USA: National Institutes of Health (NIH) intramural ME/CFS study

Status
Not open for further replies.
I get your point, but part of the issue seems to have been a relative lack of suitable people with ME/CFS coming forward.
Well that is an issue for the researchers to solve, and that takes a lot of thought and effort as the DecodeME team will confirm. The NIH picked a cohort that would be difficult to find in the first place, and then have made minimal outreach attempts, their assumption that the right patients would be queue up in sufficient quantities to take part is on them.
 
Well that is an issue for the researchers to solve, and that takes a lot of thought and effort as the DecodeME team will confirm. The NIH picked a cohort that would be difficult to find in the first place, and then have made minimal outreach attempts, their assumption that the right patients would be queue up in sufficient quantities to take part is on them.
I’m afraid I dislike this sort of attitude: this is not some sort of company where the ME community doesn’t benefit from the project. And DecodeME are in such a strong position with regard to recruitment partly because people with ME and ME charities promoted the recruitment. My point is that the ME community could similarly make a big effort to promote this rather than simply say “it’s in them”.
 
I’m afraid I dislike this sort of attitude: this is not some sort of company where the ME community doesn’t benefit from the project. And DecodeME are in such a strong position with regard to recruitment partly because people with ME and ME charities promoted the recruitment. My point is that the ME community could similarly make a big effort to promote this rather than simply say “it’s in them”.
DecodeME are in a strong position because they engaged with the community before the start of the study, the NIH haven't come close to doing that, before or after, to the same level. You are as aware as I am that there is a lot of suspicion towards the NIH which will mean, rightly or wrongly, that the community won't make much effort at promotion.

And sure, the patient community could promote it more, but to help them do so it needs to be made as easy as possible and the NIH haven't done that. It's not going to help the NIH if the finger is pointed at the community and it's said "it's your fault because you didn't promote it"; they need to understand where they didn't do enough to engage the community, I don't get the sense though that they are open to that kind of feedback.
 
DecodeME are in a strong position because they engaged with the community before the start of the study, the NIH haven't come close to doing that, before or after, to the same level. You are as aware as I am that there is a lot of suspicion towards the NIH which will mean, rightly or wrongly, that the community won't make much effort at promotion.

And sure, the patient community could promote it more, but to help them do so it needs to be made as easy as possible and the NIH haven't done that. It's not going to help the NIH if the finger is pointed at the community and it's said "it's your fault because you didn't promote it"; they need to understand where they didn't do enough to engage the community, I don't get the sense though that they are open to that kind of feedback.
Those may be some relevant issues. But if people are complaining that the progress with this project is slow, it suggests they or at least many of them think the project is worthwhile. If that is the case, I think they should try to promote recruitment of it. I don’t think it’s that complicated to do: last time I checked, there was a specific webpage.

There is no guarantee research progress happens for a particular condition as quickly as someone with it would like. I think people should try to do what they can to speed progress and highlighting research opportunities generally is free.

Also this isn’t specific to the NIH: quite a lot of studies in the field struggle with recruitment.
 
Last edited:
I get your point, but part of the issue seems to have been a relative lack of suitable people with ME/CFS coming forward.

I think they’ve been way too restrictive with cohort requirements thinking this is going to give them cleaner results in the end or help with discovery. I highly doubt it.

I went through the entire enrollment process years ago, right when they started enrolling, they got every single one of my ME and other medical records from 10 years prior to that time. I have post-viral ME and medical records show that and fully meet CCC and ICC criteria.

I wasn’t accepted because I wasn’t severe enough at the time and because I supposedly tried too many different drug treatments. It was really absurd to me. I also found it really annoying because in the beginning they used not have the very severe symptom specification to enroll in the study.

This phrase was added after unless I’m not remembering my reaction at that time:

https://mecfs.ctss.nih.gov/
  1. Inpatient ME/CFS group: Those with ME/CFS that started after an episode of infection who have severe symptoms based lasting between 6 months to 5 years, based on the study evaluation
 
I’m afraid I dislike this sort of attitude: this is not some sort of company where the ME community doesn’t benefit from the project. And DecodeME are in such a strong position with regard to recruitment partly because people with ME and ME charities promoted the recruitment. My point is that the ME community could similarly make a big effort to promote this rather than simply say “it’s in them”.

How are you going to get pwME who “have severe symptoms”, so meaning at the best moderate-to-severe severity or worse, to travel to NIH??? It’s stupid.
 
I think they’ve been way too restrictive with cohort requirements thinking this is going to give them cleaner results in the end or help with discovery. I highly doubt it.

I went through the entire enrollment process years ago, right when they started enrolling, they got every single one of my ME and other medical records from 10 years prior to that time. I have post-viral ME and medical records show that and fully meet CCC and ICC criteria.

I wasn’t accepted because I wasn’t severe enough at the time and because I supposedly tried too many different drug treatments. It was really absurd to me. I also found it really annoying because in the beginning they used not have the very severe symptom specification to enroll in the study.

This phrase was added after unless I’m not remembering my reaction at that time:

https://mecfs.ctss.nih.gov/
Thanks for applying and for sharing your medical records.

To be honest, if you had tried a lot of different drug treatments, it's not the worst exclusion i.e. it wouldn't make me think less of them for doing it.
 
How are you going to get pwME who “have severe symptoms”, so meaning at the best moderate-to-severe severity or worse, to travel to NIH??? It’s stupid.
It's a difficult one all right. But then some people would say that you are going to find more abnormalities, the more severe people are. Some people complain that people with severe ME are not used enough in studies.
So again, it wouldn't make me think less of them.

Some people have come forward and I think if it was promoted more, more progress might be made towards the relatively modest target.
 
It's a difficult one all right. But then some people would say that you are going to find more abnormalities, the more severe people are.

The problem I’ve always found with that reasoning is there is ZERO scientific basis for this assumption, it’s just completely made up.

Maybe more severe patients will make it much more difficult and clouded to analyze and interpret the results, because they could have more downstream abnormalities that are harder to connect to each other and back to the core pathophysiology of this disease, therefore also making it much harder to generate new hypotheses from the results.

They are assuming that the more severe you are that you supposedly have the same abnormalities as a mild patient but more pronounced. This is a wild assumption and it could be like I said not necessarily more pronounced but severe patients have many more abnormalities that are harder to connect and interpret.
 
The problem I’ve always found with that reasoning is there is ZERO scientific basis for this assumption, it’s just completely made up.

Maybe more severe patients will make it much more difficult and clouded to analyze and interpret the results, because they could have more downstream abnormalities that are harder to connect to each other and back to the core pathophysiology of this disease, therefore also making it much harder to generate new hypotheses from the results.

They are assuming that the more severe you are that you supposedly have the same abnormalities as a mild patient but more pronounced. This is a wild assumption and it could be like I said not necessarily more pronounced but severe patients have many more abnormalities that are harder to connect and interpret.
it’s an interesting question alright. Do you think there are many abnormalities that would show up in the mild but not the moderate and moderate severe?

If this study found no abnormalities, it would be disappointing and might have a negative effect on NIH interest. To me, it seems a safer option for an initial study to be towards the more severe end of things.
 
it’s an interesting question alright. Do you think there are many abnormalities that would show up in the mild but not the moderate and moderate severe?

If this study found no abnormalities, it would be disappointing and might have a negative effect on NIH interest. To me, it seems a safer option for an initial study to be towards the more severe end of things.

Sorry I probably didn’t word my response well.

Having more abnormalities (which might be what they are assuming regarding more severe patients) is not necessarily going to help with interpreting study results, understanding this disease, and getting to the root of ME pathophysiology. Sure it might show “OK we see many different things going wrong”, but we already have a ton of literature showing that, all with no real answers.

If many of these abnormalities in more severe patients are downstream and very different consequences of the core pathophysiology, it could become really complex for researchers to figure out what’s truly going on.

If one were designing a study where you only want to take more severe patients, then to me it makes much more sense when you have evidence that severe patients likely have the same abnormalities as mild patients, but those abnormalities are more pronounced.

Maybe that’s what they are assuming. But then again it’s been 5 long years and they’ve only enrolled 20 people so far while we still suffer year after year, all to try and find some perfect signal.

I remember from the last NIH ME/CFS conference I attended that Brian Walitt’s presentation of intermediate results didn’t really find anything truly meaningful and was inconclusive.
 
Those may be some relevant issues. But if people are complaining that the progress with this project is slow, it suggests they or at least many of them think the project is worthwhile. If that is the case, I think they should try to promote recruitment of it. I don’t think it’s that complicated to do: last time I checked, there was a specific webpage.

There is no guarantee research progress happens for a particular condition as quickly as someone with it would like. I think people should try to do what they can to speed progress and highlighting research opportunities generally is free.

Also this isn’t specific to the NIH: quite a lot of studies in the field struggle with recruitment.
Dr. Jarred Younger: "The hardest part of running research is recruiting study participants, so I'm really interested in helping connect researchers and potential participants.”
https://cdmrp.army.mil/gwirp/research_highlights/18younger_highlight


The Nutt sleep study was one of the few biomedical ME/CFS studies the Medical Research Council in the UK has ever funded. It hasn't been published yet. And I wonder whether we may never see any data; last time I saw anything they were struggling to recruit sufficiently. They definitely could have done more to highlight it, but similarly I think it could also have been highlighted more by the ME community.
 
I just saw that the status is now listed as "suspended": https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02669212

(h/t to someone on Reddit for sharing this.)

Anyone know what's up?


I think the explanation was given by Dr. Nath in the March 30th 2021 NIH ME/CFS Advocacy Call. Sounds like COVID-19 took precedence, but it gave them an opportunity to analyze the ME/CFS data they had sooner than they otherwise would have.

Dr. Avi Nath: Thank you Dr. Koroshetz. So I'm going to tell you three things. One is I'll tell you where we stand currently with the ME/CFS study that we were doing. Second thing I want to tell you is what we've been doing with COVID and the third thing I'm going to tell you is the overlap between COVID and ME/CFS and what we're doing about that.

So first of all with the current ME/CFS intramural study that we were conducting, it came to a grinding halt when the COVID outbreak occurred but we took that opportunity to look at the data that we have collected on these patients. And we have a huge amount of data and so what we did was, we formed working groups, several different working groups, one for immunology, one for the virology, one for the physiology that we've done, and so on and so forth. All those people have started looking at the data, analyzing it and when you analyze data it leads sometimes to more questions than answers, which is the way science works, but I think that's perfectly fine. So now we're doing some follow-up experiments to answer those things, trying to make correlations between each of these working groups. So anyhow that's where we stand with that. I think we have some really interesting findings that are coming out of this stuff and so our hope is to get this out as soon as we can.

The second thing is when COVID hit, I mean my area of expertise is infections of the nervous system, so as you can imagine we got very heavily involved and with Dr. Koroshetz' help we were able to send messages around to all over the country to collect brain samples from patients who were dying of COVID and we were fortunate to be able to get some samples because these autopsies had to be done in BSL3 labs. We didn't have a BSL3 functioning lab here in the intramural NIH at that time that we could take our brains from and there were very few that were available around the country and even some places who had it they didn't have PPE to actually do these things. So multiple challenges but we overcame all of them.

And what we did was we accessed the brains and we studied the pathology. We found that actually there is a fair bit of inflammation in the brain, there was damage to the blood vessels in the brain, and these were very unique individuals because they were individuals we got from the New York medical examiner's office. Some of them had died in bed, or in a subway, and so they did not have much respiratory symptoms. They were not critically ill individuals but they still had pathology in their brain, so my suspicion is that had these individuals survived they would have had these long-haul COVID symptoms for sure. That gives us an opportunity to understand the brain pathology of long-haul COVID patients.

And I think that brings me to the relevance for ME/CFS because we suspect that there's overlap between the two syndromes and so what we learned from these patients is applicable to ME/CFS. What we've done now is, we are very eager to bring in patients with so-called long-haul COVID who look exactly like ME/CFS, they meet all the criteria for ME/CFS. We bring them to NIH, study them exactly the same way as we've done for the ME/CFS patients and try to see if we can determine what the similarities and differences might be. For that there's no intramural funding currently available, so we wrote a grant like everybody else and we've submitted it and if the grant gets funded we plan to bring in about 50 individuals with ME/CFS-like symptoms and another 50 who had COVID and got better completely, so we can compare the two. So that's where we stand. We're waiting to see if the funds arrive, we'll initiate the studies. So I'll stop over here.

https://www.nih.gov/mecfs/nih-me-cfs-advocacy-call-march-30-2021
[ETA: A "BSL3 lab" is a "Biosafety Level 3 laboratory." It's a "high containment" lab, second only to the relatively rare BSL4 "max containment" labs.]
 
Last edited:
That's all interesting and there's exciting stuff happening. I wonder what 'brain inflammation' actually means in the Covid brain autopsies.

But there was funding for the ME/CFS study, and my impression is that the NIH didn't come anywhere near processing the number of participants that were planned. So, what's happening with the left over money? Perhaps it is funding the 'follow-up experiments'? I remain sceptical about the political will for that study. It seemed to just dribble on for a long time - I find it hard to believe that it was really that hard to find people to participate.

And for the Long Covid study?
For that there's no intramural funding currently available, so we wrote a grant like everybody else and we've submitted it and if the grant gets funded we plan to bring in about 50 individuals with ME/CFS-like symptoms and another 50 who had COVID and got better completely, so we can compare the two. So that's where we stand. We're waiting to see if the funds arrive, we'll initiate the studies.

That doesn't sound like the right level of urgency for such a huge global problem.
 
Based on the timelines that were discussed before, if they are planning to process 50 long COVID patients and 50 controls, that will keep them busy for years. From Dr. Nath’s quote above, I am definitely concerned that they have shifted focus.

Has any preliminary data or information been shared on the ME/CFS cohort? Do we know approximately how many patients were processed before the pandemic shut everything down?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom