NICE ME/CFS guideline - draft published for consultation - 10th November 2020

Discussion in '2020 UK NICE ME/CFS Guideline' started by Science For ME, Nov 9, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ME/CFS Skeptic

    ME/CFS Skeptic Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,665
    Location:
    Belgium
  2. ME/CFS Skeptic

    ME/CFS Skeptic Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,665
    Location:
    Belgium
    I don't want to sound too optimistic. There are also quite al to of things in the document that I disagree with. Hope to be able to write another blog post about these points of criticism.
     
    Woolie, mango, cfsandmore and 28 others like this.
  3. Daisymay

    Daisymay Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    682
    Many thanks Michiel for doing this!
     
    Sarah Restieaux, April, Kitty and 7 others like this.
  4. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,265
    Would you agree that there is still a significant bias towards exercise and CBT?

    The old assumptions that these have a special significance for ME/CFS are still visible in my view.

    In terms of evidence there's actually no reason to mention them, other than in relation to the lack of evidence and recommending against them.
     
    Simbindi, cfsandmore, Kitty and 17 others like this.
  5. ME/CFS Skeptic

    ME/CFS Skeptic Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,665
    Location:
    Belgium
    Not really, I think the draft is pretty clear on this and that a discussion on this was needed given that the previous guideline recommended GET and CBT.

    I also think it is good to have a section on physical maintenance and the other type of CBT so that patients do not think that exercise or CBT or necessarily bad or inappropriate if you have ME/CFS.

    I felt a bit uncomfortable about the strength of recommendations regarding pacing. I would prefer if the draft (like the previous guideline from 2007) just states that in surveys many patients found this approach helpful but that there is currently no scientific evidence that is more effective in managing ME/CFS or preventing long-term deterioration.

    There's a danger that patients will now think that pacing works and if they had paced back in the days, they would never have gotten this ill. Although a sensible thought, we don't really know if this is the case.
     
    Woolie, cfsandmore, Kitty and 30 others like this.
  6. Sarah94

    Sarah94 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,602
    Location:
    UK
    I just want to say a massive Thank You to the members of this forum who are co-ordinating and putting together the S4ME response to the consultation. A huge task, especially when many (or maybe all) of them are unwell themselves.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2020
  7. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,919
    Location:
    Canada
    I assume this is just a concession to the status quo. The whole thing is being nearly dismantled so leaving this is just a necessary concession to avoid getting stuck.

    But using the current MS guidance to it is probably the better compromise. Very similar premise and relies on standard practices. As much as the psychosocial paradigm is useless here, the ideology is not going away and lip service is demanded. It's there simply because people want it to be there, not because it's of any use whatsoever.
     
    Kitty, EzzieD, FMMM1 and 4 others like this.
  8. Robert 1973

    Robert 1973 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,352
    Location:
    UK
  9. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,386
    Yes, but I am aware of the point @Jonathan Edwards makes in his testimony, that any flavour of CBT left in the guideline could be prone to conflation and confusion.

    ETA: I also think it could be the thin end of a wedge.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2020
    Simbindi, Kitty, sebaaa and 8 others like this.
  10. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,965
    Location:
    London, UK
    This is to me the most important unfinished business. I am not pushing it simply because my position is already made very clear in my witness statement. CBT should not be mentioned. CBT is unethical. Me saying that again is redundant.

    but...
     
  11. Gecko

    Gecko Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    262
    Location:
    England
    Just to clarify that CBT is not part of the management plan as defined in recommendation 1.5.2 (page 12), nor is physical activity, but physical maintenance is.
     
    Kitty, sebaaa, hinterland and 5 others like this.
  12. lunarainbows

    lunarainbows Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,828
    Actually CBT is, because symptom management on page 12 which you refer to, then links to many other things, one of which is a section which has its own title: Psychological support: CBT 1.11.43 -1.11.50.

    Although only physical maintenance is talked about on page 12, there is later on a section titled physical activity, 1.11.15 - 1.1.21 about when physical activity can be introduced.

    Edited to add all section numbers.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2020
    Simbindi, Kitty, Hutan and 5 others like this.
  13. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    22,308
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Seeing a number of physios on Twitter expressing confusion and upset at their main mode of treatment for other conditions being rejected for ME by both NICE and patients - one in particular calling for reasonable voices to work together to, presumably, solve this conundrum. It just emphasises, at least to me, how deeply ingrained the cultural assumption is that exercise/activity can do no harm.
     
    Arnie Pye, Woolie, mango and 39 others like this.
  14. Gecko

    Gecko Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    262
    Location:
    England
    My reading is that CBT is still an entirely optional adjunct (e.g. non essential) therapy.

    However I take your point that what Symptom Management on page 12 links to is odd. It excludes orthostatic intolerance, but includes psychological support. Despite the former being noted as a symptom of ME and psychological distress not.

    I would therefore propose a change from:
    • symptom management (see recommendations 1.11.27 to 1.11.50 on managing symptoms)
    To:
    • symptom management (see recommendations 1.11.24 to 1.11.42 on managing symptoms)
    In order to make it abundtly clear.

    I'll add this suggestion to the correct thread @lunarainbows.
     
    Simbindi, Kitty, Dolphin and 7 others like this.
  15. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    53,396
    Location:
    UK
    Did you give them a link to Physios for ME?

    I can see there will be a lot of genuinely decent physios, OTs and therapists who will be at least disconcerted and some very anxious that what they have been telling patients and thinking was helping them was wrong. There needs to be a lot of retraining done.

    I hope the individuals will have the sense to turn to the MEA and Physios for ME for advice, not to the perpetrators of the BPS model.
     
    Woolie, Simbindi, cfsandmore and 25 others like this.
  16. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    22,308
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    The main example I'm thinking of Physios for ME are already engaging with fortunately. :)
     
    Woolie, Simbindi, cfsandmore and 22 others like this.
  17. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,515

    there will be a lot of decent GPs, OTs and physios now at a complete loss. NICE has always been the default and this is not a small change. I don't know if there will be any "penny drop" moments, but many professionals may need some positive support as well as education - I just hope for GPs it is not the usual suspects providing this.
     
    Simbindi, Shinygleamy, Kitty and 6 others like this.
  18. lunarainbows

    lunarainbows Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,828
    Yes. I think this is a very good idea.
     
    Kitty, Andy, andypants and 2 others like this.
  19. lunarainbows

    lunarainbows Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,828
    Another idea:

    That psychological therapies: CBT is not linked to in page 12 (Gecko has already mentioned this), but also moved out of “Managing ME” 1.11 in the guidelines itself, because as you say, this is not about managing symptoms and the fact it’s there with orthostatic intolerance (which appears later on in 1.11), and things like nausea doesn’t make sense. I think this should be made completely clear to anyone reading it, especially to GPs and new patients.

    I think it should be in a separate section by itself, after managing ME, perhaps titled with “Additional Help” or “Additional” or something similar. This makes very clear it’s not in the symptom management plan.

    I will add something in the other threads about this.

    Edit: sorry 1.11 is “managing ME”, not symptom management - I still think it needs a separate section outside of this.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2020
    Simbindi, cfsandmore, Kitty and 6 others like this.
  20. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,365
    Location:
    Norway
    Arnie Pye, Woolie, Kitty and 12 others like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page