Singh; varianten XMRV verschillen nauwelijks
Geplaatst: 05 nov 2010, 12:38
Vertaald:
http://www.me-gids.net/module-ME_CVS_do ... d-669.html
What’s Next for X (as in XMRV)?
bron: Wall Street Journal
datum: 4 november 2010
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/11/04/ ... s-in-xmrv/
By Amy Dockser Marcus
It’s been over a year since researchers found the retrovirus XMRV in the
blood of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Now many people are asking:
What’s next for X?
Debate over whether XMRV is linked to CFS and other diseases is still
intense, mainly because some groups have found the virus in the blood of
high percentages of people with the condition while others haven’t been able
to find a single case.
A paper published yesterday in the journal Viruses outlines the steps
researchers should take in designing studies into whether XMRV is linked to
CFS. Everyone agrees that coming to consensus on standards for these studies
is critical.
The paper was written by someone who knows what it takes to find XMRV — Ila
Singh, a University of Utah scientist who last year published a paper
reporting the discovery of XMRV in prostate-cancer patients. She’s currently
working on a number of additional XMRV studies.
Among Singh’s suggestions: Studies should have large numbers of patients,
all of whom have been diagnosed according to well-recognized criteria for
CFS. The number of healthy people used in studies as controls should also be
large and come from the same geographic area as the patients. Blood samples
from both patients and controls should be collected and treated the same
way.
Researchers shouldn’t know whether the samples they’re studying are from CFS
patients or healthy controls. And more than one kind of XMRV-detecting test
should be used.
Singh adds that an “ideal” study would also use at least one test that has
successfully detected XMRV in already published studies, perhaps also using
the same patient samples.
Kim McCleary, the head of the CFIDS Association of America, a CFS advocacy
group, says Singh’s paper offers “a really strong template for reducing some
of the confounding issues in the studies that have already been published.”
The guidance comes at an opportune moment. W. Ian Lipkin, the Columbia
University-based virus hunter tasked by the government with resolving some
of the XMRV questions, is convening a meeting this week. Representatives
from HHS and the academic and advocacy communities are in New York to
develop a strategy for a study to determine whether XMRV is found at higher
rates in CFS patients.
Singh tells the Health Blog: “I sent a copy of my paper to Ian.”
http://www.me-gids.net/module-ME_CVS_do ... d-669.html
What’s Next for X (as in XMRV)?
bron: Wall Street Journal
datum: 4 november 2010
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/11/04/ ... s-in-xmrv/
By Amy Dockser Marcus
It’s been over a year since researchers found the retrovirus XMRV in the
blood of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Now many people are asking:
What’s next for X?
Debate over whether XMRV is linked to CFS and other diseases is still
intense, mainly because some groups have found the virus in the blood of
high percentages of people with the condition while others haven’t been able
to find a single case.
A paper published yesterday in the journal Viruses outlines the steps
researchers should take in designing studies into whether XMRV is linked to
CFS. Everyone agrees that coming to consensus on standards for these studies
is critical.
The paper was written by someone who knows what it takes to find XMRV — Ila
Singh, a University of Utah scientist who last year published a paper
reporting the discovery of XMRV in prostate-cancer patients. She’s currently
working on a number of additional XMRV studies.
Among Singh’s suggestions: Studies should have large numbers of patients,
all of whom have been diagnosed according to well-recognized criteria for
CFS. The number of healthy people used in studies as controls should also be
large and come from the same geographic area as the patients. Blood samples
from both patients and controls should be collected and treated the same
way.
Researchers shouldn’t know whether the samples they’re studying are from CFS
patients or healthy controls. And more than one kind of XMRV-detecting test
should be used.
Singh adds that an “ideal” study would also use at least one test that has
successfully detected XMRV in already published studies, perhaps also using
the same patient samples.
Kim McCleary, the head of the CFIDS Association of America, a CFS advocacy
group, says Singh’s paper offers “a really strong template for reducing some
of the confounding issues in the studies that have already been published.”
The guidance comes at an opportune moment. W. Ian Lipkin, the Columbia
University-based virus hunter tasked by the government with resolving some
of the XMRV questions, is convening a meeting this week. Representatives
from HHS and the academic and advocacy communities are in New York to
develop a strategy for a study to determine whether XMRV is found at higher
rates in CFS patients.
Singh tells the Health Blog: “I sent a copy of my paper to Ian.”
.
