A thread on what people with ME/CFS need in the way of service

Is there any good studies or surveys on antidepressants in MECFS?

Not as far as I know. Doctor used to assume ME/CFS was a form of depression and give them a chemical cosh that caused depersonalisation and derealisation. Telling them you weren't suffering from depression just made them double down.

I did end up with low mood, though, after 18 months of various antidepressants. Once I decided to bin them it took several weeks for my system to normalise, but then I was back to my usual self. But I'm still furious that they were allowed to pressure people who were mentally perfectly healthy into taking drugs with such horrible effects on their wellbeing, function and relationships.
 
Ensuring people aren’t sold snake oil or rainbows to chase, is one thing, blanket prohibition is another.

The most severe may follow potential meds. with more interest than service leads, whose primary focus is the diagnosis and management of the mild-moderate. People often seek medical input precisely because they are keen to try things beyond pacing and diagnosis, for POTS, Abilify, LDN, even melatonin is off label.
In my case, I read about Immunivir in MEA literature and we asked my m.e consultant who hadn’t heard about it, his background was haematology, and then, due to extremity of circumstances and absence of anything else, he looked into it & agreed. All the meds, (bar anti depressants which drs hand out willy nilly) I have tried -acyclovir; Immunivir; modafonil; baclofen; amantadine; Abilify and clonazapam were accessed, some nhs, after me asking, but were not dished out, eg Amantadine was accessed via the gp getting approval from a neurologist, who had experience with the med.

Afaik there’s never been clinical trials for m.e in the UK and none underway. I never saw them discussed in the cMRC collaborations. Afaiu, the NIHR drug repurposing is for one project of up to £200k which will have 18 months to design a trial design for min 2 drugs. This clinical trials proposal would then be reviewed in 2027, with no guarantee of success, and then after that process, a trial of 1:2,3? drugs will go ahead, probably in one centre, completing around 2030/1

In my view, It’s unrealistic for the long-term very severe to just wait with nothing. Those Existing between the rock & the hard place should be heard. No one wants to dabble in unlicensed drugs, but nor do we want to languish or decline. The broad decision should be based on consultation of the severely affected and doctors who have been involved in their care, but I personally believe there should be doctors who are allowed to make clinical choices.
Afaiu NHS compassionate off-label use is an option across severe and untreatable conditions, and no one who doesn't want anything would be encouraged to take off-label meds on nhs budgets.

The private sector prescribing doctors, offered as alternative is essentially 1-2 drs, and waiting lists are long, what if Dr Binita Kane goes off as Dr Claire Taylor has? Most of the patient criticism of Action for ME private healthcare is that the doctors can’t prescribe.

Obviously, if the DHSC delivery plan had agreed to funding the research Hub proposal or the James Lind Alliance priorities had been activated with a funding call, or MRC had done a very different research strategy for 20 years, people pushed into unresponsive severe ME would have more solid hope.

Edited to correct opening sentence
 
Last edited:
Ensuring people aren’t sold snake oil or rainbows to chase, blanket prohibition is another.

Looking at this as a disinterested outsider, listening to hundreds of people with ME/CFS, charity representatives and physicians likely to be involved I see them as pretty much the same. I only see snake oil and rainbows.
Afaik there’s never been clinical trials for m.e in the UK and none underway. I never saw them discussed in the cMRC collaborations.

Trials of drugs were specifically flagged up as the priority by the research working group during the delivery plan consultation. The only thing anyone actually thought was worth pursuing was LDN. If other drugs are really worth trying why did none of the physicians present make a case for it?

In my view, It’s unrealistic for the long-term very severe to just wait with nothing.

My view is that the alternative, to hand out drugs almost certain to do more long term harm than good, is simply unethical. You don't recommend people fly in unsafe aeroplanes.
I personally believe there should be doctors who are allowed to make clinical choices.

And the suggestion is that they should be able to do just that, as long as they make use of those choices to provide reliable information for further cases. It is hard work to do that but I have been in that position and found a way to produce reliable data. Anything else is, from my perspective, laziness disguised as compassion. The real compassion is to do what is needed to provide useful evidence that all people with ME/CFS can benefit from. It really isn't such a big ask. It is what we do for all other diseases.
 
Trials of drugs were specifically flagged up as the priority by the research working group during the delivery plan consultation. The only thing anyone actually thought was worth pursuing was LDN. If other drugs are really worth trying why did none of the physicians present make a case for it?
Why did nobody make a case for Daratumumab or did this happen before the pilot was out?
 
The thing is, ME/CFS is thought to be (due to) a range of things, so what might help one person won't help another.

I don't buy that. If something only helps one person in five you can still show that with a trial. It is not that uncommon to have trials with a number needed to treat (to get one benefit) is as high as 20.

The 'different things help different people' is always trotted out by the BPS people and in my experience is pretty much always a cover for the fact that nobody knows if anything works.

I think it is reasonabe to assume that there is some central core pathway element in ME/CFS that needs targeting. When drugs really work in other diseases, which are often just as heterogeneous in other respects, the result sticks out like a sore thumb.
 
Why did nobody make a case for Daratumumab or did this happen before the pilot was out?

I think it was before the pilot results were out. But for Dara the obvious thing is to support the Norwegians. Any physicians doing a trial on Dara need to have a very good grasp of B cell biology as well as ME/CFS patients. There are none in the UK who fit that, or at least there weren't any in the field until maybe this last few months.

But in a sense that is another issue. The question is why did none of the physicians already using a range of things off-label open their mouths to suggest testing them properly? They didn't even mention antihistamines or anticoagulants. In fact those were tested in STIMULATE-ICP for Long Covid and I am pretty sure we would have heard if there was any benefit at all, which I suspect will prove the point that very likely none of the thiings being handed out are actually any use.
 
why did none of the physicians already using a range of things off-label open their mouths to suggest testing them properly
I agree, this is odd. i suppose there are 2 LDN trials on going, one of which is testing pyridostigmine as well. But you would have thought if they're happy to give them to patients they would be pushing for formal trials...
 
But you would have thought if they're happy to give them to patients they would be pushing for formal trials...

Unless of course, as I have said before, they don't deep in their hearts think that a trial would show any effect. If they did they would do a trial to get their Nobel prize for proving a mechanism in ME/CFS and solving what nobody else can solve. If antihistamines actually helped we would be light years ahead of where we are now.
 
Back
Top Bottom