NIH Funding Opportunity Announcements

Research on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) (R01 Clinical Trials Not Allowed)

Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number PAR-20-165

This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) encourages investigator(s)-initiated applications that propose to examine the etiology, diagnosis, pathophysiology and manifestations of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) in diverse groups and across the lifespan. Applications that address gaps in the understanding of the environmental and biological risk factors, the determinants of heterogeneity among individuals with ME/CFS, and the common mechanisms influencing the multiple affected body systems in ME/CFS are encouraged.

The NIH is particularly interested in funding interdisciplinary research that will enhance our knowledge of disease processes and provide evidence-based solutions to improve the diagnosis, treatment, and quality of life of all persons with ME/CFS. This interdisciplinary research may include the building of scientific teams to study and develop biomarkers and/or characterize the pathophysiological response of organ systems in individuals with ME/CFS. Applicants are encouraged to propose novel and innovative research that will break new ground or extend previous discoveries toward new directions.

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-20-165.html


Research on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) (R21 Clinical Trials Not Allowed)

Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number PAR-20-168

This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) encourages investigator(s)-initiated applications that propose to examine the etiology, diagnosis, pathophysiology and manifestations of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) in diverse groups and across the lifespan. Applications that address gaps in the understanding of the environmental and biological risk factors, the determinants of heterogeneity among individuals with ME/CFS, and the common mechanisms influencing the multiple affected body systems in ME/CFS are encouraged.

The NIH is particularly interested in funding interdisciplinary research that will enhance our knowledge of disease processes and provide evidence-based solutions to improve the diagnosis, treatment, and quality of life of all persons with ME/CFS. This interdisciplinary research may include the building of scientific teams to study and develop biomarkers and/or characterize the pathophysiological response of organ systems in individuals with ME/CFS.

The R21 Grant mechanism is intended to support innovative, high impact research projects. Such projects would either 1) generate pilot data to assess the feasibility of a novel avenue of investigation; 2) involve high risk experiments that could lead to a breakthrough in ME/CFS; 3) demonstrate the feasibility of new technologies that could have a major impact on ME/CFS research. Applications submitted under this mechanism should be limited to those with the potential for truly ground-breaking impact.

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-20-168.html

 

This seems... good?
Especially this language. It suggests exploratory research, which is what we need to happen.

Breaking new ground? I like that language. Let's break all the damn grounds!

 

Note that for many years the NIH has had specific program announcements for ME/CFS research, e.g.
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-08-246.html
Perhaps in time people will be able to highlight what is the same, and what is different.

 

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIH_grant

"The most common research grant mechanism is the R01. It is the oldest funding mechanism of the NIH. R01s are generally awarded for 3–5 years, and are used to support a "discrete, specified, circumscribed research project"."
and
"R21, NIH Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Award, limited to 2 years of funding for a total less than $275k, and does not require preliminary data."

So it would seem to me that the R21 is the type of grant that we have needed more of - an opportunity for researchers to be funded to try to obtain the initial data that so far we have been lacking.

 

When Joseph J. Breen from NIH visited Oslo last year, he said that researchers from all over the world are welcome to submit applications for grants for research projects into ME. If the quality of the application is high enough, and they consider the project important enough, they'll support it.

 

The first new one would seem to be the same as the old one you link to, while the second new one, the R21, would seem to be the different one.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1249716973145120768

 

Here is an old R21 that is +1 in number from PA-08-246
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-08-247.html

I have no idea what the difference between the old PA and new PAR.......

 

I’m unclear if this is basically a highlight notice and how much difference it can make ? Will this encourage the grants we need ?
There’s lots of details of various departments interests and there are end dates as well which seems to make it more than a general highlight notice.?

 

This was a good point that the Columbia CRC team made that I hadn't considered

https://twitter.com/user/status/1250134277129474051

 

Could just be coincidence, but I wonder if it might have anything to do with a concern that they might see an increase in ME/CFS cases in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

There have been a lot of stories of people who have recovered describing the intensity of COVID-19 symptoms as being much more severe than the typical flu. If there is anything to the idea that the severity of symptoms is a factor in the infectious onset of ME/CFS, this seems like a time when you might expect to see a spike in ME/CFS case.

It seems like someone or some agency should be trying to monitor this. I honestly don't even know if ME/CFS or PVFS is reportable. It should be.

 

MEAction posted an article discussing this NIH announcement:

https://www.meaction.net/2020/04/16/nih-announces-two-new-funding-opportunities-for-me/

 

Some info on Cort johnsons blog regarding Ron Davis/Stanford applications

According to the NIH site March 2019 is the last ME/CFS panel listed, so maybe these latest applications all went through standard channels.......
https://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/DNDA/IFCN/CFSSEP

Next ME/CFS special Emphasis Panel meeting is in May 2020 - ZRG1 CFS-N 80
https://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/SpecialEmphasis

EDIT : May 2020 SEP headed by

Who's Bibliography shows

 

So I just learnt something new. The ME/CFS Special Emphasis Panel falls under "Integrative, Functional, and Cognitive Neuroscience IRG – IFCN" group
https://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/DNDA/IFCN

***Formatted for easier reading

 

Assuming Cort Johnson's source is reliable, this is worrying. This means the basis for rejecting the grant application wasn't the science behind the diagnostic test -- which must have been solid enough to reach the last round of reviews -- so any change of methods post-review won't help it be accepted if it's submitted again.

If the NIH want ME/CFS researchers to develop treatments rather than finding a biomarker, how can they even set up clinical trials without confirming that participants have ME via a diagnostic test?

ETA: Janet Dafoe confirms the reviewer's comment mentioned by Cort Johnson.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1252826602372608004

 

Cort said these applications didnt go to the more M.E aware panels which is probably why the unacceptable response, I think that lipkin Was falling victim to these unhelpful attitudes in the past. I think that from The helpful explanation #meaction gave, the latest nih calls for research, although it doesn’t guarantee increased funding success, it will mean papers will be reviewed by more helpful or informed panels.

this reason given by the reviewer echos one of my early drs who hadn’t bothered sending me for a diagnosis because he believed there was nothing that could be done anyway.

 

Unfortunately, these rejected applications did go to the CFS SEP, and they were recent (from the last cycle -- 2019?).

https://twitter.com/user/status/1252824420797693954


https://twitter.com/user/status/1252830695791026176

 

Ah cort said “may” not, I checked. Wow, that’s pretty terrible, i hope that the Nih are being made aware of discriminatory attitudes

 

This is disheartening. The best thing we can hope for is that the reviewer who made that comment won't be on this year's ME/CFS SEP committee, but I don't know if the committee is renewed every year.

 

I read “latest round” as referring to the most recent round/cycle rather than the last round in a series of reviews. But worrying it was mentioned in any review.