Open Norway: Study of Daratumumab Injections for Patients with Moderate to Severe Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, 2025

BrightCandle said:
This sort of thing always concerns me a little bit, its denying a reality of the disease and none of the widespread criteria says it must be an infection onset, nor should it as it would exclude a decent minority of patients who can't point to that. Something about this makes me feel like they have a particular ideology about the cause and that those people are a sub group that are different, but without the research to show that is the case I don't see think its justified. In my opinion you have to do the work to show there are separate groups correlated with onset type before its reasonable to start splitting the groups up.
Click to expand...
I kind of disagree, even though I think my onset was progressive as well.

I think it's unlikely that we find a treatment that works for everyone diagnosed with ME/CFS. So if the researchers have a hunch itll work better for a specific subgroup, it makes sense to at least have the small scale pilots on those subgroups. To increase their chances of statistical significance.

Of course, when it becomes a problem is if one subgroup is disproportionately left of out of research on ME (like severe people).


But I definetely want to avoid whatever is going on in long COVID research where they are lumping people who got post-icu syndrome from COVID and people who got autoimmune illnesses from COVID into a single drug trial and acting surprised when the drug doesn't work.
 
I think it makes sense to focus on one specific subgroup if you believe that ME/CFS might actually be a group of different diseases.

I have not seen anything that indicates that they believe that people without an infectious onset doesn’t have ME/CFS.

And they have been very clear about how horrible ME/CFS is. An example is how they are cancer researchers were very surprised to encounter patients that wanted more chemo. That says something about how bad their suffering is.

And how they say that the more severe with ME/CFS often are as sick or sicker than terminally ill stage 4 cancer patients.

They are also one of very few groups trying to study the more severe spectrum. I would not be surprised if they turned their attention to the very severe or worse if they find success with this trial.

I wish they were more outspoken in the media in Norway because the BPS lobby is so prominent, but that’s the only thing I feel like I can fault them for.
 
Kitty said:
Maybe as part of their measures to try and ensure participants have the same illness?

The fact that ME/CFS could be several different conditions is a major challenge.
Click to expand...

Yes that makes sense and it sounds like a sensible way to increase probability that everyone has the same illness, in the absence of a diagnostic test. I feel that many of us who can't pinpoint an exact start date of our illness with 100% certainty will actually still fit in to that same subgroup - the illness process was started by a virus but the effects built up more gradually. But yes, I can see the sense in focusing on those who can pinpoint a virus as the starting point. So long as they can find enough people in this group.
 
rapidboson said:
Realistically, what are the risks of participating/taking this mAb? Sure the immune system will be down for a little while, but it should recover fine, right? What are the biggest realistic risks?
Click to expand...
I’m assuming the biggest risk is death due to e.g. an infection that you’re unable to defend against?

When dara is used for cancer, we accept the risks because the alternative is death regardless.
 
So if Dara were a very effective treatment for a subset of pwME and they could live relatively normal lives. They would still be limited by the fact they would have a suppressed immune system and therefore need to be very careful via masking etc. avoiding crowds, disinfecting even small cuts, and regardless would have a higher risk of death?

As a person who can’t do anything, I’d take that in a heartbeat. But if I was mild or moderate, I’m not sure I would, especially if there is promising research looking like a better alternative is coming out soon.
 
Yann04 said:
They would still be limited by the fact they would have a suppressed immune system and therefore need to be very careful via masking etc. avoiding crowds, disinfecting even small cuts, and regardless would have a higher risk of death?
Click to expand...

Immune system should come back—and hopefully normal-ish. I’m guessing that in multiple myeloma they need regular cycles with dara to keep cancer under control, so they will be immunocompromised.

For Campath (different drug) JE says patients go for a long time with no T cells and they seem to be OK.

https://www.s4me.info/threads/hyper...verity-of-long-covid-2025-renner-et-al.43870/
 
That’s a million dollar question. Maybe will hear something from Fluge next month. For cyclo, for the six year follow-up, a lot of the patients are still in remission.

“Conclusions: After six years, 44.1% of the cyclophosphamide group scored an SF-36 PF of at least 70, and 17.6% of at least 90, suggesting that cyclophosphamide in a subgroup may modulate the disease course in a beneficial way.”
 
Google translated:

Daratumumab: We have been treating post-COVID, post-vaccine, and MEC FS patients with daratumumab for some time now.

We now have a total of seven patients in treatment, five of whom have now completed the first treatment phase. We see a significant reduction in both autoantibodies and immunoglobulins in these patients, and in four out of five we also see substantial clinical improvements.

I was therefore very pleased that the Norwegian working group led by Fluge and Mella in Bergen also conducted a pilot study, in which they observed a response in two out of three patients. No data on antibodies were recorded. Autoantibody measurements were not recorded.

This makes it increasingly clear that this is currently the only alternative for truly improving patients, as long as BC007 does not appear again. The treatment is expensive, costing €20,000 for four doses. All patients were severely bedridden or had minimal mobility.

The treatment has side effects during the first dose because it causes the release of cytotoxic substances from the destroyed plasma cells, a condition known as cytotoxic release syndrome.
However, this can be easily counteracted by splitting the first dose and administering steroids accordingly.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1891069465686634514
 
Grigor said:
Google translated:



https://twitter.com/user/status/1891069465686634514
Click to expand...

I must say that I don’t like this kind of info being published on SoMe instead of in a case series or something similar.

It reads like an advertisement for an untested, expensive and potentially dangerous treatment.

And is the reduction in autoantibodies and Ig even relevant as a measure? Presumably that’s expected with this drug?
 
Utsikt said:
I must say that I don’t like this kind of info being published on SoMe instead of in a case series or something similar.

It reads like an advertisement for an untested, expensive and potentially dangerous treatment.

And is the reduction in autoantibodies and Ig even relevant as a measure? Presumably that’s expected with this drug?
Click to expand...
I can understand, but it is however interesting that several groups or MDs are testing the same drug at the moment. Especially considering the Norwegians are in the works of (eventually) conducting a placebo controlled trial.
 
Grigor said:
I can understand, but it is however interesting that several groups or MDs are testing the same drug at the moment. Especially considering the Norwegians are in the works of (eventually) conducting a placebo controlled trial.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the fact that multiple groups tries it tells us much about the efficacy of the drug. It might just as well tell us what’s hyped or what they can earn money on.
 
Utsikt said:
I don’t think the fact that multiple groups tries it tells us much about the efficacy of the drug. It might just as well tell us what’s hyped or what they can earn money on.
Click to expand...
True, but that was also not the point of me posting it. Just that it was used and/or researched in different places. We'll see after the trial about the actual efficiency.
 
Last edited:
Grigor said:
True, but that was also not the point of me posting it. Just that it was used and researched in different places. We'll see after the trial about the actual efficiency.
Click to expand...
But they aren’t researching it. They are just using it and collecting what seems to be irrelevant data. They also claim that it works:
This makes it increasingly clear that this is currently the only alternative for truly improving patients
Click to expand...
So I find their behaviour problematic on many levels.

Only Fluge and Mella are actually researching the drug.
 
Utsikt said:
I’m assuming the biggest risk is death due to e.g. an infection that you’re unable to defend against?

When dara is used for cancer, we accept the risks because the alternative is death regardless.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're surely right. But death is the biggest risk in driving a car as well. I wonder what the chances are to die from daratumumab (and not multiple myeloma eventually)?
And then, realistically, what other risks there are besides death.
I suppose IVIG would be a way to reduce infection risk?
 
rapidboson said:
Yes, you're surely right. But death is the biggest risk in driving a car as well. I wonder what the chances are to die from daratumumab (and not multiple myeloma eventually)?
And then, realistically, what other risks there are besides death.
I suppose IVIG would be a way to reduce infection risk?
Click to expand...
No idea about the chances or how to mitigate the effects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom