The 12th Invest in ME Research Conference June, 2017, Part 2
MEMum presents the second article in a series of three about the recent 12th Invest In ME International Conference (IIMEC12) in London.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Contribute Evidence for NICE consultation

Discussion in 'Advocacy Projects' started by Jenny TipsforME, Jul 8, 2017.

  1. Jenny TipsforME

    Jenny TipsforME Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes:
    3,822
    Bristol
    You have probably heard that despite the huge controversy around PACE, GET etc etc NICE are still inclined towards no update to the UK clinical guidelines!
    [insert expletives :bang-head::bang-head::bang-head:]

    They have however given stakeholders a two week window to change their minds.

    This isn't a very accessible situation for stakeholders like us over at ME Action Network UK as patients of very few spoons.

    We need persuasive, well organised evidence and we need it fast! [but we don't need loads and loads of info we can't read]

    If you think you could help organise evidence send me a direct message.
     
    Jo Best, Somer, Valentijn and 6 others like this.
  2. Jenny TipsforME

    Jenny TipsforME Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes:
    3,822
    Bristol
    From what I can tell of NICE, the type of info that is likely to persuade them is
    • New (from 2013- as they've looked at evidence that existed then)
    • /UK based, it is hard to get a grip on this, but they seem to prefer research from the UK
    • /Gives info on cost effectiveness
    Topics we will likely cover:

    -Nature of bio problems with objective evidence (recent/UK)
    -Papers showing worse after exertion (exercise stuff)
    -Papers critical of PACE
    -Null results from CBT/GET
    - POTS and OI in ME /treatment
    - treatments approved in other countries
    - Patient surveys on CBT/GET

    Added:
    -Updates from other health agencies

    If you were going to pick just one paper to reference for this what would it be?
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2017
    Jo Best, Skycloud and MeSci like this.
  3. RogerBlack

    RogerBlack Senior Member

    Messages:
    884
    Likes:
    2,866
    I am extremely unsure if only one paper is appropriate.
    All of the recent White and crowd papers will be submitted as arguments for increasing the push on CBT, for example.

    Unpublished null - FINE, 's mentioned paper.

    As additional topics:
    Other health agencies recently updated recommendations. (The CDC ones, for example.)

    A good overview of the exercise->normal-exercise-symptoms->fear-avoidance->rest->deconditioning->exercise alleged loop, and why it doesn't work physiologically with what we understand of muscle behaviour. (which is fine, but they don't then go on to say anything about other pathology other than fear-avoidance, which is ridiculous).

    Harms to patients being poorly recorded. For example, for PACE, if you go from full-time, to part-time employed, or from able to potter about in the garden and keep up with housework, to being mostly bedbound, permanently, you will not be counted as having worsened. (unless your carer gives up).

    Clear counterfactual statements from those promoting CBT.
     
  4. Jenny TipsforME

    Jenny TipsforME Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes:
    3,822
    Bristol
    Thanks, other health agency updates should definitely be included. I'll add that above.

    I don't know about harms being badly recorded. Personally I agree it's an issue. Will NICE take it on board?

    We'll use much more than one paper of course ;) Just an attempt to structure the conversation here as our ability to read is limited, and if 20 people suggest 20 papers each, it will quickly become an impossible task.
     
    MEMum, Keela Too and dangermouse like this.
  5. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,751
    Likes:
    23,188
    I think the hardest evidence is the whole subjective outcomes, lack of blinding, lack of improvement on outcomes less susceptible to bias.

    This single handedly destroys the positive results from the entire CBT/GET evidence base. The implications are that the effectiveness of CBT/GET may be (and probably is) nothing more than an illusion. It does need to presented well though.
     
  6. Jenny TipsforME

    Jenny TipsforME Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes:
    3,822
    Bristol
    @A.B. The recent Journal of Health Psychology articles will be useful as peer reviewed papers on this topic eg

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317707531#.WR3PJLhyZtg.twitter

    "The controversies surrounding the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome are explained using Cohen’s d effect sizes rather than arbitrary thresholds for ‘success’. This article shows that the treatment effects vanish when switching to objective outcomes. The preference for subjective outcomes by the PACE trial team leads to false hope. This article provides a more realistic view, which will help patients and their doctors to evaluate the pros and cons."
     
  7. charles shepherd

    charles shepherd Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,238
    Likes:
    16,189
    We obviously have a long list of key concerns, along with patient and published evidence, at the MEA that supports the need for a NICE guideline view

    However, before people start putting a lot of time and effort into collecting relevant evidence, I think it would be sensible to wait till stakeholders have been notified about the way in which this consultation process is actually going to take place

    Having carried out what NICE will regard as a thorough review of all relevant published evidence by their expert group they will not be doing anything to encourage stakeholders (or anyone else) to submit yet more evidence

    So I suspect that they may well issue stakeholders with a very structured form to complete - which will be aimed at producing comments on the decision by the expert group, and how they have made their decision, rather than an offer to go into information overload and agree to examine whatever new evidence stakeholders want to submit

    There is. of course, nothing to stop individuals sending in comments and information to NICE. However, this may just be ignored - because the consultation process is almost certainly going to be restricted to stakeholders

    Dr Charles Shepherd
    Hon Medical Adviser, MEA
     
    MEMum, Skycloud, BurnA and 1 other person like this.
  8. Jenny TipsforME

    Jenny TipsforME Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes:
    3,822
    Bristol
    @charles shepherd thanks, MEActNet haven't been stakeholders before so we're learning how it works. The timeline is tight if we can submit evidence. Seems poor if we can't. It hadn't occurred to me they'd structure it so we can't point to evidence!

    Perhaps best to pause until Monday and see what we get emailed...
     
  9. Jenny TipsforME

    Jenny TipsforME Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes:
    3,822
    Bristol
    Trying hard to rein in my outrage at an injustice that may in fact not happen!
     
  10. dangermouse

    dangermouse Senior Member

    Messages:
    406
    Likes:
    2,258
    Me too. It's about time NICE did the right thing. As they have good evidence from the MEA why are they even thinking of not reviewing? How is it ethical to maintain guidelines that include GET and CBT?
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2017
  11. charles shepherd

    charles shepherd Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,238
    Likes:
    16,189
    Also important to note that NICE produce guidance for UK health professionals on CLINICAL ASSESSMENT, DIAGNOSIS and MANAGEMENT

    So the evidence they are interested in essentially relates to these three topics - which mainly means data from clinical trials involving treatments for ME/CFS

    NICE have very little interest in research findings in relation to the causation of conditions they cover

    CS
     
    PhoenixDown, MEMum, Skycloud and 2 others like this.
  12. Large Donner

    Large Donner Senior Member

    Messages:
    857
    Likes:
    3,804
    Do we have the names of the people on the panel, who are they and have they or do they have any connections tot the BPS crowd?
     
    MEMum likes this.
  13. charles shepherd

    charles shepherd Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,238
    Likes:
    16,189
    Simple answer is no

    Worth having a look at the other discussion on the NICE guideline review - where I have explained that I have written to NICE to ask for details of membership of the expert group. No reply so far……..

    I suspect that the answer all be NO!

    CS
     
    MEMum, Skycloud, MeSci and 1 other person like this.
  14. Large Donner

    Large Donner Senior Member

    Messages:
    857
    Likes:
    3,804
    What I was also trying to ask was is there an advisory panel and also a board as such, who are separate and make the decision after gathering evidence from advisers, essentially is there a chair person?
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2017
    MEMum, Binkie4, dangermouse and 2 others like this.
  15. Jenny TipsforME

    Jenny TipsforME Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes:
    3,822
    Bristol
    @Large Donner yes I'm trying to get a handle on that type of dynamic. Will the people looking at our responses be the same people who have already said they don't think it needs updating?
     
    MEMum, Binkie4, MeSci and 1 other person like this.
  16. Large Donner

    Large Donner Senior Member

    Messages:
    857
    Likes:
    3,804
    If we take the FOI tribunal for example there were 3 judges, then also one party for and one party against who presented evidence and the decision was based on the content of both arguments.

    It would just be a ludicrous situation if the decision for the NICE update is based upon who brings the most mates with them and one persons job is solely to count hands without collecting evidence, making public all transcripts and using critical judgement to make a decision with the right of appeal, as in all other processes.

    I think the individuals who make the decision now need to know that we are all prepared to file a mass law suit against them as individuals if they fail to protect the patient population after being presented with the obvious evidence that CBT and GET have been a vested interest project for 3 decades.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2017
    MEMum, Binkie4, MeSci and 3 others like this.
  17. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,522
    Not sure if this has any implications for us, but thought I'd post it, as it was in something I was reading:

    https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Defau...ples-for-the-development-of-NICE-guidance.pdf
     
    Jenny TipsforME, MeSci and SamanthaJ like this.
  18. Valentijn

    Valentijn Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,281
    Likes:
    45,812
    They should not be creating an evidence base from trials which don't primarily recruit with an ME/CFS criteria. It is simply absurd that Oxford fatigue studies are used to create recommendations for the treatment of patients who have a disease where PEM (even according to NICE) is a core symptom.

    The past guidelines were heavily flawed as a result, and a lot of the prior evidence base needs to be thrown out.
     
  19. Jenny TipsforME

    Jenny TipsforME Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes:
    3,822
    Bristol
    @slysaint Yes we've received that info by email from NICE. Thanks for checking though.

    @AndyH If you look at the stakeholders list you can see why it's important to have as many patient orgs as possible on the list, we're really outnumbered: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg53/documents/stakeholder-list-2

    Several organisations saying more or less the same thing is going to be more powerful. This should be something we can pull together on.
     
    Jo Best, MEMum, Valentijn and 3 others like this.
  20. slysaint

    slysaint Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,124
    Likes:
    11,463
    Haven't read it all yet but when it says there are 51 publications (7 stemming from PACE), that support the use of CBT/GET does it list which ones and who they are by?
    I would think that if they are all by/include one of the same group of authors that should raise some concern(tho obviously it hasn't). I imagine they might also all use the Chalder fatigue Questionnaire created for PACE which is an entirely subjective measure and not fit for purpose when dealing with a fluctuating illness.

    But I think the key issue is to hammer home that those who carried out these research trials openly admit that their research was based on their key belief that ME is psychosomatic inspite of all the evidence that proves to the contrary.

    eta: I have just posted a rough tally of who wrote what, on the other thread
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 11, 2017
    MEMum, Valentijn, MeSci and 2 others like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page