Watt from MRC defends PACE in letter to Times

From the MRC website: https://mrc.ukri.org/news/browse/cr...rial/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Text of full response from Fiona Watt
‘Call for review of ‘flawed’ ME research’opens in new window (The Times, 21 August 2018) discusses claims that the scientific evidence provided by the PACE trial for using cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and managed exercise in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS, also known as ME) is fundamentally unsound.

As funders of the trial, we reject that view: the PACE trial was funded following expert peer review, was overseen by an independent steering committee, and its published findings were also independently peer reviewed. The process through which PACE was funded, supervised and published therefore meets international standards for clinical trials.

CFS/ME is considered to be a spectrum of disorders and understanding the causes and informing the development of new treatments, or the targeting of existing treatments, will require research across a range of approaches and from a holistic view point. The PACE trial investigated the important issue of which available treatments were most likely to benefit patients, and patient consultation resulted in the addition of a treatment to the trial.

While most of the criticism focuses on the PACE trial, there is a large amount of evidence from other studies that also shows CBT and graded exercise therapy (GET) can be helpful to some CFS/ME patients. Other research groups, using different study designs, have drawn similar conclusions about the benefit of these treatments. This evidence is summarised in three Cochrane reviews. Cochrane reviews are systematic reviews of primary research in human healthcare and health policy, and are internationally recognised as the gold standard in evidence-based healthcare.

Making the data available
One criticism of the PACE trial has been that the data is not widely available to other researchers for use in further research and to confirm the reproducibility of results. The MRC strongly supports the sharing of data from clinical trials but it is critical that sensitive personal information from study participants is not released when study data is shared. We are currently supporting the PACE trial investigators to anonymise the study data from over 600 participants so that it can be made available to other researchers in a way that protects the privacy of those patients who took part.

The MRC has recently started (with other research funders) a pilot of a new facility for academic researchers to share data via the Clinical Study Data Requestopens in new window (CSDR) web portal. We hope to include the PACE trial on the CSDR portal within the next 6-12 months. This will allow researchers to apply to the CSDR Independent Review Panel to gain access to the dataset for their own analyses.

Apply for CFS/ME research funding
CFS/ME is a serious illness that is estimated to affect around 0.2-0.4% of the UK population and it remains a research priority for the MRC. The MRC has undertaken and is actively engaged in a number of strategic activities to promote and encourage research into the causes of this condition and effective treatments, and to support the research community. Activities have included a dedicated funding call – Understanding the mechanisms of CFS/ME – in 2011. We want to encourage a broad range of scientists, some of whom are wary of this controversial area, to apply to us for funding. At present, response-mode applications are encouraged through a cross-board highlight notice to undertake innovative research into the mechanisms underlying the chronic changes associated with CFS/ME, particularly in relation to immune regulation, pain, different symptom profiles, childhood CFS/ME and neurological inflammation.

The MRC also supports the UK CFS/ME Research Collaborative (CMRC): a platform for patients, researchers, clinicians and funders to coordinate strategies to increase awareness of the condition within the research community and increase research funding.

Categories
 
Last edited:
“The MRC has undertaken and is actively engaged in a number of strategic activities to promote and encourage research into the causes of this condition and effective treatments, and to support the research community.”

If I can list those that I know:

1) issuing some kind of ineffective highlight notice
2) the 2011 ring fenced grant and then some minor stuff funded since
3) the CMRC, attending, initiating maybe and some funding for it
4) stating that we are a priority whilst doing little and the field advances at a snails pace
 
This is the route we are going and why there is such cognitive dissonance.
Fatigue in MS reframed per PACE paradigm

The insurance companies and BPS cult had MS in their sights before there was a means to 'prove' diagnosis :
"
Two factors
threatened future profits however. The first was falling interest rates, and the
second was the growth in new kinds of ‘subjective illnesses’, for which diagnostic
tests were disputable. The old industrial injuries were giving way to illnesses with
no clear biological markers - Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) or Chronic Fatigue
Syndrome (CFS), Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain, Multiple Sclerosis, Lyme Disease."

https://www.s4me.info/threads/government-and-insurance-companies-establishing-the-bps-model.2319/

I would have thought the MS community would have been aware of this; maybe the resurgence of the BPS cult for MS is that they think most sufferers will not know about the history. The MS Society in their support of these therapies appear to be adopting the AfME approach....

(I don't know anything about the MS charities or any details of the history apart from the 'Unrest' 'hysterical paralysis' quote from Nancy Klimas)

had a quick look and the Dutch BPS gang appear to be taking the lead.....the usual suspects;
Knoop, Bleijenburg, Twisk etc
their conclusions as per all their other research (substitute 'MS' with name of chosen illness)
"Severe MS-related fatigue can be reduced effectively with CBT in the short term. More research is needed on how to maintain this effect over the long term."
 
Now that the reply has been sent it seems worth looking further at the question of the degree of independence between the researchers and Sensky as previously mentioned at #65. I have found further instances of Sharpe and Wessely referring to that paper from 1990, and it seems fairly central to their model.

"Personality factors, which include a tendency to respond to illness with particular types of cognitions (attitudes beliefs and thoughts) and behaviour, have been shown to perpetuate disability, and to exacerbate symptoms in many chronic conditions. (Sensky 1990). These unhelpful, or dysfunctional cognitions include the beliefs that the presence of symptoms make activity impossible (Riley, Aherne, Follick 1988)...etc"

Psychiatric management of PVFS. M Sharpe. British Medical Bulletin (1991) Vol 47 pp 989-1005 @p993

"Third, the patients' beliefs themselves may influence the outcomes. In particular, the relevant cognitions are not that the illness is physical, but that it is serious and beyond control. These last possibilities are of considerable interest because, if true, it implies that changes in belief may led (sic) to improvements in outcome.

In order to explore the role of illness beliefs in illness perpetuation we must widen the scope of our discussion to include a wider range of illness-related cognitions. It is normal for people to have thoughts about all aspects of their illness, and not just about the cause or diagnosis. (Sensky 1990) We suggest that such illness related cognitions could provide a link between the crude concept of illness attribution and clinical outcome, and that the mechanism involves their effect on the patients' emotions an choice of coping strategies."

Chronic fatigue and its syndromes Simon Wessely, Matthew Hotopf, and Michael Sharpe. OUP 1998 12.2 The importance of illness beliefs @p284

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) rests on the assumption that beliefs people hold about themselves and their future are powerful predictors of mood and behaviour. The approach was first used in the treatment of depression, but now has demonstrated efficacy in treating a wide variety of neurotic disorders including anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as medically unexplained physical symptoms and in a range of physical illnesses. (Sensky 1990)……

ibid 17.10 Cognitive behaviour therapy @p384.

I trust this will have piqued your interest sufficiently to make you wish to read Sensky's offering, it is well worth the effort, which, in any case, will not be found too demanding. Here it is
www.bmj.com/content/300/6725/622

Some might think that if the PACE trial were to fail, a certain shadow might be cast over the work of those who hold similar views.

The reader, especially one who also reads Private Eye, will be pleased to see reference to the paper by Wessely and Lewis.

That's very interesting. The PDF of Sensky's 1990 is here http://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC1662417&blobtype=pdf

They are in effect saying that our belief we're ill is our illness and the more we insist on our illness, the more ill we are. It's an extraordinary position.
 
From the MRC website: https://mrc.ukri.org/news/browse/cr...rial/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Text of full response from Fiona Watt
‘Call for review of ‘flawed’ ME research’opens in new window (The Times, 21 August 2018) discusses claims that the scientific evidence provided by the PACE trial for using cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and managed exercise in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS, also known as ME) is fundamentally unsound.

As funders of the trial, we reject that view: the PACE trial was funded following expert peer review, was overseen by an independent steering committee, and its published findings were also independently peer reviewed. The process through which PACE was funded, supervised and published therefore meets international standards for clinical trials.

CFS/ME is considered to be a spectrum of disorders and understanding the causes and informing the development of new treatments, or the targeting of existing treatments, will require research across a range of approaches and from a holistic view point. The PACE trial investigated the important issue of which available treatments were most likely to benefit patients, and patient consultation resulted in the addition of a treatment to the trial.

While most of the criticism focuses on the PACE trial, there is a large amount of evidence from other studies that also shows CBT and graded exercise therapy (GET) can be helpful to some CFS/ME patients. Other research groups, using different study designs, have drawn similar conclusions about the benefit of these treatments. This evidence is summarised in three Cochrane reviews. Cochrane reviews are systematic reviews of primary research in human healthcare and health policy, and are internationally recognised as the gold standard in evidence-based healthcare.

Making the data available
One criticism of the PACE trial has been that the data is not widely available to other researchers for use in further research and to confirm the reproducibility of results. The MRC strongly supports the sharing of data from clinical trials but it is critical that sensitive personal information from study participants is not released when study data is shared. We are currently supporting the PACE trial investigators to anonymise the study data from over 600 participants so that it can be made available to other researchers in a way that protects the privacy of those patients who took part.

The MRC has recently started (with other research funders) a pilot of a new facility for academic researchers to share data via the Clinical Study Data Requestopens in new window (CSDR) web portal. We hope to include the PACE trial on the CSDR portal within the next 6-12 months. This will allow researchers to apply to the CSDR Independent Review Panel to gain access to the dataset for their own analyses.

Apply for CFS/ME research funding
CFS/ME is a serious illness that is estimated to affect around 0.2-0.4% of the UK population and it remains a research priority for the MRC. The MRC has undertaken and is actively engaged in a number of strategic activities to promote and encourage research into the causes of this condition and effective treatments, and to support the research community. Activities have included a dedicated funding call – Understanding the mechanisms of CFS/ME – in 2011. We want to encourage a broad range of scientists, some of whom are wary of this controversial area, to apply to us for funding. At present, response-mode applications are encouraged through a cross-board highlight notice to undertake innovative research into the mechanisms underlying the chronic changes associated with CFS/ME, particularly in relation to immune regulation, pain, different symptom profiles, childhood CFS/ME and neurological inflammation.

The MRC also supports the UK CFS/ME Research Collaborative (CMRC): a platform for patients, researchers, clinicians and funders to coordinate strategies to increase awareness of the condition within the research community and increase research funding.

Categories

Spin, in other words.

The only upshot here might be that they now feel shamed into accepting some biomedical studies. We shall see.
 
From the full statement:

"We are currently supporting the PACE trial investigators to anonymise the study data from over 600 participants so that it can be made available to other researchers in a way that protects the privacy of those patients who took part.

The MRC has recently started (with other research funders) a pilot of a new facility for academic researchers to share data via the Clinical Study Data Request (CSDR) web portal. We hope to include the PACE trial on the CSDR portal within the next 6-12 months. This will allow researchers to apply to the CSDR Independent Review Panel to gain access to the dataset for their own analyses."

This is more positive, is it not?
 
From the full statement:

"We are currently supporting the PACE trial investigators to anonymise the study data from over 600 participants so that it can be made available to other researchers in a way that protects the privacy of those patients who took part.

The MRC has recently started (with other research funders) a pilot of a new facility for academic researchers to share data via the Clinical Study Data Request (CSDR) web portal. We hope to include the PACE trial on the CSDR portal within the next 6-12 months. This will allow researchers to apply to the CSDR Independent Review Panel to gain access to the dataset for their own analyses."

This is more positive, is it not?

Weren't there more than 600 participants in PACE though? Are they cherry-picking the best data? I'm always highly sceptical.
 
But interesting that Watt's final paragraph in The Times does not appear in the "extended" version:

"Chronic fatigue syndrome/ME remains a priority for the Medical Research Council (MRC), and it is important that researchers are not discouraged from working on the disease because of concerns that they could be subject to the level of hostility that Pace researchers have experienced. Medical research can only flourish when there is mutual respect between all parties."
 
But interesting that Watt's final paragraph in The Times does not appear in the "extended" version:

"Chronic fatigue syndrome/ME remains a priority for the Medical Research Council (MRC), and it is important that researchers are not discouraged from working on the disease because of concerns that they could be subject to the level of hostility that Pace researchers have experienced. Medical research can only flourish when there is mutual respect between all parties."

Pity they don't respect us.
 
But interesting that Watt's final paragraph in The Times does not appear in the "extended" version:

"Chronic fatigue syndrome/ME remains a priority for the Medical Research Council (MRC), and it is important that researchers are not discouraged from working on the disease because of concerns that they could be subject to the level of hostility that Pace researchers have experienced. Medical research can only flourish when there is mutual respect between all parties."

Researchers should be discouraged from continuing to do poor research. Mutual respect is impossible when the researchers in question continue to inflict harm on patients, including but not limited to deterioration due to GET, promotion of stigmatizing views, fabricating false positive results through biased methods and spin that then lead to waste of resources in a variety of ways.
 
At £25 a pop, I think Palgrave (the publisher) should have produced an e-version so that the public, as well as academics (presumably the target for the paper version) could have a look too.

Brian seems a v good guy, he follows me on Twitter and retweeted my post on Suzanne O'Sullivan a couple years ago, he himself referred to ‘pseudoscience of ME’:



Academic books always cost a fortune.
 
Back
Top Bottom