Tag: McGrath

DecodeME: community recruitment for a large genetics study of myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

Background: Myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a common, long-term condition characterised by post-exertional malaise, often with fatigue that is not significantly relieved by rest. ME/CFS has no confirmed diagnostic test or effective treatment and we lack knowledge of its causes. Identification of genes and cellular processes whose disruption adds to ME/CFS risk is a necessary first step towards development of effective therapy.

Methods: Here we describe DecodeME, an ongoing study co-produced by people with lived experience of ME/CFS and scientists. Together we designed the study and obtained funding and are now recruiting up to 25,000 people in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of ME/CFS. Those eligible for the study are at least 16 years old, pass international study criteria, and lack any alternative diagnoses that can result in chronic fatigue. These will include 5,000 people whose ME/CFS diagnosis was a consequence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Questionnaires are completed online or on paper. Participants’ saliva DNA samples are acquired by post, which improves participation by more severely-affected individuals. Digital marketing and social media approaches resulted in 29,000 people with ME/CFS in the UK pre-registering their interest in participating. We will perform a genome-wide association study, comparing participants’ genotypes with those from UK Biobank as controls. This should generate hypotheses regarding the genes, mechanisms and cell types contributing to ME/CFS disease aetiology.

Discussion: The DecodeME study has been reviewed and given a favourable opinion by the North West – Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee (21/NW/0169). Relevant documents will be available online ( www.decodeme.org.uk ). Genetic data will be disseminated as associated variants and genomic intervals, and as summary statistics. Results will be reported on the DecodeME website and via open access publications.

Source: Devereux-Cooke A, Leary S, McGrath SJ, Northwood E, Redshaw A, Shepherd C, Stacey P, Tripp C, Wilson J, Mar M, Boobyer D, Bromiley S, Chowdhury S, Dransfield C, Almas M, Almelid Ø, Buchanan D, Garcia D, Ireland J, Kerr SM, Lewis I, McDowall E, Migdal M, Murray P, Perry D, Ponting CP, Vitart V, Wolfe JC. DecodeME: community recruitment for a large genetics study of myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome. BMC Neurol. 2022 Jul 19;22(1):269. doi: 10.1186/s12883-022-02763-6. PMID: 35854226. https://bmcneurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12883-022-02763-6 (Full text)

 

Genetic Risk Factors of ME/CFS: A Critical Review

Abstract:

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a complex multisystem illness that lacks effective therapy and a biomedical understanding of its causes. Despite a prevalence of approximately 0.2-0.4% and its high public health burden, and evidence that it has a heritable component, ME/CFS has not yet benefited from the advances in technology and analytical tools that have improved our understanding of many other complex diseases.

Here we critically review existing evidence that genetic factors alter ME/CFS risk before concluding that most ME/CFS candidate gene associations are not replicated by the larger CFS cohort within UK Biobank. Multiple genome-wide association studies of this cohort also have not yielded consistently significant associations. Ahead of upcoming larger genome-wide association studies we discuss how these could generate new lines of enquiry into the DNA variants, genes and cell-types that are causally involved in ME/CFS disease.

Source: Dibble JJ, McGrath SJ, Ponting CP. Genetic Risk Factors of ME/CFS: A Critical Review [published online ahead of print, 2020 Aug 3]. Hum Mol Genet. 2020;ddaa169. doi:10.1093/hmg/ddaa169 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32744306/

Can patients with chronic fatigue syndrome really recover after graded exercise or cognitive behavioural therapy? A critical commentary and preliminary re-analysis of the PACE trial

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Publications from the PACE trial reported that 22% of chronic fatigue syndrome patients recovered following graded exercise therapy (GET), and 22% following a specialised form of CBT. Only 7% recovered in a control, no-therapy group. These figures were based on a definition of recovery that differed markedly from that specified in the trial protocol.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether these recovery claims are justified by the evidence.

METHODS: Drawing on relevant normative data and other research, we critically examine the researchers’ definition of recovery, and whether the late changes they made to this definition were justified. Finally, we calculate recovery rates based on the original protocol-specified definition.

RESULTS: None of the changes made to PACE recovery criteria were adequately justified. Further, the final definition was so lax that on some criteria, it was possible to score below the level required for trial entry, yet still be counted as ‘recovered’. When recovery was defined according to the original protocol, recovery rates in the GET and CBT groups were low and not significantly higher than in the control group (4%, 7% and 3%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS: The claim that patients can recover as a result of CBT and GET is not justified by the data, and is highly misleading to clinicians and patients considering these treatments.

 

Source: Carolyn Wilshire, Tom Kindlon, Alem Matthees & Simon McGrath. Can patients with chronic fatigue syndrome really recover after graded exercise or cognitive behavioural therapy? A critical commentary and preliminary re-analysis of the PACE trial. Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior Volume 5, 2017 – Issue 1. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21641846.2017.1259724 (Full article)

 

PACE trial claims of recovery are not justified by the data: a rejoinder to Sharpe, Chalder, Johnson, Goldsmith and White (2017)

Abstract:

Background: Recently, we critically evaluated the claim from the PACE trial that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) can lead to recovery from chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). We showed that the trial’s definition of recovery was so loose it failed to capture the term’s core meaning. Also, this definition was substantially loosened very late in the trial, in ways that favoured the study hypotheses. The investigators do not acknowledge any of these criticisms and stand by their original analyses.

Purpose: To examine the arguments advanced in defence of PACE’s recovery claims.

Methods: Drawing on various sources of evidence, we consider three major arguments raised in defence of PACE’s recovery claims: (1) that since there is no agreed definition of recovery, it comes down to a matter of opinion; (2) that the original definition was ‘too stringent’; and (3) the revised definition generates results that align with previous studies.

Results: We find that: (1) ‘recovery’ is a strong claim, which implies evidence a return to health, and that the trial’s final definition did not preserve this core meaning; (2) there is no evidence to suggest that the original protocol-specified definition was ‘too stringent’; (3) absolute recovery rates from other studies are not a legitimate source of support for the recovery definition used.

Conclusions: The PACE trial provides no evidence that CBT and GET can lead to recovery from CFS. The recovery claims made in the PACE trial are therefore misleading for patients and clinicians.

 

Source: Carolyn Wilshire, Tom Kindlon & Simon McGrath. PACE trial claims of recovery are not justified by the data: a rejoinder to Sharpe, Chalder, Johnson, Goldsmith and White (2017). Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior. Volume 5, 2017 – Issue 1. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21641846.2017.1299358

 

The biological challenge of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: a solvable problem

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is comparable to multiple sclerosis, diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis in prevalence (∼0.2% to 1%), long-term disability, and quality of life,[1–5] yet the scale of biomedical research and funding has been pitifully limited, as the recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Institute of Medicine reports highlight.[6,7] Recently in the USA, NIH Director Francis Collins has stated that the NIH will be ramping up its efforts and levels of funding for ME/CFS,[8] which we hope will greatly increase the interest in, and resources for researching this illness. Despite scant funding to date, researchers in the field have generated promising leads that throw light on this previously baffling illness. We suggest the key elements of a concerted research programme and call on the wider biomedical research community to actively target this condition.

You can read the rest of this article here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4867862/

 

Source: Edwards JC, McGrath S, Baldwin A, Livingstone M, Kewley A. The biological challenge of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: a solvable problem. Fatigue. 2016 Apr 2;4(2):63-69. Epub 2016 Apr 28. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4867862/

 

Simon McGrath 2016 May 30 4:05 p.m.

Authors’ abstract

(An abstract wasn’t required for this editorial, but the authors felt it would be helpful to add this one for PubMed. I am one of the authors.)

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is as prevalent and disabling as multiple sclerosis, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis but biomedical research into the condition has been grossly underfunded. However, the NIH is committed to ramping up funding for this illness and there are now promising research leads. We indicate clues to the biological mechanisms that may perpetuate the condition and suggest the key elements of a concerted research programme. In the absence of effective treatments, study of mechanism remains a key priority including the possible role of stochastic factors.

We identify the three most interesting major categories of causal model: (1) the brain is responding normally and symptoms are due to persistent signal input from peripheral tissues, such as cytokines or metabolites; (2) there is a persistent abnormality of ‘housekeeping’ processes in the brain, such as an increase in activation of microglia; and (3) there is a persistent abnormality in neural signalling in sensory pathways.

We recommend seven important, practical steps to make progress towards effective treatments: (1) build research infrastructure, including population-based cohorts with close attention to diagnostic criteria; (2) use new, developing techniques for brain imaging; (3) pursue promising immunological leads, such as natural killer cell abnormalities, cytokine shifts, auto-antibodies, and immune responses to viruses such as Epstein-Barr virus; (4) further explore autonomic/endocrine regulation; (5) extend the research on post-exertional changes in physiology; (6) attempt to replicate key findings to determine which are robust; and (7) present data in a way that allows subgroup analysis, and always provide raw data.

We conclude that the problem of ME/CFS now looks solvable and we call on the wider biomedical research community to target the condition.