ProHealth health Vitamin and Natural Supplement Store and Health
Home  |  Log In  |  My Account  |  View Cart  View Your ProHealth Vitamin and Supplement Shopping Cart
800-366-6056  |  Contact Us  |  Help
Facebook Google Plus
Fibromyalgia  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome & M.E.  Lyme Disease  Natural Wellness  Supplement News  Forums  Our Story
Store     Brands   |   A-Z Index   |   Best Sellers   |   New Products   |   Deals & Specials   |   Under $10   |   SmartSavings Club

Trending News

The Health Benefits of Manuka Honey

Increase Your Magnesium Intake

Vitamin D supplementation could ease IBS symptoms

Top Tips to Boost Your Immunity

11 Amazing Health Benefits of Using Baking Soda

Nicotinamide riboside shows promise for treatment of Alzheimer’s disease

Exercise, calcium, vitamin D, and other factors linked with fewer injurious falls

Vitamin D3 Is a Powerhouse for Your Heart

Rhodiola — A Powerful Adaptogen That Boosts Vitality and Performance, Eases Depression and Combats B...

Curcumin Supplementation May Impart Long-Term Cognitive Benefits

 
Print Page
Email Article

PACE Trial Authors Feeling the Heat Over Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Trial

  [ 11 votes ]   [ 1 Comment ]
By Cort Johnson • www.ProHealth.com • December 23, 2015


PACE Trial Authors Feeling the Heat Over Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Trial
Reprinted with the kind permission of Cort Johnson and Health Rising.

By Cort Johnson

Investigative reporters prod at an issue hoping to get a response. David Tuller’s piece on the problems with the PACE trial has definitely done that. Citing “numerous inaccuracies”, “reputational damage” and a social media flareup the study authors are definitely feeling the heat. They demanded equal time on the Virology blog to present their case and they got it. 
 
Did the PACE trial authors attempts to put out a raging fire succeed?
 
Whether that’s going to help them is another question. They probably didn’t help their case by stating  that Tuller made no attempt to contact them after Tuller reported that he offered to fly to the UK in person to meet with them and his attempts to interact with them via email failed.
 
So they got off to a bad start. But what about the main issues?
  • Did they actually create criteria that produced the possibility that patients could be labeled as disabled and recovered at the same time?

  • Did they really in the middle of the trial suddenly and significantly relax the criteria for recovery?

  • Did they actually change the criteria for improvement in midstream to those a recently published trial suggested might improve their results?

  • Did they pump up the participants in the trial by providing them mid-trial glowing accounts of how helpful it was?

  • Did they, in short, appear from the outside like panicked researchers desperately trying to salvage a failed trial?

Tuller asserted that the PACE authors attempts to correct his “inaccuracies” lacked substance and skated around the main issues raised. Let’s see what how they dealt with several of the issues Tuller raised.
 
13% of Patients in the Trial Meet a Threshold for Recovery On Entry into the Trial
 
How do you get around the fact that a significant percentage of the patients meet one of the thresholds for recovery upon entry into the trial?  Lacking the ability to challenge it the PACE authors simply changed the subject and asserted that the patients needed to meet other markers to be labeled as “recovered”.
 
But really – so what? What about the fact that 13% of the patients – you know the sick people the trial was attempting to get well –  were already halfway home to “wellness” (according to the PACE criteria) before the trial even started?  How can you trust a trials results when they were to some extent guaranteed? (If 13% were halfway home I’ll bet 25% were knocking on the door; i.e. they just needed a little boost to meet one of the two factors for recovery – before the trial had even started.) Talking about gilding your lily.
 
If the authors could have gotten around this issue they would have – they’ve been dealing with it for years. They couldn’t…
  • Retraction Watch – Score I
PACE Biased Results By Cheering the Participants On
 
This is another toughie for the PACE crew. Since they couldn’t deny they pumped the participants up mid-trial they could only argue that doing so was OK.That assertion was completely at odds with the study experts Tuller contacted.
 
Their newsletter did get the OK from their Independent Review Board…. suggesting that maybe things are done differently in the UK than in the U.S.
However it happened Tuller asserted they were simply wrong:
 
“They introduced an uncontrolled, unpredictable co-intervention into their study, and they have no idea what the impact might have been on any of the four arms.”
  • Retraction Watch – Score II
Bias Was Introduced by Changing the Two Primary Outcome Measures and How They were Analyzed
 
The PACE authors simply stated that they found better outcome measures and decided to employ them. Why they were better no one knows.  Why the PACE authors didn’t do the sensitivity analyses Tuller believes such changes demand is unclear as well. The only thing we do know is that a similar, recently published trial got better results when they implemented the same changes the PACE trial did.
 
Hey, if it looks and walks like a duck – it’s probably a duck. This looks from the outside like an attempt for the PACE trial authors to pad their results.
  • Retraction Watch – Score III
PACE Authors Revised the Criteria Downward For Most of the Recovery Measures
 
The PACE authors relaxed one of the measures of recovery so much that there was little difference between recovery and being disabled.
 
Again, the PACE authors admitted they relaxed most of the measures of recovery but beyond stating that they felt the new measures better reflected recovery they said nothing more. They didn’t just “relax” the requirements for recovery, however, they practically obliterated some of them. One measure that fell from 85 to 60 left the PACE trial with a “recovery” score of 60 and a “serious disability” score of 65. They also decided later in the trial patients who stated they were “much better” had, probably unbeknownst to them, actually recovered. One wonders how a trial could fail with such a headwind behind it…
  • Retraction Watch – Score IV
Check out more issues the PACE authors raised and how Tuller reacted to them in the full blog here.
 
Tuller’s Full Pace Trial by Error PACE Series
Conclusion
 
The PACE trial authors appear to have done themselves few favors by presenting their side of the argument.
 
Their responses demonstrated two things:
 
1. Tuller’s critique and the response to it by the patient community has hit home and they don’t have answers to most of his questions.
 
2. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck – is it a duck?
 
Notice that every change they made it more possible for the trial to get positive results. Notice how moderate the results were even with these added boosts.
 
Consider the fact that the researchers were never blinded to the results flooding in. Consider the possibility that they gloamed early on to the fact that things were not going their way and that changes needed to be made.
 
While the study findings were initially lauded (and misinterpreted) by the press (apparently with Chalder’s help) the controversy over the PACE trial continues to muddy it’s results.
 
Remember  we’re talking about what is surely the most expensive study ever done on ME/CFS. The PACE authors are right. Reputations are at stake. Until they can satisfactorily explain – if that’s possible – the many questions surrounding the trial – it doesn’t appear that the controversy is going to go away.
 
Petition
 
Troubled by the PACE trial? Sign the petition to compel Lancet and other journals retract numerous claims in the PACE study papers including that 30% of the trial participants recovered.

About the Author: Cort Johnson has had ME/CFS for over 30 years. The founder of Phoenix Rising and Health Rising, Cort has contributed hundreds of blogs on chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and their allied disorders over the past 10 years. Find more of Cort's and other bloggers' work at Health Rising.





Post a Comment

Featured Products From the ProHealth Store
Energy NADH™ 12.5mg Ultra EPA  - Fish Oil FibroSleep™


Article Comments Post a Comment

Anyone investigating PACE Trial Authors Finances?
Posted by: siebertesther
Dec 23, 2015
I would love to see an investigation of if and how the authors made money or furthered their careers through these studies. Perhaps people in the NHS and officials dealing with disability issues had some reward from naming these treatments as the standard for ME/CFS care? Why did they ignore all of the biomedical studies coming from places throughout the world that pre-dated this research that pointed in a different direction? Wasn't it their job to research the whole field as the IOM in the US did recently before deciding this was the one and only way to go? What got in the way of this?
Reply Reply
 
Optimized Curcumin Longvida with Omega-3

Featured Products

Vitamin D3 Extreme™ Vitamin D3 Extreme™
50,000 IU Vitamin D3 - Prescription Strength
Ultra EPA  - Fish Oil Ultra EPA - Fish Oil
Ultra concentrated source of essential fish oils
Optimized Curcumin Longvida® Optimized Curcumin Longvida®
Supports Cognition, Memory & Overall Health
FibroSleep™ FibroSleep™
The All-in-One Natural Sleep Aid
Mitochondria Ignite™ with NT Factor® Mitochondria Ignite™ with NT Factor®
Reduce Fatigue up to 45%

Natural Remedies

IBS, Crohn’s Disease, Colitis, and Other Digestive Disorders IBS, Crohn’s Disease, Colitis, and Other Digestive Disorders
Complete and Natural Menopause Relief Complete and Natural Menopause Relief
Undenatured Type II Collagen - Chicken Soup for Your Joints Undenatured Type II Collagen - Chicken Soup for Your Joints
Olea25 Olive Hydroxytyrosol Hits Astonishing 68,000+ ORAC Antioxidant Value Olea25 Olive Hydroxytyrosol Hits Astonishing 68,000+ ORAC Antioxidant Value
Repair Damaged Mitochondria and Reduce Fatigue Up to 45% Repair Damaged Mitochondria and Reduce Fatigue Up to 45%

CONTACT US
ProHealth, Inc.
555 Maple Ave
Carpinteria, CA 93013
(800) 366-6056  |  Email

· Become a Wholesaler
· Vendor Inquiries
· Affiliate Program
SHOP WITH CONFIDENCE
Credit Card Processing
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTERS
Get the latest news about Fibromyalgia, M.E/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Lyme Disease and Natural Wellness

CONNECT WITH US ProHealth on Facebook  ProHealth on Twitter  ProHealth on Pinterest  ProHealth on Google Plus

© 2018 ProHealth, Inc. All rights reserved. Pain Tracker App  |  Store  |  Customer Service  |  Guarantee  |  Privacy  |  Contact Us  |  Library  |  RSS  |  Site Map