PACE trial's 'sister' study overlooked

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email

In his Virology blog post, David Tuller examines results of ‘sister’ to the PACE trial
In 2003, when the United Kingdom (UK) Medical Research Council announced the PACE trial, they also announced the Fatigue Intervention by Nurses Evaluation (FINE) trial. Why haven’t we heard more about it?  David Tuller examined the study, the results and how the results were shared in “Why has the PACE Study’s “Sister Trial” been “Disappeared” and Forgotten”. Below is a summary of David’s fascinating findings.
Announcing the trial
The FINE trial tested two treatments: pragmatic rehabilitation and supportive listening (alongside a control group). The trial used the Oxford criteria, the same as PACE. The Medical Research Council announced it at the same time as the PACE trial and committed 1.3 million pounds. It included 296 participants.
The theory behind the FINE trial was similar to PACE’s. Physical symptoms were presumed to be the result of “deconditioning” or “dysregulation” caused by sedentary behavior, disrupted sleep cycles and stress. The sedentary behavior was presumed to be due to patients’ “unhelpful” conviction that they suffered from a progressive medical illness.
While the trial was underway
The treatment manual for pragmatic rehabilitation told participants the therapy could help them get better—even though the trial itself was designed to test the effectiveness of the therapy.
“This booklet has been written with the help of patients who have made a full recovery from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome,” stated the FINE pragmatic rehabilitation manual on its second page.
A qualitative study about the FINE research process showed the frustration of nurses and the anger of trial participants:

Their [the nurses’ ] frustration has reached the point where they sort of boiled over. There is sort of feeling that the patient should be grateful and follow your advice, and in actual fact, what happens is the patient is quite resistant and there is this thing like you know,“The bastards don’t want to get better.”

Results of the FINE trial
BMJ published the FINE results in 2010. The FINE investigators found no statistically significant benefits to either pragmatic rehabilitation or supportive listening at 70 weeks.
Patients were evaluated at 20 weeks as well, but 70 weeks was the ‘primary outcome point’.
There was a small improvement at 20 weeks, so this is what the authors chose to report on first in the paper’s abstract.
The FINE paper cited no oversight committee approval for this expanded interpretation of the trial’s primary outcome points to include the 20-week assessment, nor did it mention the protocol’s caveat about the “misleading” nature of short-term assessments in chronic health conditions.
When the first PACE results were published in The Lancet the following year, the investigators did not mention the FINE trial.
Post-publication fiddling
A month after publishing the study, the investigators analyzed it using a different scoring method. They now reported a “clinically modest, but statistically significant effect” of pragmatic rehabilitation at 70 weeks.
Tom Kindlon, a patient and advocate, responded to the FINE investigators’ decision:

 “I’m sure many pharmacological and non-pharmacological studies could look
 different if investigators decided to use a different scoring method or
scale at the end, if the results weren’t as impressive as they’d hoped,” he wrote. “But that is not normally how medicine works. So, while it is interesting that the researchers have shared this data, I think the data in the main
paper should be seen as the main data.”

Coverage
The Science Media Centre in London doesn’t appear to have publicized the 2010 release of the FINE trial, despite its interest in the topic.
Other researchers paid scant attention to the FINE trial, especially compared to the PACE study. According to Google Scholar, the 2011 PACE paper in The Lancet has been cited 355 times. In contrast, the 2010 FINE paper in BMJ has only been cited 39 times.
Read Tuller’s analysis in full.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on google
Google+
Share on email
Email

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest News

Sign petition To Fix ME/CFS tracking In US!

In August, we shared with you that we and six other ME/CFS organizations had submitted a proposal to the National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS) to fix the coding of ME/CFS in the US International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-CM). Today, we are writing with an update on that proposal and asking that you sign the

Read More »

NICE announces roundtable event to ensure implementation of ME/CFS guideline

NICE announced today that it will hold a roundtable in September as the next step in the publication of the ME/CFS guideline. The roundtable will include representatives from patient organisations and charities, relevant professional societies, NHS England and NHS Improvement, NICE and the guideline committee. It aims to, “better understand the issues raised and determine

Read More »

#MEAction & 6 ME Orgs Call for CDC to Change How it Tracks ME/CFS

Together with six other organizations, we have submitted a proposal to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to add myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) to the neurological chapter of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-CM).  Today, ME/CFS does not exist in the US ICD-10-CM. Instead,  most US doctors assign the code for chronic fatigue

Read More »

Help keep our work going

We rely on donations from people like you to keep fighting for equality for people with ME.

Donate

Get actions alerts and news direct to your inbox

You can choose what you want to be kept up to date on.

Subscribe
Scroll to Top