapy baseline. Strangely, this does not turn out to be the case: "A comparison of plateau viral [load] to pretreatment viral load showed that plateau viral load was significantly lower than pretreatment viral load (P= 0.005, paired t test); however this difference was small (mean log pretreatment viral load= 4.2826 and mean log plateau viral load 3.896)."

This translates into a change from an average of 19,320 copies pre-HAART to 7,396 copies off therapy at the end of the SSITT protocol—a decrease in viral load of about 0.4 log. Not spectacular, certainly, but statistically significant nevertheless, and seemingly an indication that the STIs had somehow altered the equilibrium between the host and HIV replication.

Although it is unclear in the PNAS paper whether the reinitiation of therapy was accounted for in this viral load analysis, the J. Virology substudy echoes the finding (an average 0.4 log drop in viral load, in this case from a mean of 4.6 to 4.2 log), and clearly states that the data from individuals that restarted HAART was based on two or three samples taken just prior to beginning therapy. It is therefore a little surprising when the researchers go on to say: "This result is comparable to studies of single treatment interruptions where the ensuing plasma viral load was similar to pretreatment viral load."

Implications and Future Questions
Perhaps it is the failure to identify any immunological correlates that has caused the researchers to shy away from making too much of the observed change in viral load setpoint. Critical questions, however, are left unanswered—particularly in terms of whether the responses measured by ELISpot truly reflect functional HIV-specific immunity. A number of recent studies have suggested that this may not be the case, demonstrating differences between ELISpot results and those obtained using techniques that measure HIV-specific T cell proliferation (proliferation is a distinct property possessed by some, but not all, antigen-specific T cells).

A team of researchers led by Mark Connors at the NIH has recently shown clear differences in the proliferative responses of HIV-specific CD8 T cells in long-term non-progressors (LTNPs) compared to both untreated and HAART-treated individuals with progressive disease. No such differences were observed when the HIV-specific CD8 T cell response was assessed based on interferon-gamma production. British immunologist Francis Gotch has reported a similar disconnect between proliferative capacity and cytokine production when HIV-specific CD4 T cells from LTNPs and progressors are compared.

The overarching theme that emerges from these data is one that has been sounded since the very earliest days of HIV research: the immunological correlates of control of HIV replication are opaque, and need to be clarified. Recent basic immunology research in animal models has shed new light on the development and maintenance of virus-specific T cell and antibody responses, but efforts to translate these findings to the setting of human HIV infection are in their infancy. Given this fact, it seems important to question whether the "small" reduction in viral load setpoint seen in SSITT is really a basis for ending all research evaluating the immunological and virological effects of STIs in chronic infection, as Abbas and Mellors argue in their commentary.

When monotherapy with nucleoside analogue antiretrovirals was shown to produce a small and transient drop in viral load, these drugs were not dismissed, but rather improved by their eventual inclusion in HAART regimens which produced more lasting effects. Similarly, it can be argued that SSITT represents a first attempt at enhancing control of HIV replication through the use of STIs, and the results—by showing that viral load setpoint can indeed by reduced—set a standard for future STI studies in chronic infection to improve upon. Neither the SSITT authors nor Abbas and Mellors, however, appears willing to countenance such a possibility.

The Risks of STIs
In part, the negative interpretation of the SSITT results appears driven by concerns regarding the risks associated with the use of STIs in chronic infection. Abbas and Mellors cite several potential risks, including symptomatic acute retroviral syndrome, re-seeding of viral reservoirs, CD4 T cell decline, increased risk of transmission, poor adherence to continuous therapy and the potential risk of drug resistance (especially NNRTI and 3TC) due to declining drug levels during the few days immediately after stopping HAART.

Conclusions
Clearly, the failure of the SSITT protocol to produce any obvious and dramatic immunological or virological benefit threatens to cast a pall over future STI research, at least in terms of auto-vaccination. Efforts to secure funding and Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for such studies may well be affected, undermining investigators—such as immunologist Luis Montaner from the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia—attempting to pursue answers to some of the outstanding questions described in this article.

The political aspect of STI research may also be playing a role in the interpretation of SSITT. As Cal Cohen from the Community Research Initiative of New England has observed, there is no incentive for pharmaceutical companies (or, for that matter, the many researchers they fund) to support strategies that aim to allow people with HIV to safely go without drug treatment for extended periods. To ensure that future STI research is guided by science—not prejudice or politics—the treatment activist community will need to closely monitor developments in this field. ¤

#3TAG at Ten: The Year 1997
Jan 20Bill Clinton's second inaugural. Michael Marco and Mark Harrington finish initial draft of OI Report.
Jan 22Crisis at Retrovirus re: on-site registration for Linda Grinberg and sixteen other unregistered community members. They are not allowed in. (Relations with Chip and Connie will never recover.)

Community makes a surprising show of unity, opposing promiscuously early use of antiretrovirals. Fight with John Mellors regarding recommendations for asymptomatic HIV infection.
Jan 27AIDS deaths down 50% in New York for 1996, and down 66% in British Columbia (where they have a province-wide standard-of-care). In Marty Hirsch's Merck 039 study of people with under 50 CD4 cells, 65% of those randomized to AZT/3TC/indinavir went undetectable; their T cells rose by 85.
Feb 15TAG board decides to move away from membership structure and towards one of a more traditional CBO.
Feb 20DSMB stops ACTG 320 (AZT/3TC/indinavir vs. AZT/3TC) early due to a mortality/progression difference.
Mar 14FDA approves Agouron's nelfinavir (Viracept) for adults and children.
Mar 19Memorial service for activist Tom Stoddard at the Ethical Culture Society in NYC.
Mar 2010th anniversary of FDA approval of AZT.
Mar 2410th anniversary of ACT UP/New York's first big demo, Wall Street, NYC.
Apr 4FDA approves Pharmacia & Upjohn's delavirdine (Rescriptor), the second NNRTI and probably the least used AIDS drug today—behind even ddC and Invirase!
Apr 18After eight months of d4T/3TC/indinavir, MH's viral load has gone from 196,000 to <400; his CD4s from 152 to 617.
May 1In the United Kingdom, Tony Blair's New Labor ejects the Tories after 18 years.
May 8New draft HHS Guidelines virtually propose putting triple therapy in the drinking water.
New papers in Science and Nature by Ashley Haase, David Ho, Bob Siliciano on viral kinetics and reservoirs.
May 9Mark drafts memo to HHS about the fucked-up treatment guidelines. Talks to Fauci about same. Tries to make his physician's conscience appear. (It doesn't; he keeps his political mask on.)
May 14Roche meeting, NYC: Yell at them re: Why it took five years to find a potent dose of saquinavir.
May 18President Clinton says, "Today, let us commit ourselves to developing an AIDS vaccine within the next decade." Being Clinton, of course, he hedges, "There are no guarantees..."
Jun 3Peter Staley's departure from TAG staff.
Jun 4TAG demo against the American Heart Association over its "disease vs. disease" NIH budget lobbying.
Jun 7Mark writes "Cynical Swiss Saquinavir Scam" about Roche's promulgation of subtherapeutic saquinavir formula.
Jun 11FDA reports protease inhibitors may cause diabetes. Maybe AIDS is not only becoming a "chronic, manageable disease—like diabetes," but actually becoming diabetes!
Jun 12Mark receives MacArthur Foundation Fellowship for his AIDS work.
Aug 4FDA approves Bristol-Myers' paclitaxel (Taxol) for second-line treatment of Kaposi's sarcoma.
Sep 6Funeral for Princess Diana, London.
Sep 7-8European HIV meeting, Istanbul. Ashley Haase presents new data showing impressive CD4 cell reconstitution in the lymphoid tissue after six months of triple therapy. Doug Richman confides portentously, and not without a trace of Schadenfreude, the death of the eradication hypothesis: three papers are in press at Science on the topic.
Sep 28ICAAC, Toronto. Bob Siliciano demonstrates the failure of latently infected CD4 cells to decay post-HAART. Lots of posters on what later becomes known as lipodystrophy.
Oct 1Bill Paul announces his resignation as OAR Director.
Nov 7FDA approves Roche's "new, improved" saquinavir formulation, Fortovase.
Nov 13Science and Nature publish articles on HIV persistence in latently infected CD4 cells.
Dec 8HHS Guidelines panel considers and then rejects delavirdine (Rescriptor) and saquinavir (Fortovase) for first-line therapy.
Dec 29Mark invited to deliver "shared plenary" at 1998 AIDS Conference on "Cure: Myth or Reality?" with Robert Siliciano.
#4Marking Time
Commune of Shell Shocked Soldiers Springs Up Then Quickly Crumbles, Inexplicably
'Radioactive reindeer'
"In Stockholm the bags were a bright blue." Thus begins David Barr's quirky personal account of the dozen or so international AIDS conferences which often served as the backdrop for a decade and a half of community organizing, political maneuvering and crash course self-study in the medical sciences, biostatistics and governmental rules and regulations.

From storming the conference stage at the open plenary in Montréal, to stalking Margaret Fischl outside a San Francisco motel, to the maladroit ogling of an ice cream barista at a Florentine gelateria, David's "irreverent, more factual than you might imagine and sort of self-serving recollection with digressions" history of the international AIDS conference is a rare synthesis of the public and private faces of AIDS treatment activism over the years.

I can only view my life as Before and Since AIDS. Since AIDS, especially from 1987-2001, it became extremely difficult to keep track of time. The best marker I have is the International AIDS Conference. I can usually best remember when an event happened based on its relation to the conference. The Conference is a ritual where, like all rituals, different people play out their roles, engage in theatrical behaviors, and go through some kind of emotional metamorphosis allowing the participants to move on to the next stage of life. Like most rituals, it is an acknowledgement of the past and a preparation for the future. Perhaps their best purpose is as markers in time. You can use rituals like these, especially ones that occur regularly, to tell a story. So this is a story. An incomplete one. Not really of the conference. But of my attendance at the ritual that is the conference.

AIDS took over my life in 1987. I had already begun working on AIDS issues in 1985 as a legal intern at Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. But in 1987 I became a staff attorney at Lambda and joined ACT UP. AIDS became my life. In 1989, I took my first (and last) HIV test, tested positive, and figured I would die sometime over the next few years. Thirteen years later I am still around for reasons I both do and do not understand. Mostly, I think I have been very lucky. The whirlwind that began for me in 1987 caused me to lose touch with all my friends from before that time. AIDS became not only a personal health crisis for me, but engulfed the community in which I live, and completely dominated my professional and social life. I lived with the people I worked with and watched too many of them sicken and die. But, again, I have been very lucky, and my closest friends are somehow still alive.

After 1987 my life became a communal one, and the commune was built around a disease and our struggle against it. That struggle against AIDS and death became a way of life. In my effort to not let AIDS consume me, it consumed me. All my time, working and social, was centered around AIDS, and through it I was able to build strong and lasting relationships and a career of work that is satisfying in ways that few people ever get to experience. This is the most confusing thing of all for me. The horror that is AIDS has brought me both terrible pain and incredible good fortune because of the people and experiences I have encountered through my work. It feels strange to say this—and it will probably be mischaracterized—but I think it is important to deconstruct our experiences as AIDS activists. And that means talking about both the good as well as the bad. Maybe one way to say it is that AIDS is bad, but activism is good—and a good way of life.

We were a relatively small band of people, the AIDS treatment activists. My recollections of the conference, as well as the endless series of ICAACs, Retroviruses, FDA meetings, ACTG meetings, workshops, trainings, demonstrations, plane trips, hotel stays, slide shows, strategy sessions, memorial services, really good dinners, really bad breakfasts, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, mostly involve spending time with my closest friends: our non-stop conversations about this drug, that trial, that researcher, this company, that guy, this guy and every other guy, went on for fifteen years.

The time we had together was affectionate, competitive, furiously angry, grief-stricken, horrifying, and very, very funny. While there were hundreds of activists that I would interact with regularly, there was a small group of about ten people that I really lived with. I thought that these would be my last friendships—that we would all help each other die. Instead, the relationships were hurt more by time than by AIDS. And now, I look on that period in my life in retrospect. I still work on HIV, but it isn't the same—and I don't want it to be. Many of these people are still my good friends, but we don't live together as we once did. The commune broke up. So as I recall the AIDS conferences past, mostly I recall my time with my friends. I love them and thank them for all they have given me.

Stockholm
I first attended the International AIDS Conference in 1988. It was held in Stockholm: not exactly a country swarming with HIV, but a pleasant place nonetheless. It was at the end of June and was light out about 23 hours a day. I went with Mickey Wheatley, my comrade-in-arms at Lambda. To save money, we got a cheap flight to Brussels and took the train from there. The Stockholm conference was my first scientific meeting.

If you attended any of the AIDS conferences over the past few years, you would think that community involvement in the conference was always an important aspect of its make up. But that is not the case. One of the most striking things about the Stockholm conference was the lack of organized community participation. This is not to slight the lovely and hard-working Swedish gay community group. They had a presence, but it was not a strong one. I don't remember any speeches by people with AIDS. There were few presentations about community-based programs. The conference was a traditional scientific meeting: a slidefest. The politics of the epidemic were not a part of the program, or at least not to the extent they are now. In fact, the scientists were already complaining that there was too much "soft" science at the meeting. In Stockholm, the bags were a bright blue. There were two receptions: one on the opening night and another at the City Hall. Both were awash in herring and reindeer. Later, rumors flew that the abundance of reindeer entrées was due to the need to get rid of lots of Chernobyl-exposed meat. The opening reception proved a turning point in history of HIV treatment access because I got drunk with Ellen Cooper, then the Director of the FDA's Antiviral Drug Division.

At that time, AIDS activists were embroiled in a battle with the FDA over the standards for approval of expedited access to experimental treatments. That was long ago. AZT had recently arrived on the scene. We had pentamidine and Bactrim to treat PCP, but not much else. So treatment access discussions focused on getting early access to drugs that were still being tested. The FDA set the standards for when such drugs could be made available through expanded access and compassionate use programs. We argued that the bar was set too high and that people should have the right to take the risk of using an experimental drug when their only alternative was suffering and death.

Just before going to Stockholm, I attended a meeting with the FDA Commissioner, Frank Young, and several department heads, including Dr. Cooper. There were only two of us: Jay Lipner and I. Jay was an attorney who volunteered at Lambda. He started the world's first AIDS legal services program (at GMHC) and had been living with AIDS for a few years by the time I met him in 1987. Jay was my mentor and is one of the many unsung heroes. He died in 1992.

Jay was a feisty pain in the ass. The FDA was nervous about meeting with us, especially the Commissioner, who did not seem to have a firm grasp of FDA policy. His staff corrected him several times during the meeting. There were about thirty FDA people there. Dr. Cooper was the only woman in a position of authority. She was also the only person in the room who was openly hostile to us. (The rest were no less hostile, just less vocal.)

We were arguing about the drug trimetrexate, a potential treatment for PCP. Dr. Cooper argued that there was not enough data to approve even a small early access program. Jay said, "You mean that if I have PCP and I cannot tolerate the other treatments for it, or if those treatments are not working, I should not have access to something that might help me?"

Dr. Cooper said, "Yes, that's right. It might be dangerous."

"But," said Jay, "I may be helped by the drug. If not, I will certainly die from PCP. I don't have time to wait."

Dr. Cooper, who had earned the nickname the Ice Queen, said, "I could do a lot more for people with AIDS if I didn't have to waste my time with people like you." (This quote is real.)

Then Jay let them have it and said, "I am a person with AIDS and I am also an attorney. I have read your regulations and according to my understanding of your regulations, this drug meets the standard for approval. I am going to sue you. I am going to go on television and say that the FDA is killing me with their red tape." And we left.

A few weeks later, I went to Stockholm. There, at the opening reception, surrounded by reindeer meat, was Ellen Cooper sipping a white wine. I approached. We started chatting. First about the meat, then the fish, then the lovely Stockholm light, yada, yada, yada. Sixty or so white wines later, we were deep into the standard for approval of access to experimental drugs. By the time the conversation was over, the Ice Queen had melted. She agreed that she needed to reconsider. A few weeks later, trimetrexate became available. The drug itself turned out not to be all that important, but the standard had changed and would later lead to expanded access for gancyclovir, ddI, ddC, and others.

Before heading home, the community did end up organizing in Stockholm. Appalled by the lack of community involvement at the conference and the lack of much of anything about gay men, a bunch of us decided to hold a community meeting. We printed up flyers and got about three hundred people into a room. Ben Schatz and I facilitated. The group developed a platform about the need for inclusion of people with AIDS in conference planning and the inclusion of more gay-related discussion. The meeting was like a swarm of hornets. Mike Youle criticized the grammar of the Americans. Jim Fouratt fomented dissent. The San Franciscans accused the New Yorkers of being too angry. Yet somehow a document was produced, and consensus reached. We held a press conference and all felt "empowered." When it was over, I got stoned with Cleve Jones (of quilt fame), danced all night at the gay community center, and went home with a lovely Swedish cook. ¤

Next month: A Conyers' list manifesto and peace talks with Bristol-Myers.

TAGLine index

email: tagnyc@msn.com
611 Broadway, Ste. 612 · New York, NY 10012
phone: (212) 253-7922 · fax: (212) 253-7923
copyright © 2002 TAG