UK NIHR: Post-acute infection syndromes, including long COVID and ME/CFS funding for feasibility of setting up platform for testing treatments, 2025

Trish

Moderator
Staff member
Link
Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation

Post-acute infection syndromes, including long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome​

Research specification​

We are keen to accelerate progress in the treatment and management of post-acute infection syndromes and associated conditions, including long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). This funding opportunity is a key component of the NIHR’s recognition of the need for further research-based evidence related to the diagnosis, management and treatment of post-acute infections and associated conditions.

Specifically, the MRC-NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme wishes to fund a project which will accelerate the necessary learning and preparation to explore the feasibility of a phase 2 platform, and to establish the optimum approach for phase 2 platform architecture that tests multiple repurposed pharmaceutical interventions and/or non-pharmacological interventions and devices. The phase 2 platform will be UK-led and will aim to test multiple different therapies simultaneously and efficiently.

In preparation, the NIHR Innovation Observatory (NIHRIO) has undertaken a rapid horizon scan to identify repurposed medicines in clinical development for the treatment of ME/CFS, as well as related conditions such as long COVID and fibromyalgia. The horizon scan focused on medicines with a UK licence that are in phase 2 or 3 clinical trials, with trial registration dates from 2020 onwards.

The NIHRIO report is available to read.

We recognise that developing an application for a phase 2 platform represents a complex bid, which will require time and the navigation of specific challenges. The programme is therefore inviting applications for work which will accelerate the necessary learning and preparation to explore the feasibility of a repurposing platform. This will take the form of an Application Development Award (ADA). It is anticipated that teams may require up to £200,000 of ADA funding over a maximum of 18 months.

The ADA must deliver the following key outputs to determine the feasibility of establishing a platform, specifically:

  1. development of robust and reproducible methods for the prioritisation of compounds and identification of a minimum of 2 interventions for inclusion in the first phase of a future phase 2 platform trial
  2. identification and agreement of core clinically relevant outcome measures that reflect meaningful changes in quality of life/clinical outcomes in post-acute infection syndromes and associated conditions
  3. define and justify inclusion criteria and methodology to improve stratification for any future trials, specifically opportunities for inclusion of pre-consented participants from cohorts such as Decode-ME
  4. development of an efficient trial design for the proposed repurposing platform
  5. consideration of ways to ensure the sustainability and longevity of any future platform infrastructure
  6. understanding MHRA evidence requirements to support licence variations for therapies focused on symptom control
  7. a written summary of the project

Funding opportunity scope​

Applications to this funding opportunity must aim to accelerate the development of an application for a phase 2 platform study to evaluate repurposed pharmaceutical interventions and/or non-pharmaceutical interventions including digital/devices, for the management and treatment of post-acute infections and associated conditions. This platform must be positioned as a phase 2 study, within the remit of the MRC-NIHR EME Programme. Importantly, applicants should note that for inclusion within the platform, interventions must demonstrate strong proof of concept in humans with post-acute infection syndromes and associated conditions, such that a clinical benefit might reasonably be expected in a trial.

continued at link.
 
Looks like I missed the first page with details of how to apply:
Link
  • Opportunity status:
    Open
  • Type:
    Programme
  • Opening date:
    9 July 2025 at 1:00 pm
  • Closing date:
    2 December 2025 at 1:00 pm
  • Reference ID:
    2025/354

Ready to apply?​

Apply for this funding opportunity through our online application form
Apply now
The Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme is accepting full applications for research looking into the treatment and management of post-acute infection syndromes and associated conditions, including long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS).

All proposals submitted must fall within the scope of the EME Programme.

Eligibility​

See our EME Programme page for details about the overall programme remit and eligibility criteria.

Key dates​

9 July 2025​

Full application opens

8 September 2025​

Webinar

2 December 2025​

Full application closes

March 2026​

Full application shortlisting decision

Webinar​

Sign up to our webinar
Register to get more insight into this funding opportunity. This webinar will be on Monday 8 September 2025 12pm to 1pm.
 
The PDF of the NIHRIO report can be read on this LINK.

The data from the MRP scans are also limited by the primary completion dates of the trials, with the search starting from April 2020.
Why was the search starting 2020? Seems very limiting!

ME/CFS has only Ampligen and Daratumumab and maybe some fatigue drugs listed.
In initial review of MInD for new or repurposed technologies for ME/CFS identified just two technology records. Given the significant overlap between ME/CFS and related conditions such as long COVID (post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection), the search was expanded to include medicines targeting long COVID, fibromyalgia, and fatigue. This broader search uncovered 35 technology records, of which 16 (45.7%) have been discontinued (see appendix 1 for list of discontinued technologies)

I despair that Paxlovid is listed for long Covid as the large trials I've seen report show no benefit.

I guess the purpose of the report is to show how little has been done in the last 5 years? Is that right? They want to encourage more phase 2 trials for ME/CFS? Or will most of the money go to Long Covid and FM which have more support in the medical profession. Long Covid is pretty broad / heterogeneous, so could money be used for designing clinical trials for things unrelated to ME/CFS?
 
Last edited:
Applications to this funding opportunity must aim to accelerate the development of an application for a phase 2 platform study to evaluate repurposed pharmaceutical interventions and/or non-pharmaceutical interventions including digital/devices, for the management and treatment of post-acute infections and associated conditions.
I feel very uneasy that "non-pharmaceutical interventions including digital/devices" are included as options.
 
I feel very uneasy that "non-pharmaceutical interventions including digital/devices" are included as options.
I wonder if that was listed to include things like tVNS. I noticed a specific call-out to discourage exercise and similar therapies, which is encouraging.

Interventions that might be expected to improve the health of all people (e.g. lifestyle changes like taking more exercise) are likely to be less favoured for a phase 2 platform trial than those expected specifically to advantage people with post-acute infection syndromes and associated conditions.
 
This does not look much use to me. It is an attempt to appear to be doing something and will provide a small amount of money for a politically savvy group already funded to write some further applications based on no particular inspiration or insight.

It contrasts with the intelligent approach of Fluge and Mella, who pick a single target and make use of every bit of information they can to optimise moving forward within a rigorous method framework.
 
I don’t know what the normal timelines are but dec 9th - 5 months , does that indicate it mainly is those already tipped off to do something already supported by certain parties on the basis of how much time it takes to get certain ducks in a row?

Or is it normal for this sort of thing?

I’m afraid most of the nihr things I’ve seen have far from painted them in a good light if they have one including eg silly things from a royal college eg trying to twist something in ‘frequent flyers’ into a switch and bait half way through focusing on ‘sending females with certain symptoms to CBT’ instead even though none of the main frequent flyers categories were those demographics or issues ie they had nothing to do with causing that problem. so it makes me rightfully wary.
 
"Together with the MRC, we are actively exploring next steps for research in ME/CFS, and we will outline in the delivery plan further research actions and the additional support we will offer to the research community to increase the volume and quality of applications. This includes a new funding opportunity for a development award focussed on evaluating repurposed pharmaceutical inventions for post-acute infection syndromes and associated conditions, including ME/CFS.

This funding opportunity is a key component of our response to the need for further research-based evidence related to the diagnosis, management, and treatment of post-acute infection conditions, including ME/CFS. We are also planning an NIHR and MRC hosted showcase event for post-acute infection conditions, including ME/CFS and long COVID, research later this year to stimulate further research in this field".

 
Back
Top Bottom