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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems like they’re jumping the gun. GET isn’t scrapped.
I agree that there's still scope for GET-like therapies to be promoted as meeting the guideline. But the guideline does stress that energy should be allocated to activities of daily living before exercise, and there's a good focus on physical maintenance rather than exercise. I don't think that we could have expected much more re GET.

In contrast to some of the ambiguities around exercise, the last line can be celebrated unequivocally:

Do not offer people with ME/CFS:

any therapy based on physical activity or exercise as a treatment or cure for ME/CFS

generalised physical activity or exercise programmes – this includes programmes developed for healthy people or people with other illnesses

any programme based on fixed incremental increases in physical activity or exercise, for example graded exercise therapy structured activity or exercise programmes that are based on deconditioning as the cause of ME/CFS

therapies derived from osteopathy, life coaching and neurolinguistic programming (for example the Lightning Process).

:thumbup:
 
Great progress

every stage is a fresh battle

once the guidelines are in place the next battle will be about how the organisations within the NHS actually deliver care for people with ME based on the guidelines as set out by the Committee. There will be attempts to do a facelift over existing ‘specialist’ provision (where there is any) and claim the new guidelines are met.

Education of GPS and anyone in a role intended to be a specialist in supporting people with ME is going to be critical in this. Who controls the manual controls the implementation.
 
I agree that there's still scope for GET-like therapies to be promoted as meeting the guideline. But the guideline does stress that energy should go on activities of daily living before exercise, and there's a good focus on physical maintenance rather than exercise. I don't think that we could have expected much more re GET.

In contrast to some of the ambiguities around exercise, the last line can be celebrated unequivocally:





:thumbup:
Stick that in your business model Parker
 
I did note while reading (skimming) the 'expert reactions' in the Science Media Centre piece that they seemed kind of resigned about the language of the draft. As though they had gotten as much as they were gonna get.
They've lost the ME/CFS battle, but there's still the MUS war. In fact it's not even a war- it's more like a largely uncontested MUS occupation with the occasional bit of guerrilla 'sniping'.

And then there are the new territories of post-Covid-19 to expand into.
(edit to remove a mixed metaphor).
 
Last edited:
Something obvious that I've not thought about til just now - anyone planning to help submit a comment could think about pulling out sections to praise and say are important, as well as bits that need improvement. If the Royal Colleges of Don't Challenge Us, We Know Best are going to try to change the good bits then showing support for them would probably be useful.
 
Context P71 Draft

“11 are not clearly defined. There is little pathological evidence of brain inflammation”

Is there a study due out from Watanbe this year?

What a lot of reading and wondering how this will translate into a change of care in real terms. But my first reaction is it’s a lot better and bigger than I had expected. Such a big effort from our advocates. Thank you.
 
Initial impressions & thoughts:

Page 9, 1.2.5
Do not delay making a provisional diagnosis of ME/CFS.


Very important. The sooner a patient can start managing their activity profile appropriately, the greater their chances of a better long-term outcome (though not necessarily a full recovery, of course).

----------

"The committee reinforced there is no therapy based on physical activity or exercise that is effective as a treatment or cure for ME/CFS."

:thumbup:

----------

the impact of symptoms on psychosocial wellbeing

Finally, they get the causal direction right. Only took them 30 years. But they got there.

----------

Recognise that the following are not necessarily a sign of abuse or neglect in children and young people with confirmed or suspected ME/CFS:

  • physical symptoms that do not fit a commonly recognised illness pattern
  • more than 1 child or family member having ME/CFS
  • disagreeing with, declining or withdrawing from any part of their
    management plan, either by the child or young person or by their
    parents or carers on their behalf
  • parents or carers acting as an advocate and communicating on behalf
    of the child or young person
  • reduced or non-attendance at school.
A well deserved slap in the face for Crawley & co.

----------

Page 18, 1.8.3
Be aware that people with ME/CFS are unlikely to be seen at their worst...


Page 20, 1.8.11
For people with moderate ME/CFS or severe or very severe ME/CFS, consider providing or recommending aids and adaptations (such as a wheelchair, blue badge or stairlift) that could help them maintain their independence and improve their quality of life, taking into account the risks and benefits. Include these in the person’s management plan.

Page 21, 1.9.1
Advise people with ME/CFS that:

• there may be times when they are unable to continue with work or education
• some people find that going back to work, school or college worsens their symptoms

Very important.

----------

Still too much of the management plan speak, and assumptions about establishing baselines and stabilising symptoms and progressing from there etc, in there for my liking.

Page 29, 1.11.22

  1. Advise people with ME/CFS after a flare that the time it takes to return to the level of physical activity they had before the flare varies from person to person.
Also need to advise patients that it is possible to push too hard and end up permanently worse off, and that it is very easy for that to happen.

The section on physical activity needs special attention and close analysis. (Page 27, 1.11.15-22)

Same for the section on CBT. (Page 32, 1.11.43-50)

----------

Only up to 1.13, and that will have to do for me for today. So maybe there is something on this further on in the document, but...

I think there needs to be explicit recognition of and discussion about how relevant 'professional advice' is to long-termers, most of whom have figured out the (more ME-specific) practical management stuff a long time ago, and do not need another round of 'expert knows best' dumped on them.

Particularly in light of the fact that at this stage that even most of the best pros* still don't know much about it or how to manage it, and are taking their clinical management clues almost entirely from patients, especially long-termers.

*With some exceptions, of course, like Charles Shepherd and Lenny Jason.

----------

Maybe I've just been burnt too many times, but I'm drawn to staying cautious about things.
Me too. It needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb before it can be endorsed.

But it looks pretty good so far. A huge step forward.

----------

A huge thanks to the patient advocates on the review committee. I have no doubt it was at times a frustrating and draining experience, maybe even a bit disheartening.

You done good. :thumbup::hug:
 
Last edited:
WOW, it's great in so many ways :)
A time to celebrate :party: ....and read again.

Yes , there will be strong pushback from the pychs, some clinics will still try and manipulate words to pursue their agenda...

BUT, this is a HUGE step forward.

Well done to those on the committee and to all who have done their bit to advocate/complain/push forward and chip away at the BPS/PACE wall, over the decades

AND the evidence review happened before COVID and the thousands currently experiencing long-term effects.
 
Very important. The sooner a patient can start managing their activity profile appropriately, the greater their chances of a better long-term outcome (though not necessarily a full recovery, of course).

I wasn't sure about that. Considering the problems that surround ME/CFS, my instinct is that it could be best to avoid those patients most likely to naturally recover (those only briefly ill) getting a diagnosis or having contact with ME/CFS specialists.

I find it difficult not to read the guidelines on the assumption that they will be being put into practice within a network of clinics run by people like Crawley and her BACME colleagues. That makes me feel nervous about any talk of specialist care. I don't know how fair that is. Are other people assuming the same?

I'm still only a tiny way through it, and I suspect I'll need to read more than once to understand how things connect together too.
 
I am unfamiliar with the process from draft to publication. What is the likelihood of all the good stuff being revoked?
Yes, I've been wondering about that, too :nailbiting:
Something obvious that I've not thought about til just now - anyone planning to help submit a comment could think about pulling out sections to praise and say are important, as well as bits that need improvement. If the Royal Colleges of Don't Challenge Us, We Know Best are going to try to change the good bits then showing support for them would probably be useful.
This. Could be very important I think.
A quick skim through this nauseating murk makes me suspect one of their main lines of argument will be that the draft recommendations are not evidence-based and therefore deprive patients of evidence-based therapies, in the hope that if they repeat it often enough it will start to sound true (they used the word 'evidence' a whole 11 times on that not very long page of comments).

So any submission probably needs to reiterate at least briefly, yet again, what evidence there is against GET & CBT plus the fact the the so-called evidence for their use is no evidence at all.
 
I wonder whether the ME Association or the other charities got anything in advance as clearly the five experts quoted by the Science Media Centre did.
This was posted at 8:33 PM:

I assume they must have done. S4ME, presumably, being seen as 'just' an ordinary stakeholder means that we haven't yet received any notification from NICE that the draft is out. Stakeholder engagement comes after publicity it seems for NICE.
 
Usually not the gloating type, but ahhhhh feels so good to see Peter White cry as he watches his legacy go up in smoke.
I want a mug saying 'BPS tears' on it.

(Probably shouldn't say that, should I? They're probably watching the forum for evidence of ME patients being mean about them. Oh well. Go cry yourself to sleep Mr Sharpe. Goodness knows you've caused us 10000x the amount of tears over the years.)
 
Trial By Error: NICE Draft Rejects GET, Lightning Process, and CBT-As-Cure
The draft of the new ME/CFS guidance from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is out–posted just after midnight, London time, on Tuesday, November 10. This is the headline: The draft represents a repudiation of the GET/CBT paradigm and the deconditioning hypothesis.

Here are key take-aways:

*Graded exercise therapy, other interventions based on the assumption that deconditioning plays a causal role, and the Lightning Process are explicitly NOT recommended.—they fall under a “do not offer” category.

*Cognitive behavior therapy as a cure or as a treatment for the illness itself is explicitly NOT recommended.

These positions have nuances. While GET is disavowed, the draft provides guidelines for physical maintenance and physical activity programs. While CBT-as-cure is out, the draft includes guidelines for providing CBT as adjunctive care for patients seeking psychological support and/or help managing their symptoms.
https://www.virology.ws/2020/11/10/...ejects-get-lightning-process-and-cbt-as-cure/
 
My main worries are:

(a) BPS people trying to get it changed by arguing that GET is "evidence-based".

(b) the BPS people will try to take control of the narrative by claiming that NICE has bowed to pressure from patients, rather than listening to the science. Unfortunately, a sizeable amount of the general public will likely accept that narrative, because (1) it's what they've been being told for decades and (2) it fits with other (false) popular narratives where privileged people complain that marginalised groups are oppressing them. And, how many doctors will listen to the BPS people and believe that NICE is being wishy washy and bowing to pressure from militant patients? I certainly know one doctor who will see it that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom