Posts Tagged ‘funding’

Evidence Review Comments Preview

October 15th, 2014 21 comments

This post comes via Mary Dimmock, Claudia Goodell, Denise Lopez-Majano, and myself. You are welcome to publish it on your site with attribution and a link back to this post. You are also welcome to use this (and other material we’ve gathered) as a framework for your own comments on the draft evidence review - due October 20th.

It’s been a challenging few weeks, digesting and analyzing the AHRQ Draft Systematic Evidence Review on Diagnosis and Treatment of ME/CFS.  We continue to be deeply concerned about the many flaws in the review, in terms of both the approach it took and how it applied the study protocol.

Our comments on the Review will reflect our significant concerns about how the Evidence Review was conducted, the diagnostic, subgroup, and harms treatment conclusions drawn by this report, and the risk of undue harm that this report creates for patients with ME. We believe a final version should not be published until these scientific issues are resolved.

Most fundamentally, the Evidence Review is grounded in the flawed assumption that eight CFS and ME definitions all represent the same group of patients that are appropriately studied and treated as a single entity or group of closely related entities. Guided by that assumption, this Evidence Review draws conclusions on subgroups, diagnostics, treatments and harms for all CFS and ME patients based on studies done in any of these eight definitions. In doing so, the Evidence Review disregards its own concerns, as well as the substantial body of evidence that these definitions do not all represent the same disease and that the ME definitions are associated with distinguishing biological pathologies. It is unscientific, illogical and risky to lump disparate patients together without regard to substantive differences in their underlying conditions.

Compounding this flawed assumption are the a priori choices in the Review Protocol that focused on a more narrow set of questions than originally planned and that applied restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria. As a result, evidence that would have refuted the flawed starting assumption or that was required to accurately answer the questions was never considered. Some examples of how these assumptions and protocol choices negatively impacted this Evidence Review include:

  • Evidence about the significant differences in patient populations and in the unreliability and inaccuracy of some of these definitions was ignored and/or dismissed. This includes: Dr. Leonard Jason’s work undermining the Reeves Empirical definition; a study that shows the instability of the Fukuda definition over time in the same patients; studies demonstrating that Fukuda and Reeves encompass different populations; and differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria, especially regarding PEM and psychological disorders.
  • Diagnostic methods were assessed without first establishing a valid reference standard. Since there is no gold reference standard, each definition was allowed to stand as its own reference standard without demonstrating it was a valid reference.
  • Critical biomarker and cardiopulmonary studies, some of which are in clinical use today, were ignored because they were judged to be intended to address etiology, regardless of the importance of the data. This included most of Dr. Snell’s and Dr. Keller’s work on two day CPET, Dr. Cook’s functional imaging studies, Dr. Gordon Broderick’s systems networking studies, Dr. Klimas’s and Dr. Fletcher’s work on NK cells and immune function, and all of the autonomic tests. None of it was considered.
  • Treatment outcomes associated with all symptoms except fatigue were disregarded, potentially resulting in a slanted view of treatment effectiveness and harm. This decision excluded Dr. Lerner’s antiviral work, as well as entire classes of pain medications, antidepressants, anti-inflammatories, immune modulators, sleep treatments and more. If the treatment study looked at changes in objective measures like cardiac function or viral titers, it was excluded. If the treatment study looked at outcomes for a symptom other than fatigue, it was excluded.
  • Treatment trials that were shorter than 12 weeks were excluded, even if the treatment duration was therapeutically appropriate. The big exclusion here was the rituximab trial; despite following patients for 12 months, it was excluded because administration of rituximab was not continuous for 12 weeks (even though rituximab is not approved for 12 weeks continuous administration in ANY disease). Many other medication trials were also excluded for not meeting the 12 week mark.
  • Counseling and CBT treatment trials were inappropriately pooled without regard for the vast differences in therapeutic intent across these trials. This meant that CBT treatments aimed at correcting false illness beliefs were lumped together with pacing and supportive counseling studies, and treated as equivalent.
  • Conclusions about treatment effects and harms failed to consider what is known about ME and its likely response to the therapies being recommended. This means that the PACE (an Oxford study) results for CBT and GET were not only accepted (despite the many flaws in those data), but were determined to be broadly applicable to people meeting any of the case definitions. Data on the abnormal physiological response to exercise in ME patients were excluded, and so the Review did not conclude that CBT and GET could be harmful to these patients (although it did allow it might be possible).
  • The Evidence Review states that its findings are applicable to all patients meeting any CFS or ME definition, regardless of the case definition used in a particular study.

The issues with this Evidence Review are substantial in number, magnitude and extent. At its root is the assumption that any case definition is as good as the rest, and that studies done on one patient population are applicable to every other patient population, despite the significant and objective differences among these patients. The failure to differentiate between patients with the symptom of subjective unexplained fatigue on the one hand, and objective immunological, neurological and metabolic dysfunction on the other, calls into question the entire Evidence Review and all conclusions made about diagnostic methods, the nature of this disease and its subgroups, the benefits and harms of treatment, and the future directions for research.

As the Evidence Review states, the final version of this report may be used in the development of clinical practice guidelines or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. It will also be used in the P2P Workshop and in driving NIH’s research strategy. Given the likelihood of those uses and the Evidence Review’s claim of broad applicability to all CFS and ME patients, the flaws within this report create an undue risk of significant harm to patients with ME and will likely confound research for years to come. These issues must be addressed before this Evidence Review is issued in its final form.


They Know What They’re Doing (Not)

October 6th, 2014 18 comments

This post comes via Mary Dimmock, with assistance from Claudia Goodell, Denise Lopez-Majano, and myself. You are welcome to publish it on your site with attribution to Mary Dimmock.


Last week, Jennie Spotila and Erica Verillo posted summaries of just some of the issues with AHRQ’s Draft Systematic Evidence Review, conducted for P2P.

Jennie and Erica highlighted serious and sometimes insurmountable flaws with this Review, including:

  • The failure to be clear and specific about what disease was being studied.
  • The acceptance of 8 disparate ME or CFS definitions as equivalent in spite of dramatic differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria.
  • The bad science reflected in citing Oxford’s flaws and then using Oxford studies anyway.
  • The well-known problems with the PACE trial.
  • The flawed process that used non-experts on such a controversial and conflicted area.
  • Flawed search methods that focused on fatigue.
  • Outright errors in some of the basic information in the report and apparent inconsistencies in how inclusion criteria were applied.
  • Poorly designed and imprecise review questions.
  • Misinterpretation of cited literature.

In this post, I will describe several additional key problems with the AHRQ Evidence Review.

Keep in mind that comments must be submitted by October 20, 2014. Directions for doing so are at the end of this post.

We Don’t Need No Stinking Diagnostic Gold Standard

Best practices for diagnostic method reviews state that a diagnostic gold standard is required as the benchmark. But there is no agreed upon diagnostic gold standard for this disease, and the Review acknowledges this. So what did the Evidence Review do? The Review allowed any of 8 disparate CFS or ME definitions to be used as the gold standard and then evaluated diagnostic methods against and across the 8 definitions. But when a definition does not accurately reflect the disease being studied, that definition cannot be used as the standard. And when the 8 disparate definitions do not describe the same disease, you cannot draw conclusions about diagnostic methods across them.

What makes this worse is that the reviewers recognized the importance of PEM but failed to consider the implications of Fukuda’s and Oxford’s failure to require it. The reviewers also excluded, ignored or downplayed substantial evidence demonstrating that some of these definitions could not be applied consistently, as CDC’s Dr. Reeves demonstrated about Fukuda.

Beyond this, some diagnostic studies were excluded because they did not use the “right” statistics or because the reviewer judged the studies to be “etiological” studies, not diagnostic methods studies. Was NK-Cell function eliminated because it was an etiological study? Was Dr. Snell’s study on the discriminative value of CPET excluded because it used the wrong statistics? And all studies before 1988 were excluded. These inclusion/exclusion choices shaped what evidence was considered and what conclusions were drawn.

Erica pointed out that the Review misinterpreted some of the papers expressing harms associated with a diagnosis. The Review failed to acknowledge the relief and value of finally getting a diagnosis, particularly from a supportive doctor. The harm is not from receiving the diagnostic label, but rather from the subsequent reactions of most healthcare providers. At the same time, the Review did not consider other harms like Dr. Newton’s study of patients with other diseases being diagnosed with “CFS” or another study finding some MS patients were first misdiagnosed with CFS. The Review also failed to acknowledge the harm that patients face if they are given harmful treatments out of a belief that CFS is really a psychological or behavioral problem.

The Review is rife with problems: Failing to ask whether all definitions represent the same disease. Using any definition as the diagnostic gold standard against which to assess any diagnostic method. Excluding some of the most important ME studies. It is no surprise, then, that the Review concluded that no definition had proven superior and that there are no accepted diagnostic methods.

But remarkably, reviewers felt that there was sufficient evidence to state that those patients who meet CCC and ME-ICC criteria were not a separate group but rather a subgroup with more severe symptoms and functional limitations. By starting with the assumption that all 8 definitions encompass the same disease, this characterization of CCC and ICC patients was a foregone conclusion.

But Don’t Worry, These Treatment Trials Look Fine

You would think that at this point in the process, someone would stand up and ask about the scientific validity of comparing treatments across these definitions. After all, the Review acknowledged that Oxford can include patients with other causes of the symptom of chronic fatigue. But no, the Evidence Review continued on to compare treatments across definitions regardless of the patient population selected. Would we ever evaluate treatments for cancer patients by first throwing in studies with fatigued patients? The assessment of treatments was flawed from the start.

But the problems were then compounded by how the Review was conducted. The Review focused on subjective measures like general function, quality of life and fatigue, not objective measures like physical performance or activity levels. In addition, the Review explicitly decided to focus on changes in the symptom of fatigue, not PEM, pain or any other symptom. Quality issues with individual studies were either not considered or ignored. Counseling and CBT studies were all lumped into one treatment group, without consideration of the dramatic difference in therapeutic intent of the two. Some important studies like Rituxan were not considered because the treatment duration was considered too short, regardless of whether it was therapeutically appropriate.

And finally, the Review never questioned whether the disease theories underlying these treatments were applicable across all definitions. Is it really reasonable to expect that a disease that responds to Rituxan or Ampligen is going to also respond to therapies that reverse the patient’s “false illness beliefs” and deconditioning? Of course not.

If their own conclusions on the diagnostic methods and the problems with the Oxford definition were not enough to make them stop, the vast differences in disease theories and therapeutic mechanism of action should have made the reviewers step back and raise red flags.

At the Root of It All

This Review brings into sharp relief the widespread confusion on the nature of ME and the inappropriateness of having non-experts attempt to unravel a controversial and conflicting evidence base about which they know nothing.

But just as importantly, this Review speaks volumes about the paltry funding and institutional neglect of ME reflected in the fact that the study could find only 28 diagnostic studies and 9 medication studies to consider from the last 26 years. This Review speaks volumes about the institutional mishandling that fostered the proliferation of disparate and sometimes overly broad definitions, all branded with the same “CFS” label. The Review speaks volumes about the institutional bias that resulted in the biggest, most expensive and greatest number of treatment trials being those that studied behavioral and psychological pathology for a disease long proven to be the result of organic pathology.

This institutional neglect, mishandling and bias have brought us to where we are today. That the Evidence Review failed to recognize and acknowledge those issues is stunning.

Shout Out Your Protest!

This Evidence Review is due to be published in final format before the P2P workshop and it will affect our lives for years to come. Make your concerns known now.

  1. Submit public comments on the Evidence Review to the AHRQ website by October 20.
  2. Contact HHS and Congressional leaders with your concerns about the Evidence Review, the P2P Workshop and HHS’ overall handling of this disease. Erica Verillo’s recent post provides ideas and links for how to do this.

The following information provides additional background to prepare your comments:

However you choose to protest, make your concerns known!


NIH Says No, and Also No

September 23rd, 2014 19 comments

noWith no announcement or fanfare, the CFS Advisory Committee has posted a response from HHS to the June 2014 recommendations. My information is that  – inexplicably – even CFSAC members were not notified when the response was posted. I urge you to read the entire response, but I am going to focus on just a few sentences. There are very serious implications for the future of ME/CFS research, but despite NIH’s entrenched position, there are still things we can do about it.

No Data Sharing Platform For You

The first recommendation was that NIH create and maintain a data sharing platform for ME/CFS research. NIH’s response? No. But their reasoning is remarkable:

[D]eveloping and maintaining a unique ME/CFS database is cost prohibitive in light of the small number of researchers . . . the cost of developing and maintaining an ME/CFS database would significantly reduce funds available for funding research on ME/CFS . . .

Translation: There are not enough of you to make this platform idea worth the money.

But the implication of that last sentence is astounding: maintaining such a database would reduce the funds available for research. Translation: NIH will only spend a fixed amount of money on ME/CFS. Even if NIH decided to create a database, there would be no increase in funds to cover the cost – that money would simply be reallocated from grants.

The background document to the recommendation specifically states that a central data sharing platform would “greatly accelerate research discovery” and foster “opportunities for new scientists to enter the field.” The platform would lower barriers to conducting ME/CFS research. But NIH responds: No, because there aren’t enough researchers and we won’t increase our ME/CFS spending.

Put another way, ME/CFS has a problem because there are not enough researchers. CFSAC proposes a solution of a data platform that could attract the interest of new researchers. NIH says no, because you don’t have enough researchers.

Wait, what?

There Will Be No RFA

The second recommendation was that NIH fund an RFA to address the gaps in ME/CFS research. NIH’s response? No. And the reasoning on this one will make your head hurt, it is so circuitous.

Unfortunately there remains a lack of definitive evidence regarding the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment for ME/CFS. As such, issuing a Request for Applications (RFA) would not be an effective strategy as RFAs generally encourage a narrowly defined research area that addresses more specific gaps in scientific knowledge.

First of all, NIH issued an RFA for ME/CFS in 2006 and it was targeted at Neuroimmune Mechanisms and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. So the gaps were obvious enough to issue an RFA eight years ago, and more gaps were identified at the 2011 State of the Knowledge meeting, but now we don’t know enough to target those gaps????

Second of all, why is there a “lack of definitive evidence”? Obviously, because NIH funding at $5 million a year is not likely to produce much in the way of definitive evidence on etiology, diagnosis and treatment.

It seems to me that what NIH is actually saying is: we haven’t provided enough funding to identify definitive evidence, and because you haven’t identified definitive evidence we can’t provide you with more funding. If that doesn’t qualify as circular reasoning, I don’t know what does.

What this response tells us is that if NIH persists in this approach, we will be waiting a long time for an RFA or increase in funding. We will have to wait until a) there is a miracle discovery on etiology, diagnosis and treatment or b) 10 to 15 years for the career development idea to produce more researchers who are doing ME/CFS research.

Despite the thorough background and support for the recommendation provided by CFSAC, despite letters from members of Congress in support of an RFA, despite the pleas of advocates and organizations like IACFS/ME, NIH is steadfastly refusing to provide the one thing that we know would accelerate research progress: the money. UNACCEPTABLE.

What You Can Do

The NIH response leaves the door open just a crack – and that crack could make all the difference. The response says that RFAs are “designed to build upon recommendations . . . that incorporate findings from workshops and conferences.” Remind you of anything? Think P2P.

This makes the P2P Workshop more mission critical than ever, especially now that the draft systematic review has been published. The P2P report is supposed to identify gaps in ME/CFS research. NIH has left the door open to an RFA that incorporates findings from workshops. So we need to do everything possible to make sure the P2P report identifies accurate and appropriate gaps.

The systematic review says that CBT is moderately effective. It treats all the case definitions as equivalent. Remember that this review is the single piece of evidence given to the P2P Panel in advance of the Workshop. Do you want the P2P Panel report to incorporate those findings? Do you want an RFA based on findings like that?

I don’t. So here is what you can do:

Now is not the time to lie down. NIH says No? I say push back. This is a critical moment. If we slip and fall now, the consequences will affect us for many years to come.


P2P Participation, Part 2

September 18th, 2014 14 comments

I have new information on participation in the Pathways to Prevention ME/CFS Workshop:

The Office of Disease Prevention confirmed via telephone that the public will be able to participate in discussion at the P2P Workshop, in person and online. ODP explicitly said that people attending in person can ask questions or make comments via microphones or computers in the room. Webcast viewers can type in comments and questions in a comment box on the webpage. There is a total of 3.5 hours of “Discussion” time noted on the draft agenda, and this is when public input will be addressed. The ME/CFS meeting will follow a procedure very similar to the upcoming P2P meeting on opioid use, so we will be able to see how it works. While there is no guarantee of how much we will be included in the discussion, I am very glad that we finally got some clarity on this issue.

Dr. Susan Maier (NIH) confirmed via email that the comment period on the P2P final report will be extended. Originally, we were going to have from December 12 to December 26th to submit comment on this vital report on the direction of ME/CFS research. This is the worst possible timing for a population as disabled as ME/CFS patients, falling right at the holidays. Multiple groups and individuals requested an extension of this time as an accommodation of our disability. Dr. Maier has confirmed that the comment deadline will be extended to 30 days, meaning the new deadline should be around January 12, 2015. This is a fair and reasonable period of time, and I thank NIH for making this accommodation.

So here is where I repeat my plea for as many people as possible to attend the meeting on December 9-10th, watch it via webcast, and comment on the draft report. Register for the meeting here.

I know that some advocates believe that watching the meeting or submitting comments is some kind of endorsement of the process, and that this participation will be used against us. I strongly disagree. Silence will be interpreted as consent. This is especially true given that we now have better opportunities to participate (although it remains to be seen how many of our questions are actually addressed, of course). We have been complaining for years that NIH needs to do more about ME/CFS, and now they believe they are taking a big step to do more.

I am on record as saying that I believe the P2P Workshop is fundamentally flawed in its present form. But I will attend this meeting, I will ask questions, and I will submit comment. I am not doing so because I think I can fix the fundamental flaw by myself. I am doing so – I am doing all the P2P work I have done – because at the very least, I will make sure that this process is conducted in the light. I will make sure that people know what is being done, how and by whom.

P2P is offering us a tiny itty bitty piece of a microphone. I say hold on, and speak up.


Why You Should P2P

September 8th, 2014 34 comments


My concerns about the NIH’s Pathways to Prevention Workshop on ME/CFS are legion, and I’ve been quite vocal about them. But today I am asking you to participate in the P2P Workshop on December 9-10, 2014.

Registration for attending in person or by webcast is now open, and my hope is that everyone who reads this blog will sign up for one or the other.

Why would I ask you to participate in a Workshop that I have been trying to stop or delay or change? It’s simple: the P2P Panel needs to see us, hear us, and know that we are watching what they do.

I can guarantee you that the P2P Panel will not understand what this disease does. They won’t know that some of us need wheelchairs. They won’t know what a crash looks like. They will have no idea that we are held prisoner by our bodies, unable to cook, read, speak, stand in line, drive, function, live any kind of normal life. They won’t understand that scheduling this meeting right before the holidays imposes an extra and tremendous obstacle to our ability to participate.

How can I be sure that the Panel will not understand these things? Because one of the criteria for their selection is that they have no professional or personal experience of this disease. Because the evidence review is unlikely to convey the seriousness of the disease. Because the P2P Panel’s website does not even mention post-exertional malaise, let alone paint an accurate picture of this disease.

The P2P Panel needs to look around the room at the Workshop and see us. They need to see us guzzling water and electrolytes, sitting with our feet propped up on chairs. They need to see our walkers and canes and wheelchairs. They need to see our family and friends. They need to see us lying on the floor when we become too ill to sit.

The auditorium holds 1,000 people, but in the application for meeting approval (that I obtained through FOIA) NIH estimated that only 100 members of the public will attend. I don’t know if they think we aren’t interested or that we won’t bother to be present at this vital and important meeting. Prove. Them. Wrong. I cannot guarantee that you will have a chance to comment or ask a question. But I promise you that your physical presence in the room will have an impact. I promise you that making this the most watched P2P meeting will have an impact. How can it not? How can we – the people most affected by this disease and most impacted by this non-expert Panel’s recommendations – how can we possibly fail to send a message if we come together and SHOW UP.

Do not acquiesce to being made more invisible than we already are. So please, register for the meeting in-person or by webcast.


ME/CFS Mortality

July 7th, 2014 23 comments

Does ME/CFS kill? This critical question has received very little attention from researchers, but there is a way for you to help change that.

The first paper on causes of death in ME/CFS was published in 2006 by Dr. Leonard Jason, et. al. They looked at a registry from the National CFIDS Foundation, and compared the causes of death and ages of patients with general population data. They found that CFS patients who died of cancer, suicide and heart failure were significantly younger than people in the general population dying of the same causes. There are a number of limitations to the study, including selection bias of the cohort, but it was a very important signal that should have been investigated.

Despite calls from people like Dr. Lily Chu (read her CFSAC testimony on this subject from 2012), I’m not aware of any longitudinal or natural history studies collecting this sort of data. In 2012, Chang, et al. crunched numbers from the Medicare database and found an increased association with lymphoma, but again, there are serious limitations to that analysis.

Despite the dearth of good data, the IACFS/ME recently made the following statement in the 2014 revised Primer:

Even if patients get progressively worse, ME/CFS itself is not known to be fatal. (p. 26)

Dr. Chu offered a dissent at the recent IACFS/ME meeting, for a number of reasons. She said, in part:

We do not have evidence to say that ME is not fatal.  As far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, there are no longitudinal studies involving large ME/CFS populations that address this question. . . .

On the other hand, there have been cases, although rare, where death was attributed to ME. . .

The IACFS/ME is the only international scientific organization dedicated to ME/CFS. Anything we state should be evidence-based as much as possible. Statements surrounding mortality should be qualified to acknowledge the lack of and the need for more investigation.

So how do we resolve this? Two separate efforts are trying to determine just that.

At the recent IACFS/ME conference, Dr. Dana March presented data from the Chronic Fatigue Initiative’s epidemiology study. As reported on Phoenix Rising, of 960 survey respondents, 59 were determined to have died. The three highest causes of death were cancer (37.8%), heart disease (19%), and suicide (19%). That last number is pretty extraordinary, since in 2010 suicide deaths were 1.9% of deaths from all causes in the general population. Among cancer patients, suicide accounts for approximately twice that – 4% of all deaths. Granted, this is a very small sample size and the patients are drawn from ME/CFS specialty clinics. If the CFI data is confirmed in larger studies, suicide representing 19% of all deaths would be extraordinary.

One would think this would be a big enough signal to get the attention of CDC. We desperately need data on a large sample size to truly establish if people with ME/CFS have a higher risk of death from complications, from the disease process itself, or “secondary” causes like suicide (which is a primary cause to the person’s family and friends).

Natural history and longitudinal studies are expensive, in part because they need a lot of subjects and need to examine a long period of time. We will need CDC to do this work, or NIH to fund it, or NIH to fund the data platform recommended by CFSAC so that multiple researchers can do it. But we cannot and should not wait for government to get around to recognizing the need.

Enter Abby Brown (DePaul University) and Billie Moore (NJ CFS Association). Billie’s son committed suicide at age 46 after a 20 year battle with ME/CFS. Billie’s testimony on the subject is probably the most moving CFSAC public comment I’ve ever heard.

Now Billie and Abby have collaborated to create a comprehensive and detailed survey, with the goal of collecting more data in a more systematic way. The ME and CFS Mortality Study is IRB-approved and collecting responses now. If you know someone who passed away after having ME or CFS, then please consider participating in the study. The survey is very detailed, in order to collect complete details about the severity of illness and cause(s) of death. The estimated time required to complete the survey is one hour.

If you know someone who died after having ME or CFS, please participate. Feel free to share information about the study with other people you know, too. If you have any questions, you can contact Abby Brown at DePaulMECFSReseach AT Maybe this data will be enough to finally get the research we need.


P2P: Taking Shape

June 20th, 2014 13 comments


The P2P ME/CFS Workshop has been approved and is scheduled for December 9-10th, 2014. The focus of this post is on analyzing four components of the information released by NIH yesterday:

  • P2P is describing our disease as fatigue, without post-exertional malaise
  • P2P is trying to clarify questions on the multiple case definitions, measurement tools, effective therapies and innovative research methods
  • The P2P agenda uses questions beyond the evidence review, but not the most important question of all
  • The P2P Working Group includes members with and without ME/CFS expertise


How Does P2P Describe ME/CFS?

Huge red flag, folks. Here is how the P2P website describes ME/CFS:

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a complex, multifaceted disorder characterized by extreme fatigue and a host of other symptoms that can worsen after physical or mental activity, but do not improve with rest. In addition to extreme fatigue, people with ME/CFS may also experience:

Widespread muscle and joint pain

Sore throat

Tender lymph nodes in the neck or armpit


Sleep problems

Difficulty with short-term memory or concentration

I added emphasis so you can’t miss the takeaway here. ME/CFS is characterized by extreme fatigue, and people with ME/CFS may also experience other symptoms. And what is missing from this list? POST-EXERTIONAL MALAISE. Even Fukuda lists post-exertional malaise as an optional symptom. But the way NIH has described the disease, it almost sounds like Oxford – extreme fatigue and maybe other symptoms.

The description also states, “sensitivity to environmental factors (e.g., noise, light, chemicals) may force many individuals with ME/CFS into seclusion or withdrawal from society.” These sensitivities can certainly be debilitating, but I think most (if not all) patients would agree that it is primarily PEM and all the other symptoms that keep us imprisoned in our homes or our beds.

Need more proof that NIH’s conception of ME/CFS does not question the assumption that they are the same fatiguing illness? They say the two names are for the same condition: “The name myalgic encephalomyelitis or ME is more commonly used in Europe and Canada, while the name chronic fatigue syndrome or CFS is used more often in the United States and Australia. Yet the acronym ME/CFS is increasingly being used worldwide.”

In all fairness, these descriptions do not automatically determine what the Panel’s report will say. But the paradigm of a single, fatiguing illness has been at the heart of my opposition to the way P2P was being put together, and this has not eased my concern.

What Will P2P Try To Do?

The P2P website describes four things that the Workshop will try to clarify, a weird sort of blend between the five questions presented by Dr. Susan Maier to IOM on January 27, 2014 (after the P2P Working Group planning meeting), and the Key Questions of the systematic evidence review protocol.

The first issue is how the research using multiple case definitions has contributed to the state of the current literature. It’s a good question, but the answer seems blindingly obvious. Perhaps there are more subtleties that outsiders would see that I do not. All I can see is the absolute muck of a contaminated evidence base that counts Oxford studies and CCC studies as one and the same, and has absolutely no consensus on how to diagnose or measure any of it. In my opinion, the use of multiple case definitions is responsible for the state of the current literature, which is why we are stuck in a hellish stalemate with no widely accepted criteria, biomarkers, or treatments.

The second issue is how measurements are able to distinguish among ME/CFS patients focused on subsets by duration, severity, onset, and “nature of the illness.” Two observations. First, what is “nature of the illness”? I do not understand whether this is referring to immunological vs. neurological, or something else. Second, this issue assumes that differences are automatically subsets! This is exactly what I’ve been harping on for months – that the failure to ask if ME and CFS are the same, different, or spectrum illnesses eliminates the most fundamental and foundational question of them all.

The third issue presents a big red flag. It asks how research on “therapies shown to be effective” will lead to an understanding the underlying pathology. What therapies have been shown to be effective? Are we talking CBT and GET? Rituximab? You will get two very different answers about underlying pathology if you consider CBT/GET to be effective instead of Rituximab (and vice versa). Just last week, the Solve ME/CFS Initiative told NIH that the search strategy will bias the evidence towards CBT and GET. If that prediction holds true, then asking what CBT and GET tell us about the underlying pathology is patently dangerous.

The fourth issue asks what “innovative research approaches” tell us about the pathophysiology of ME/CFS and how it can be used to develop treatments. What is an innovative research approach? Is this where Rituximab fits in? Or is this focused more on things like proteomics, microbiomics, or systems network analysis? Or something else? Without understanding the terms or context, it’s hard to tell.

Agenda Good or Agenda Bad?

You may recall that I got two draft agendas for the Workshop through FOIA. Circumstantial evidence suggested they were drafted at or soon after the January Working Group meeting. How do they stack up to the real thing posted on the P2P website? Answer: the draft agenda I got through FOIA is very very similar to the one posted yesterday.

A few overall observations: The time officially allocated to the “patient perspective” is 20 minutes. The Evidence Practice Center has a total of 1 hour, 20 minutes split between two days. Total time allocated for discussion: 2 hours, 40 minutes split between the two days. You may recall that Dr. Shirley said at CFSAC that there would be town hall-style discussion at the Workshop, and also said there would be “public testimony” but provided no details on that. With less than three hours for discussion, I expect tight facilitation as opposed to open mic. There is no indication of anything resembling “public testimony” as we know it from CFSAC or other federal meetings.

I must call out one change in particular. You probably recall that I have been decrying the framing of Dr. Maier’s overview of the topic, described as “Overwhelming fatigue and malaise as a public health problem.” On the agenda posted by NIH, Dr. Maier still has 20 minutes to present an overview, but that description of the overview is gone.

The five Workshop questions are identical to the draft agenda I obtained through FOIA. Here they are, with their sub-topics (each one gets 20 minutes), but I’ve left off EPC presentations and discussion time.

I.  What is the Incidence and Prevalence of ME/CFS, and Who Does It Affect?
a) Incidence and Prevalence Data (Population-Based Studies)
b) Social Determinants of Health
c) Disease Across the Lifespan

II.  What Tools, Measures, and Approaches Help Define Individuals with ME/CFS?
a) Overview of Existing Tools and Measures
b) Measures: Patient-Reported and Physiologic
c) Measures: Omics, Biomarkers and Imaging
d) Innovative Statistical Approaches

III.  How Are Tools and Measures Used to Distinguish Subsets of Patients with ME/CFS?
a) Identification of Subsets of Individuals
b) Triangulating Quantitative and Qualitative Data (Quality of Life/Function)
c) What Outcomes Represent Improvement, Recovery, Prevention, Benefits, or Harms

IV.  Given the Unique Challenges to ME/CFS, How Can We Foster Innovative Research to Enhance the Development of Treatments for Patients?
a) Incorporating Multiple Study Designs into ME/CFS Research
b) Maximizing Approaches and Results from the Study of Other Illnesses and Complex Chronic Conditions
c) Using Research on Comorbidities to Understand ME/CFS

V.  What Does the Research on ME/CFS Tell Us About the Presentation and Diagnosis of ME/CFS in the Clinic?
a) Lessons from Current Treatments and Clinical Trials
b) Comparative Effectiveness Research
c) Health Services Research and Health Policy Relevant Research

I’m going to wave a few big flags here (you knew I would). First, this agenda does not ask if CFS and ME are the same illness, different illnesses, or different aspects of a spectrum. Does. Not. Ask.

You cannot answer a question if you refuse to ask it in the first place. If we have a pile of apples and oranges and we insist on talking about the incidence and prevalence of a fruit called “appanges,” for example, or the tools that will help distinguish the subsets of “appanges,” are we ever going to question whether “appanges” are actually a pile of apples and oranges????? No, we are not. We will continue to call them “appanges,” and argue about whether the number or shape or color of the seeds distinguishes subsets. We will not see what is right in front of us, because we did not bother to consider that “appanges” might be a made-up category of fruit truthiness.

Second, we keep hearing mixed messages about what this Workshop is really trying to accomplish. Is it to identify the gaps in research, as many people insisted at CFSAC? Is it to identify methodological weaknesses in the research, as Dr. Cook said on Tuesday? Is it to determine what treatment or clinical approach works best? I see shades of all three, with an emphasis on what is known and not what is unknown.

I must correct something I have been insisting was true. I have been saying that the agenda would mirror the questions for the systematic evidence review. That was incorrect. But while the agenda and systematic review questions are not identical, you can draw a lot of lines back and forth to connect one to the other.

When Carol Head (Solve ME/CFS Initiative) expressed concern at CFSAC about the elimination of the question of how CFS and ME differ, Dr. Collins Sharp – answering with the caveat that she is not at all involved in the P2P planning – said that the review questions are a subset of the Workshop questions. She said that any question that did not have sufficient literature to be included in the evidence review could still be addressed at the Workshop. This appears to be the case, but that most important and fundamental question is nowhere to be seen.

The P2P Working Group

The P2P Working Group is the committee that helps NIH plan the meeting. The Group met in person at NIH January 6-7, 2014 (that meeting agenda has been posted). Before now, the P2P Working Group roster was only available through FOIA. Here’s the breakdown of the full list:

Federal Employees, familiar with ME/CFS (6): Dr. Susan Maier (NIH), Dr. M. Katherine Jung (NIH), Dr. Janet Maynard (FDA), Dr. Eun-Chung Park (NIH), Dr. Leorey Saligan (NIH), and Dr. Mariela Shirley (NIH). The NIH employees are all members of the Trans-NIH ME/CFS Working Group. Dr. Park is the staff member contact for the Lipkin samples. Dr. Saligan’s research focus is acute and chronic fatigue, and he has done sample analysis for Dr. Baraniuk and others. Dr. Maynard is the FDA ex officio to CFSAC, and works in the FDA review division that handles ME/CFS drug applications.

Federal Employees, not familiar with ME/CFS (6): Jody Engel, Deborah Langer, Elizabeth Neilson, Wilma Peterson Cross, Paris Watson, and Dr. Jessica Wu all work at NIH’s Office of Disease Prevention. They also all serve on the P2P Working Group for the upcoming meeting on opioid use.

Non-Federal Members, familiar with ME/CFS (6): Dr. Mady Hornig (Columbia University), Dr. Leonard Jason (DePaul University), Dr. Nancy Klimas (NOVA Southeastern University), Robert Miller (Patient and Advocate), Dr. Peter Rowe (Johns Hopkins University), and Dr. Suzanne Vernon (Solve ME/CFS Initiative) are all familiar to the ME/CFS community.

Non-Federal Members, not familiar with ME/CFS (1): Dr. Carmen Green (University of Michigan) is an anesthesiologist and member of the HHS Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee. She is the chair of the P2P Panel.

Several names listed on the January roster (obtained through FOIA) as attending the meeting do not appear on this final Working Group roster. Missing are Dr. Suchitra Iyer (AHRQ), Dr. Heidi Nelson and Dr. Beth Smith (both of the Oregon Health & Science University Evidence Practice Center). I do not know for certain why they are not listed on the final Working Group roster, but they may have attended the meeting to discuss the evidence review questions rather than the planning as a whole.

Another odd omission: at the CFSAC meeting, Dr. Nancy Lee said that Marty Bond had attended “several” of the meetings for P2P. Yet Ms. Bond’s name is not listed on any of the documents posted or obtained through FOIA. So we cannot automatically assume that the only people attending Working Group meetings are the members themselves.

According to the P2P website, the Working Group drafted the questions for the evidence review, finalized the agenda, nominated speakers and panelists, selected the workshop date, and continue to be engaged in ongoing workshop planning. I am hearing conflicting things about that continued engagement and how extensive it will be.


Based on the information released yesterday, is P2P a worst case scenario? I have a vivid imagination, so I can definitely imagine something worse than this. But is P2P looking good? Absolutely not. If Mary Dimmock and I were writing our letter to Dr. Collins today, I would tweak some sections but all of my objections are basically unchanged.


Research Roadmap

April 14th, 2014 16 comments

Road MapThe Research Recruitment Working Group of the CFS Advisory Committee has been formulating recommendations that could potentially change the direction of ME/CFS research at NIH. Not much time has been spent on it at the last two meetings, but I think you need to pay attention to this. Dr. Dane Cook, chair of the Working Group, spoke with me about where they’re headed.

The Working Group was charged with two tasks: 1) increase awareness among researchers about ME/CFS research and 2) suggest strategies to increase the number of interested researchers who will apply for funding. Most advocates, myself included, have argued for the “build it and they will come” approach. If more money is made available for ME/CFS research, then more researchers will apply. Dr. Cook pointed out that CFSAC has been recommending increases in funding and RFAs for years without any success. In his opinion, it is time to try a different recommendation strategy.

Dr. Cook and the Working Group presented interim reports at the December 2013 and March 2014 CFSAC meetings. The Group has gathered data on the low number of CFS publications relative to the number of publications on both fatigue and fibromyalgia. They have also identified multiple barriers to increasing the number of interested researchers and retaining them in the field. I asked him to walk me through the three prongs of the Group’s current approach, with the caveat that this is not the final recommendation from the Working Group.

A Research Agenda Informed by the IOM and P2P Reports

The first step in the research road map is to articulate a clear research agenda based on the information and recommendations from the 2011 NIH State of the Knowledge meeting, as well as the forthcoming IOM and P2P reports. Combined, these three reports should identify gaps in the research and the priority areas for future inquiry. The IOM report may also resolve the dispute over the case definition, although it should be noted that IOM is creating a clinical case definition not a research definition.

Dr. Cook was pressed hard at the March 2014 meeting on the issue of urgency. The P2P report will be issued at the end of 2014, and the IOM report is not due until March 2015. The formulation of a clear research agenda wouldn’t begin until after that. Billie Moore and other CFSAC members expressed dismay at this timeline, and pushed for an immediate RFA. Meanwhile, a recent Congressional effort made a similar request of NIH, but this has come under fire from some advocates who believe that no money should be requested from NIH without guarantees of how it will be spent. They point to the recent denial of funding to Dr. Lipkin as proof that NIH cannot be trusted to make the right grant decisions.

Dr. Cook told me that the delay of waiting for the reports is the hardest issue for him personally. He would much rather see an increase in funding immediately. However, he pointed out that CFSAC has already pushed for this for many years. His assessment is that if CFSAC recommends another RFA now, the answer from HHS will be that they need to wait for the reports. Dr. Cook’s goal is to provide so much evidence of necessity that HHS will be compelled to act.

Championed by the Trans-NIH Working Group

The second prong of the road map is for the research agenda to be clearly communicated and championed by the Trans-NIH ME/CFS Working Group. Dr. Cook’s sense is that NIH is generally supportive of how he’s been working on this charge, but he did not articulate what “championing” would look like.

It’s important to remember that the Trans-NIH Working Group does not have a research budget, nor does it make the decisions on funding ME/CFS grants. But what it can do is bring people together from the NIH Institutes to promote ME/CFS research at NIH. Any step in that direction is a positive one, as long as the research is physiologically oriented and focused on the correct patient cohorts. Whether this could be achieved – and to what extent the Trans-NIH Working Group would evangelize it – is not entirely clear to me.

Strong Infrastructure

The final prong of the road map is to support ME/CFS research with a strong infrastructure. Dr. Cook is passionate about this, and believes that it could be undertaken immediately without waiting for the IOM and P2P reports. Currently, data sharing among ME/CFS researchers is piecemeal. Many researchers use REDCap to collect their data, and the system is designed to build and manage surveys and databases online. It’s an electronic data capturing system, not a system for aggregating and sharing data.

The National Database for Autism Research (NDAR) is a striking alternative model. NDAR was launched by NIH in 2006, and it offers both a data repository to facilitate data sharing and standardization, and a scientific community platform that offers access to other research repositories housed by other institutions. Applicants for NIH funding are strongly encouraged to contribute their data to NDAR, and data on almost 70,000 individuals with autism are available. Several NIH Institutes provide funding for NDAR, averaging about $2 million per year.

NDAR is far larger and more sophisticated than any ME/CFS data effort. Dr. Cook believes that ME/CFS research is in desperate need of such a resource. He also said that this could be pursued immediately, without waiting for the IOM and P2P reports. The big question is (as always) funding. An NDAR representative told me that the system could be rolled out for another disease area, such as ME/CFS, for about a quarter of the annual NDAR investment. But still, is NIH willing to invest $500,000 per year in building such a system for ME/CFS?

Where From Here

Dr. Cook indicated that the Working Group is continuing to refine its recommendation. His CFSAC term expires in early May, but he hopes to remain on the Working Group to continue and support the effort to finalize a recommendation to the Secretary.

I think many important questions remain: Is it appropriate to make the RFA contingent on the release of the P2P and IOM reports? Is such a delay acceptable? Who will be charged with articulating the research strategy? Will that person/group be willing and able to depart from the P2P and IOM recommendations if needed? Will the Trans-NIH Working Group champion this agenda and request an RFA? What does that look like? Who will be tasked with creating an NDAR-like infrastructure? Who will pay for it?

And the obvious question is: how long do ME/CFS stakeholders have to wait to see the investment of funding that this we so desperately need and deserve?


Congress: We Need An RFA

April 2nd, 2014 35 comments

I am very happy to report that an effort is underway to secure Congressional support for a $7-10 million RFA for ME/CFS funding at NIH. And there is something YOU can do to help!

Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and 10 of her colleagues have signed a letter to Dr. Francis Collins, Director of NIH, asking him to follow the recommendation of the CFS Advisory Committee and allocate $7 to 10 million for an RFA. This would be money set aside for ME/CFS research (currently no money is guaranteed to ME/CFS). I’ve posted a copy of the letter for you to read and take to your own Congressman/woman.

What you can do:

  • Read the letter, and if your Representative has already signed then call his/her office to say thank you! This is very important because these offices track the feedback they receive. So call your Congressman’s office, and say: “I (my family/friend/etc) am a constituent, and I want to thank the Congressman for his/her support of research into the medical condition myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS).”
  • Thank Dr. Ben Gutman, the aide in Congresswoman Lofgren’s office, for making this happen. Email him at ben.gutman AT
  • If your Representative has not signed the letter, then ask him/her to do so! Call the office, identify yourself as a constituent, and briefly tell them why ME/CFS research is important to you. Then ask that your Congressman/woman read the letter and consider signing. You can share both the letter and the introductory email (which begins “Dear Colleague”) with the office, because that email provides the context and contact information if they have questions. Do not worry if you only speak to a staff person and not your Representative. Congressional staffers are influential. Tell them that you will call back to follow up in 2-3 weeks – and then remember to do it.
  • Report results. If your Congressman/woman signs the letter, then please let me know. Just post the name, state and Congressional district here. And if he/she did not sign, politely ask why and report that reason and the Representative’s name here, too.

I’m not responsible for getting this ball rolling, but it’s nice to see. I’ll be calling my Congressman tomorrow, and I hope you will too.


2013 NIH Spending on CFS Studies

March 31st, 2014 27 comments

gold-pricesI have positive news to report: NIH spending on ME/CFS  in 2013 was actually higher than it was in 2012. Are you shocked? I know I was. NIH lists a total of $5.1 million for ME/CFS research in 2013, an increase of 13% over 2012. And for the first time ever, I think the numbers look better on closer examination because of how the spending was allocated.

The problem is not fixed, by any stretch of the imagination. ME/CFS spending fell to 226th out of 237 categories (we were 224th in 2012). Hay fever got almost twice as much funding; fibromyalgia got more than twice as much; TMJ got almost four times more; and multiple sclerosis received more than 22 times as much funding as ME/CFS.

I think it’s important to shape our advocacy based on evidence and facts, so let’s dig into the numbers. NIH had projected that it would spend $5 million on ME/CFS research in 2013 (see my previous analyses of of spending in 2011 and 2012). There are 16 grants listed for 2013 spending (one grant is listed twice because funding came from two institutes) for a total of $5,118,721. This is an increase of $600,539, or 13.3% from the 2012 funding.

Unrelated Grants

Last year, I found that 18% of the money NIH said it spent on ME/CFS was incorrectly categorized. This year, I am pleased to report that only 1.5% of the spending was unrelated to ME/CFS. The study by Dr. Matthew Hayes received $77,200 in funding to investigate the potential mechanisms that cause nausea and malaise after the administration of a class of drugs for diabetes. Just like last year, I still don’t understand why this is counted in the ME/CFS category, but the grant is scheduled to end in 2014 so hopefully this will be the last of it.

Category Breakdown

After deducting the unrelated study, we are left with total ME/CFS spending of $5,041,521. Let’s see the category breakdown:

When compared to previous years, the numbers look even better:

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total spending $4,844,044 $6,194,042 $6,346,148 $4,518,182 $5,118,721
Not CFS Related 7% 6.5% 0 1.77% 1.5%
XMRV 15% 29.3% 27.5% 16.43% 0
Psychological 12% 12.3% 13.5% 20.14% 10.4%
Orthostatic intolerance 25% 13.5% 13.5% 7.01% 11.7%
Neuroendocrine Immune 42% 38.3% 45.5% 54.65% 76.4%

Look at those numbers! Psychological spending was HALF of what it was in 2012. That money, and the money spent on XMRV last year, has now moved over to the neuroendocrine immune category (including biomarker studies) to bring that category to its highest since at least 2008. This is a very good trend.

Several additional points of interest. First, the Office of the Director contributed $600,540 towards the studies by Dr. Jason and Dr. Shungu. The Office of the Director has provided funding in previous years, such Dr. Brigitte Huber’s study in 2011 and Dr. Natelson’s study in 2012. However, the 2013 contribution from the Office of the Director is far higher than in previous years. I’m not sure what accounts for that significant increase.

Second, there were four new grants in 2013 (just like 2012) totaling $1,763,585, or 34.5% of the overall total. This is an increase of $737,208 over 2012’s new grant spending. All four new grants were reviewed by the CFS Special Emphasis Panel, just like 2012. In fact, all of the external grants on ME/CFS were reviewed by the CFS Special Emphasis Panel.

Upward Trend

Perhaps the most important metric for NIH spending on ME/CFS is to compare the real numbers year by year. I’ve removed all the spending that was not related to ME/CFS (including XMRV in 2012), and here is the trend:

Adjusted Spending $ Increased (Decreased) % Increased (Decreased)
2008 $3,175,262
2009 $3,810,851 $635,589 20%
2010 $4,248,535 $437,684 11.5%
2011 $5,009,672 $761,137 18%
2012 $3,696,068 ($1,313,604) (26.2%)
2013 $5,041,521 $1,345,453 36.4%

In terms of real spending – i.e. money spent on grants actually related to ME/CFS – 2013 spending was the highest since 2008, and included the biggest increase (both $ and %) since 2008. I think this is a trend we could all get behind.

Prove It

While these numbers are good, the overall problem is not solved. Five million dollars is pocket change in scientific research, and grossly inadequate given the economic and human toll of ME/CFS. Dr. Ian Lipkin stated publicly that his application for a microbiome study was recently turned down by NIH, although we don’t know which review panel scored the grant or why it scored poorly. One source told me that the ME/CFS Special Emphasis Panel reviews approximately six applications each cycle, which means that applications have not increased in the last year. Multiple factors contribute to the low NIH funding for ME/CFS, and we will need multiple solutions to fix the problem.

Still, the funding for 2013 was higher than the funding in 2012, and I applaud NIH for that. The real question is whether this is a fluke, or the beginning of a trend. I would like nothing better than to report 36% (or more) increases for the next five years.