1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

PACE trial TSC and TMG minutes released

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic news - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by JohnTheJack, Mar 23, 2018.

  1. Woolie

    Woolie Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,918
    No, I think what they did was correct for a power analysis. Which is to estimate likely effect sizes based on previous studies and ensure sufficient numbers of patients to detect effects of that magnitude. Power analyses are about preventing the possibility of a type II error (missing an effect that's really there). The issue of power is different from that around whether an effect is clinically important.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2018
    Luther Blissett likes this.
  2. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,274
    Location:
    London, UK
    I am pretty much with @Lucibee n this point. What matters, if you are claiming equipoise, is that the cognoscenti have significant doubt about whether a treatment is clinically useful and that you have reasons, either purely theoretical or from inconclusive previous studies, to think it might be.

    Power studies are certainly to avoid type II errors but you want to avoid a type II error of clinical significance, not just a type II error that matches a rather measly result someone got before.

    I have always been surprised by the size of PACE. When I did a four arm trial we reckoned we needed about 160 patients (and so recruited 160). For treatments to be much use for chronic disease you want the sort of level of benefit that gives you that sort of number. For things like prevention of cardiac problems with aspirin things are different because only a small proportion of recruits will ever get ill. I may be wrong but it seems to me that a trial that has to recruit 640 patients is looking for something hardly worth bothering with in the first place.

    On the hand I think you can claim equipoise and still state which treatments you expect to do best. In a sense it is just as unethical to do a trial if you have no reason to expect something to do best. All that equipoise requires is that there is genuine doubt. That would mean for instance, that you have problems leaving patients on a placebo if you knew there was an proven alternative effective treatment they could be having during the period of the trial.
     
    JohnTheJack, MEMarge and Lucibee like this.
  3. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    That pacing involved a therapist and visit to the clinic was an attempt to move it closer to CBT/GET in terms of placebo effect (not the best choice of words but you know what I mean). We have no idea how strong the placebo effect component was in each treatment arm. Ultimately the comparison of pacing and CBT/GET cannot be made with subjective measures because CBT/GET intentionally tries to introduce bias, while pacing does not. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
     
  4. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    The adaptive pacing therapy manual for therapists in the PACE also made a complicated therapy out of the simple idea of pacing. It mentions "homework", "activity and fatigue diaries", "daily and weekly planning", "activity analysis sheets" and so on.

    Pacing is in my view not clearly defined but I have never seen pacing described as such a complicated activity.

    https://www.qmul.ac.uk/wolfson/media/wolfson/current-projects/1.apt-therapist-manual.pdf
     
    Inara, MEMarge, NelliePledge and 9 others like this.
  5. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,602
    This is one of life's little ironies.

    One of the things held against ME sufferers is a supposed tendency to obsess about symptoms and to appear for appointments with reams of notes.
     
    ukxmrv, Lisa108, Inara and 7 others like this.
  6. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,823
    Location:
    Australia
    I was under the impression that larger sample sizes are not about establishing efficacy, they're about uncovering potential rare adverse events. You are correct that if it takes 160 patients per arm to achieve minimal statistical significance, the effect is unlikely to be clinically significant.
     
    Sly Saint and Trish like this.
  7. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    But if visiting the clinic causes exacerbation of symptoms, then you can't assess it properly. If they had been truly concerned about harms, they would have started from a completely different place. It was never a fair comparison, but I don't think they ever really cared about that.
     
  8. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,274
    Location:
    London, UK
    That only really applies to phase 4 or supplementary phase 3 trials following proof of concept at phase 2 or 3. PACE is probably phase 2/3 in that sense.
     
    MEMarge likes this.
  9. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2018
    Robert 1973, Inara, Graham and 8 others like this.
  10. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,884
    Location:
    UK
    Well done @Lucibee, I vaguely remember fiddling about with the formula they give for the step test some time ago and finding it more than a little confusing - I put lots of figures in and they didn't make much sense.

    It sounds like the PACE researchers didn't have a clue what they were doing. My sympathy is with the patients who felt forced to do such a test for no good reason. Though the outcome, as shown on the graph, does say whatever they were hoping to prove didn't work.
     
    Inara, Woolie, NelliePledge and 3 others like this.
  11. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    I looked to see if anyone (of the dozens) involved in the trial had any expertise in exercise physiology - the only one I could find was on the Steering Committee (Prof Patrick Doherty - whose expertise is in cardiac rehabilitation) - and he obviously said nothing. :(
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2018
    Inara, Cheshire, Woolie and 4 others like this.
  12. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,479
    Location:
    UK
    The step test was in the secondary outcomes for the protocol but was silently dropped from the stats analysis plan. I don't think they ever gave any reason for it. I see this as challenging their claims that they are compliant with the consort guidelines.

    It may be hard to calculate the numbers but it wouldn't surprise me if they just got it wrong in Chadler's paper. I don't think they have any notion of quality control, or looking back in the protocol to find the right equation.
     
    MEMarge, Inara, Esther12 and 3 others like this.
  13. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,884
    Location:
    UK
    Inara and Esther12 like this.
  14. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    A bit OT: I've just seen a load of FOIs to the MRC I'd previously missed (or forgotten about) that seem a bit relevant to these minutes so I thought I'd post about them in here.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/when_were_the_mrc_informed_that#incoming-881123)

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cfs_pace_permission_to_drop_more
     
  15. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    But was this a change to the management of the trial, or simply to the ways they intended to analyse it?

    The removal of those two measures and the change to CFQ didn't require any change to be made to any data that was collected from patients, so may not constitute a material change in the trial itself. They were still working out their analysis plan way after the trial and the roles of the TSG/TMG had ended.
     
    MEMarge, Esther12 and JohnTheJack like this.
  16. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    This comment from the PACE team is pretty funny to look back upon:

    https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5731/rr/664559

    This being the BMJ, the PACE teams' misleading response to Kindlon was printed in their journal: https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5963

    Kindlon's response to them was not published in the journal: https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5963/rr/667107

    There were quite a lot of good responses to White's reply actually, and some funny stuff from Sean Lynch offering a semi defence of PACE, eg:

    https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5963/rr/671597
     
    Inara, ukxmrv, JohnTheJack and 2 others like this.
  17. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,350
    Just looking through these minutes. At meeting #8 of TSC, [redacted, who we know is Paul Dieppe] retires from the DMEC but is not replaced.

    The next meeting is a joint one of the TSC and DMEC where the changes to the trial outcomes are approved. [Redacted, my guess Astrid Fletcher] from the DMEC sends apologies.

    So when the changes were approved by 'two independent oversight committees', only one member of the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee was present.
     
    Inara, rvallee, Skycloud and 11 others like this.
  18. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,350

    And the one left on this independent committee was psychiatrist Charlotte Feinmann who had co-authored with... Wessely.
     
    Inara, rvallee, Skycloud and 8 others like this.
  19. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,274
    Location:
    London, UK
    Do we know why Dieppe retired? He should have known there were problems from the outset.
     
    Skycloud, Trish, andypants and 2 others like this.
  20. JohnTheJack

    JohnTheJack Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,350
    I haven't seen or heard anything.

    Dieppe is on the dark side. He's into all sorts of quackery:

    The Clinical Disability Paradox as a Window to Health and Wellbeing, Health & Wellbeing Network, University of Exeter, programme 2012.
    https://cedar.exeter.ac.uk/media/un...work/H_and_W_invite_and_programme_v2.indd.pdf

    Paul Dieppe on spirituality, ritual and the healing response, The History of Emotions Blog.
    https://emotionsblog.history.qmul.a...spirituality-ritual-and-the-healing-response/
     
    MEMarge, Inara, Hutan and 4 others like this.

Share This Page