1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 15th April 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Identifying potential treatments for ME/CFS - recovery trial model

Discussion in 'Other research methodology topics' started by FMMM1, Feb 23, 2022.

  1. FMMM1

    FMMM1 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,645
    There was an interesting feature on clinical trials drawing on the experience from the UK Recovery Trial re coronavirus --- basically no budget --- just collect data on how people were treated and whether they improved --- within 100 days they had identified an old steroid which worked.
    Seems like the sort of thing which might yield results for ME/CFS --- of course an European Reference Network/UK NHS specialist clinics would provide a mechanism to generate the data/possible treatments
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0014p9j
    starts about 19.5 minutes
    @Michiel Tack
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2022
    FMMM1, Feb 23, 2022
    #1
    Peter Trewhitt and ukxmrv like this.
  2. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    52,310
    Location:
    UK
    I don't think that would work for ME/CFS. The Recovery trial was for treating acute Covid in hospitalised patients where they had thousands of patients all at the same time worldwide and could get the numbers quickly, and where they had some idea of what might work from the biology of acute infections. And they could get results quickly because it was a life or death result determined within days or weeks for each patient.

    Chronic fluctuating diseases like ME/CFS where so little is known about the biology is completely different. You would have to test thousands of drugs more or less at random and follow up patients for several years. That would be prohibitively expensive and unethical.
     
    Trish, Feb 23, 2022
    #2
    Peter Trewhitt, alktipping and Wyva like this.
  3. Arnie Pye

    Arnie Pye Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,095
    Location:
    UK
    Was that betamethasone or dexamethasone? I'm sure I remember seeing mentions of one or both of those.
     
    Arnie Pye, Feb 23, 2022
    #3
    Peter Trewhitt and alktipping like this.
  4. FMMM1

    FMMM1 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,645
    Yea it was dexamethasone (from memory). However, as you're aware, I'm really thinking of the analogy to identifying treatments for ME/CFS.
     
    FMMM1, Feb 24, 2022
    #4
    Arnie Pye likes this.
  5. FMMM1

    FMMM1 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,645
    Agree completely; however, rituximan was identified by Doctors treating people for something different. So collating data from treatments, administered to people with ME/CFS, is a strategy. However, yes - I agree, others have said that it's difficult to see a way into i.e. to treat ME/CFS - which is why they identified GWAS as a strategy.

    @Simon M perhaps the data collected from those donating samples (and controls) could include any drugs or other treatments which helped?
    @Michiel Tack

    Yes, I agree, I'm think of serendipitous findings - like rituximab.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2022
    FMMM1, Feb 24, 2022
    #5
  6. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    52,310
    Location:
    UK
    So not really like the recovery trial model, but straightforward standard trial methodology that takes years to go through the stages of getting approval, getting funding and recruiting patients. Yes, Rituximab was serendipidous, and was worth testing, but turned out not to be effective once fully tested. It could take centuries if we wait for serendipidy to turn up a drug that works for ME/CFS, with hundreds of failed trials along the way.
    There are other drugs being tried for ME/CFS that seem to get some enthusiastic support from patients and their doctors, like Ampligen, Low Dose Naltrexone, Low Dose Aripiprazole. Each will need to be tested in proper clinical trials that run for at least 2 years follow up. That all costs money and requires clinicians with the will to do them.

    My point was that whatever is tested for ME/CFS has to be done properly over years with significant funding. There are no short cuts like there is for acute pandemic infections when there is a captive patient set, funding and apporoval easy to obtain, knowledge about infections, and rapid outcome measure of life or death.
     
    Trish, Feb 24, 2022
    #6
  7. FMMM1

    FMMM1 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,645
    I think we're thinking of slightly different things here.
    I'm part of another group which has had a limited discussion with European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations*. One of the issues is identifying potential treatments - others on Science 4 ME have pointed out that it's difficult to see a way in - to understand/treat ME/CFS. So this is just some brain storming to see if it could generate some ideas/candidate drugs/treatments.

    *"European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations is a Brussels-based trade association and lobbying organisation, founded in 1978 and representing the research-based pharmaceutical industry operating in Europe."
    @Michiel Tack

    I would agree i.e. my understanding is that rituximab didn't work. My thoughts were more about identifying options e.g. if there was a way to collate potential treatments --- rituximab was a cancer drug used to treat someone with ME/CFS for cancer ---

    Yea but in a sense there may have been countless mini-trials. Like the person who had cancer and was treated with rituximab and appeared to improve. The other thing to bear in mind is that the GWAS study might help to provide some evidence of potential treatments - triangulation. So this is about identifying options now --- yes they have to be tested.

    Yea finding interested clinicians is a challenge; however, this is all interwoven e.g. one of the issues is the difficulty in seeing a way in (treat/investigate cause of ME/CFS) and the GWAS study might help to provide that.

    As above, this is about identifying candidates (drugs/other treatments) but yes, even if an off-label drug was identified then it would take time/money to do the trials - think rituximab.

    Hope some of this clarifies.

    @Simon M - references to GWAS.
     
    FMMM1, Feb 24, 2022
    #7
    Hoopoe likes this.
  8. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    52,310
    Location:
    UK
    Ah, OK. I didn't get that from the opening post.
     
    Trish, Feb 24, 2022
    #8
    FMMM1 likes this.
  9. FMMM1

    FMMM1 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,645
    Yea it wasn't in the opening post!
     
    FMMM1, Feb 24, 2022
    #9
    Trish likes this.

Share This Page