• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Dr Nath's intra-mural study at NIH is currently recruiting

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
Do we know when we should expect results from these studies? Is there a timeframe?
They are collecting data at a rate of 1 patient a week if I am not mistaken and they have just started. Then they have to process all the samples, and performa analysis of the data. We are likely 2 years away from publication. This is an estimate from my point of view and I may be wrong.
 
Messages
2,087
They are collecting data at a rate of 1 patient a week if I am not mistaken and they have just started. Then they have to process all the samples, and performa analysis of the data. We are likely 2 years away from publication. This is an estimate from my point of view and I may be wrong.

I think Nath mentioned 3 years from start or something like that, at one point. Possibly during his webinar.
 

Tuha

Senior Member
Messages
638
Long way to go. :-( Do you think they will release partial data earlier?
It´s always interesting to have at least some partial informations during the waiting periode. Look for example at CDC CFS studies. I think they are doing their studies already for 5 years and we dont know anything about. It´s very frustraiting,
 

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
Long way to go. :-( Do you think they will release partial data earlier?
It´s always interesting to have at least some partial informations during the waiting periode. Look for example at CDC CFS studies. I think they are doing their studies already for 5 years and we dont know anything about. It´s very frustraiting,
Probably not @Tuha since this is the way science works, and in most cases scientists do not discuss their results before publication. However we have other teams working hard, and we should expect publication from the Davis group by the end of the year, and results from the Norway study by early next year. And I am sure there are others who have something in the works.
 

viggster

Senior Member
Messages
464
Any idea what kind of cells they're analyzing? And from the page about how it works, it looks like the cells are placed in medium so I assume they're not left in serum. That being the case, it would be odd/interesting if they're still seeing the metabolic issues.

I'll try to get more details from the scientist. She was very excited about describing it and was talking quickly so I missed a lot of what she said.
 

viggster

Senior Member
Messages
464
Do we know when we should expect results from these studies? Is there a timeframe?
Today I asked one of the researchers about timeline and he said they'll be releasing results as the study goes along. That is, they don't plan to wait until the very end to start publishing. The first stuff out will probably be the animal model they're attempting to develop. The brains-in-a-dish experiment (blood cells turned into neurons) could also be early out of the gate. Maybe in a year or so, but who knows. If any of the 30 or so scientists working on the study finds stark early findings, they may be eager to get it out sooner. I am convinced this is not business-as-usual at NIH. Avi Nath had to make a split-second decision when Collins asked him to be PI during a meeting. And then Collins gave him a month to put a protocol together. I would not be surprised if that is some kind of NIH record outside of emergency protocols like Ebola. Intramural protocols can often take 6 months to a year or more to come together.
 

Never Give Up

Collecting improvements, until there's a cure.
Messages
971
Today I asked one of the researchers about timeline and he said they'll be releasing results as the study goes along. That is, they don't plan to wait until the very end to start publishing. The first stuff out will probably be the animal model they're attempting to develop. The brains-in-a-dish experiment (blood cells turned into neurons) could also be early out of the gate. Maybe in a year or so, but who knows. If any of the 30 or so scientists working on the study finds stark early findings, they may be eager to get it out sooner. I am convinced this is not business-as-usual at NIH. Avi Nath had to make a split-second decision when Collins asked him to be PI during a meeting. And then Collins gave him a month to put a protocol together. I would not be surprised if that is some kind of NIH record outside of emergency protocols like Ebola. Intramural protocols can often take 6 months to a year or more to come together.
Yaaay! It is wonderful to get information as it develops! This actually seems like a kindness they are doing us. Please tell them, "thank you" from me. And thank you, again for giving us updates, @viggster, I really appreciate it.
 

RYO

Senior Member
Messages
350
Location
USA
Do we know when we should expect results from these studies? Is there a timeframe?
In regards to use of mass spectrometry on CSF samples, I was told they are going to wait until they have collected all samples then run them as a batch. My guess is that it will take them at least 80 weeks. Part 2 of the study will not even begin until 6 months from March of 2017. Overall, I think it's difficult to predict which part of intramural study will uncover interesting pattern that is unique to ME/CSF patients. Dr Nath also mentioned the most difficult part of CSF study is data analysis portion.

After having some time to reflect, I have cautious optimism.
 

viggster

Senior Member
Messages
464
Yaaay! It is wonderful to get information as it develops! This actually seems like a kindness they are doing us. Please tell them, "thank you" from me. And thank you, again for giving us updates, @viggster, I really appreciate it.
Certainly. I've been trying to think of other ways to communicate about the study and how to get the word to as many patients as possible. Look for articles in the next few days on national news sites. And the team is being very open about everything they're doing. They're now talking with Staci Stevens and I gave NIH my data from the 2-day CPET I did with her. This is a big positive sign IMO. When Dr. Collins came to talk to me he wanted to know how the patient community felt about the study. I told him I didn't have any surveys, and that the early communications problems reinforced decades of mistrust, but that I had also heard hopeful messages from many patients.

One long-standing criticism of NIH across many fields is their sometimes lack of faith in results from outside their gates. So if they have to reconfirm findings from others in order to really believe them (like lowered anaerobic threshold on second day of CPET), so be it.
 
Last edited:

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,970
When Dr. Collins came to talk to me he wanted to know how the patient community felt about the study. I told him I didn't have any surveys, and that the early communications problems reinforced decades of mistrust, but that I had also heard hopeful messages from many patients.

Interesting that Collins wanted to know how the community felt about the study. If he was really concerned, he would have listened to the community's outcry about removing Walitt and the other very problematic NIH investigators working on the study. If he really cared, he would have listened to the advocates and patients who were asking for a voice in the design and execution of the study. These issues were outlined here and were sent to Collins - with no reply from him. If he was concerned about the patients, he would have acted upon our outcry before Shorter was to appear and lie about ME to NIH investigators.

It's the actions that matter - not a smile on a picture.
 

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,970
Coming to my room and talking to me and another patient for a half hour is an action. Pushing his people to design the deepest biological investigation of CCC ME anyone has ever heard of (please correct me if I'm wrong) is an action - a big one.

Collins came to visit with you because he know you. You used to work there.

The rest of us don't even get a reply to our calls or letters.

As far as the study, there are still problems with it and because of the lack of transparency I have no faith in it. I hope to be proven wrong.

The bottom line though is that this study is just a drop in the bucket. This disease has been grossly underfunded for decades including the eight years when Collins was calling the shots.

We have abled private investigators who can't get proper federal funding. Collins is the one pulling the strings. The fault of this ongoing malfeasance falls in his hands.
 

viggster

Senior Member
Messages
464
Collins is the one pulling the strings. The fault of this ongoing malfeasance falls in his hands.
You have just revealed that you have no idea how NIH external funding works. The NIH Director does not "pull the strings" when it comes to the thousands of grants the agency gives out every year. Every of the 30 or so institutes at NIH has a director and a big bureaucracy, and review panels, and special emphasis panels, and executive committees, and on and on and on. The idea that one man controls a $30 billion budget where tens of thousands of grant decisions are made every year is ludicrous. The only money Collins directly controls is called the Directors' Budget (or something like that) and he gave funds from that pool to the new RFAs.
 
Last edited:

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,970
You have just revealed that you have no idea how NIH external funding works. The NIH Director does not "pull the strings" when it comes to the thousands of grants the agency gives out every year. Every of the 30 or so institutes at NIH has a director and a big bureaucracy, and review panels, and special emphasis panels, and executive committees, and on and on and on. The idea that one man controls a $30 billion budget where tens of thousands of grant decisions are made every year is ludicrous. The only money Collins directly controls is called the Directors' Budget (or something like that) and he gave funds from that pool to the new RFAs.


Right. That is why you wrote the open letter to Collins in Washington Post about NIH sparing a dime for you?

There is plenty that Collins can do - if he wants. He can start by placing ME in a proper institute. He can speak to the congressional appropriation committees about the need and urgency to allocate substantial funds for ME - like he did two years ago about the need to totally eradicate AIDS.

He has initiated and allocated NIH funds to different choice projects by taking those ideas to Congress.

Collins has huge influence as to where the funds are being allocated. He might need congressional approval for large scale changes, but we have not heard him mention once the plight of the disease ME at any of his NIH Congressional Appropriations meetings.
 

John Mac

Senior Member
Messages
321
Location
Liverpool UK
The first study phase, which will last about three to five years, is aimed at finding biological "markers" for the illness.

Then, in a planned second phase, Nath and his team would use that information to identify a larger population and repeat the studies for confirmation.

Finally, in a third phase, they would try interventions to see if patients' symptoms improve. "That would bring everything full circle," Dr. Nath says.

I and many other ME sufferers will be long dead before then.
 

RYO

Senior Member
Messages
350
Location
USA

viggster

Senior Member
Messages
464
I and many other ME sufferers will be long dead before then.
The slow pace is extremely frustrating, I hear you there. I think there should be concurrent clinical trials with Rituximab and other drugs going on with this observational study. It's so hard to bootstrap research capacity. The Congressional action day coming up on May 17th in DC could help, but it's hard to get Congress to earmark funds and direct NIH to do certain things with such a small and scattered advocacy movement.