1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

A general thread on the PACE trial!

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Esther12, Nov 7, 2017.

  1. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    No. All they have is a table with numbers of patients reporting "symptoms of PEM" at baseline and 52 weeks. I cannot find a suitable questionnaire in the protocol that might have been used for this. Given that ~40% of the SMC group were no longer reporting "symptoms of PEM" at the end of the trial [and 15% overall weren't at baseline], there might be a problem with exactly what they were measuring.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2018
    Inara, Hutan, MEMarge and 6 others like this.
  2. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    In fact, I've just searched the trial protocol and there is no mention of post-exertional malaise or PEM *at all*. So anything related to symptoms of PEM would have had to have been done post hoc.
     
    adambeyoncelowe, Inara, Hutan and 7 others like this.
  3. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    It's another anomaly that doesn't pass the common sense test. Standard medical care of for ME/CFS is useless, and such marked regression to the mean seems unlikely and is inconsistent with other measurements, yet 40% of were supposedly PEM free (it was no PEM at all, right?).
     
    rvallee, Inara and MEMarge like this.
  4. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    Here's the table:

    PACE trial PEM.png
     
  5. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    Maybe they used this one item from the CDC checklist?:

    "Feeling ill after exertion" (rated 'not at all present', 'present a little', 'present more often than not', 'present most of the time' or 'present all the time').

    The London criteria for ME that they used rates this item as present or not:

    'Exercise-induced fatigue precipitated by trivially small
    exertion (physical or mental) relative to the patient's/
    participants previous exercise intolerance'
     
  6. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    I wondered about that, but then the "individual symptoms of PEM" bit makes that a bit more doubtful. It's terrible that they didn't specify what they did here, given it's such an important factor.
     
    adambeyoncelowe, Inara, Amw66 and 3 others like this.
  7. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    Yeah, none of the other items would seem to count as 'symptoms of PEM'. Maybe they messed up their language? I'd not really thought about this before as no-one seems to mention it and I'd just assumed it was some BS self-report thing, but it is annoying it's not clear what they did to measure this. Thanks @Lucibee you've given me another thing to be annoyed about with PACE!
     
  8. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,870
    Location:
    UK
    I think the grammar of that sentence is causing confusion.
    It says:
    ... and individual symptoms of post exertional malaise and poor concentration or memory, ....
    I think that refers to the 2 rows in the table for the 2 'individual symptoms' they picked from the list, namely 1. PEM and 2. poor concentration or memory.
    They are not referring to 'individual symptoms of PEM', rather that PEM is one of the individual symptoms.

    The thing that strikes me from that table is how many in all the groups had their PEM vanish within a year.

    Possible interpretations of this:

    a) they didn't understand what PEM is,
    b) they had been persuaded to see PEM as 'healthy' - as a sign the treatment is working - 'no pain, no gain' etc.
    c) to re-interpret crashes as having an infection.
    d) that they had stuck with the initial stage of their treatment of cutting back to a base level of activity that doesn't set off PEM, and then hadn't actually increased their activity, in other words were actually pacing better than they had before they entered the trial, and were therefore having having fewer crashes.
    e) they recovered - not supported by the recovery re-analysis.
     
  9. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    Thanks Trish - I'd be permanently muddled if I didn't have other people correcting me!
     
  10. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    Is PEM an individual symptom? If so, why does the table say "number with symptoms"?
     
    adambeyoncelowe likes this.
  11. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,870
    Location:
    UK
    An interesting question. I think of PEM as an exacerbation of all symptoms plus a few extras, rather than as a single symptom. I guess it depends how 'symptom' is defined.
    I guess one could also pick them up on using the word 'symptoms' for 'Poor concentration or memory'.
     
  12. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,237
    Location:
    Norway
    I got a question on what exercise exactly was used in the PACE-trial's GET. Didn't know the answer to this and am unsure where to look (can't read lots of text now). Was it just about walking, as a walking-test was one of the measures, or did the trial involve other exercise practices as well?
     
  13. Inara

    Inara Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,734
    This reminds me of a situation where I mentioned the flaws of the PACE Trial, and someone asked "What's wrong with pacing?"

    The name is definitely misleading and I can't believe it's pure chance they selected those letters. It's an uncommon selection pattern.
     
  14. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    I've had a look through the GET manual to see what was specified:
    The only definition or example of "low intensity exercise" given in the manuals is gentle walking. It seems they relied on Borg for intensity.
     
  15. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,237
    Location:
    Norway
    Thank you @Lucibee
    So nothing specific.. Seems it could have been anything as long as it was increased.

    Interesting read, though. Striking differences between the short-term goals and the long term goals. I doubt anyone ever reached their long term goals..
     
  16. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    I doubt anyone reached the 30-mins exercise a day interim target.

    It would have seemed sensible to at least record this somehow (especially as it gives an indication of treatment compliance), but oddly, they didn't.
     
  17. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    And the closest thing to PEM in the manuals is termed "post-exertional fatigue" - which, even to me, means something quite different.
     
  18. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,142
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    From page 44 of GET therapists manual:
    Long term goals (Six months or longer)
    These may be functional activities, hobbies, or an exercise that the participant would like to do. It may be an activity they used to enjoy, or a new activity.
    For example:
    • Walking to the shops three times a week.
    • Riding an exercise bike for twenty minutes every day.
    • Weeding the garden for an hour at a time.
    • Managing to vacuum the home all in one go.
    • Swimming 20 lengths three times a week.

    Short-term goals
    It is helpful to break these long-term goals into smaller components, e.g. walking to the shops could be broken down into walking half- way to the shops in three months time. This goal can then broken down further into weekly or fortnightly exercise goals. Goals with more complex components, such as returning to play badminton, may require a number of individual goals corresponding to flexibility, strength, and endurance. The ‘Setting Goals: Breaking goals down into manageable sections’ worksheet will help to set short term goals.

    NB: Participants may be tempted to set unrealistic goals for themselves. Ensure that goals set with participants are realistic and balanced: e.g. it would not be recommended to set goals that involve working 80 hours a week, playing football 5 times a week and staying out until 4 in the morning at weekends.


    We've talked on other threads about GET approach getting renamed/regurgitated. Every time I read more about GET it strikes me more and more that because of the change of name and despite the fact that I was aware of the need not to do exercise and deliberately didnt do walking I did get hooked into a GET approach. I was encouraged in 2016 by the CFS ME clinic on their 'management programme' to set goals around activity and I decided that was decluttering my bedroom - sorting through and lifting, moving boxes of various sorts. As this didnt involve much walking I thought I was getting around the exercise aspect and I did make a start on this for a couple of weeks. I was naively doing exactly what they wanted. However I very quickly cottoned on to the fact that all I had to do was report progress without actually doing anything. I didnt do the activity I was telling them I was doing because I couldnt manage it. And after the first couple of weeks when I had taken holiday from my part time job so was able to cope fine with going to the clinic also had to reduce one of my working days to compensate for the day attending the clinic. I had been unable to manage 4 rather than 3 busy days. So I literally adjusted my activity back down to a manageable level, no overall increase in activity.


    ETA above - for clarity
    ETA incidentally since I stopped working last year I have actually been gradually doing this refurbishment work - partly through necessity - but I have coped because I had my energy on 3 days a week freed up.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2018
  19. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,574
    Location:
    UK
    no it was deliberate, and apparently with AfMEs blessing;see my post here:
    https://www.s4me.info/posts/60515/
     
  20. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    In relation to attempts by the PACE researchers to present APT in PACE as being the treatment that patients want/support/promote, someone drew my attention to this info on pacing from the NICE guidelines, which clearly distinguishes APT from the self-management strategy that people with CFS/ME generally support:

    https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg53/chapter/Appendix-D-Definitions-used-in-this-guideline
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2018
    rvallee, Woolie, MEMarge and 5 others like this.

Share This Page