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

Aphaeresis/ Apheresis (for removal of microclots)

Discussion in 'Other treatments' started by Fizzlou, Nov 3, 2021.

  1. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,267
    Location:
    London, UK
    I don't see any need for hindsight. It is very obvious that people are being exploited right now.
    The chances that apheresis is of any use for Post COVID problems are close to zero and there is no evidence. Selling people procedures like this is fraud - plain and simple.
     
    MSEsperanza, merylg, Anna H and 21 others like this.
  2. Fizzlou

    Fizzlou Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Cheshire
    @Jonathan Edwards

    The evidence I see is personal patient reports of recovery or improvement. Some well known MECFS researchers like Prof Scheibenbogen (in a solve talk on MECFS &LC discussed HELP apheresis as one of the possible treatment pathways) Dr Levine and Dr Proal are collaborating with the project.
    I’m watching and reserving judgment.
     
  3. SNT Gatchaman

    SNT Gatchaman Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,255
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Agree with @Fizzlou. I don't think there's any exploitation or malice here. From what I've read the patients are driving demand and the clinic is not operating from a primary profit motive (c.f. IncelDx). Apparently they shared all IP and formed a network with 20 competitor clinics in Germany to try and handle the instantaneous load. It was commented that in the German healthcare environment this type of co-operation was extremely unusual.

    Part of hindsight might be about how to navigate the ethics. How do you handle accidentally finding that an established procedure is now (anecdotally) significantly effective against a "new" disease?

    This is why I think the clinic inadvertently painted themselves into a corner. Their established patients would be continuing the treatment for the condition they were originally prescribed regardless, so they're not stopping even if cured of LC. The LC symptom improvement is undeniable in the eyes of the clinic doctors. They resolve to evaluate some LC patients. But before they can publish even their early findings, the patients are increasingly lining up at the door.

    But now the doctors know (unpublished) that the procedure is undeniably working. Not just helping a few and helping a bit, but really working and in very many. That seems ethically challenging and the best way forward may have been thought to be (Jonathan Edwards' least favourite word) pragmatic.
     
  4. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,267
    Location:
    London, UK
    And those are parts of the problem.
    My job here is to try to help people distinguish real science from fashionable talk that sounds like science to the general public.
    I don't see real science here. And I don't speak as someone wedded to starchy establishment views. I wouldn't be here if a was.
     
  5. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,267
    Location:
    London, UK

    Maybe you have missed the main topic of conversation on this forum for the last four years?
    Which is that symptom improvement being undeniable in the eyes of clinic doctors has been grinding PWME into the dirt for decades and we need something real.

    If we accept this is bona fide then all of the critique of the BPS charade might as well be flushed down the toilet

    This is just as bad.

    In other words. We have to have a level playing field. Stuff that sounds sexy is not what is needed. Stuff that is based on reliable evidence is what is needed.
     
  6. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,847
    Location:
    UK
    I think the actions of these doctors offering the treatment before a clinical trial contrasts badly with the actions of Fluge and Mella when they found Rituximab seemed to cure some people with ME. They strongly urged other doctors not to offer Rituximab to other pwME until they had done their trials. And it turned out not to work.

    Unless these doctors are setting up a double blinded trial with a sham treatment control arm, they are not acting scientifically.
     
  7. Kitty

    Kitty Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,032
    Location:
    UK
    By behaving like scientists? This must have happened thousands of times, but until you do a blinded trial, it's completely meaningless.

    It's not only unprofessional to sign people up for something with no evidence to back it up, it actually risks creating an impression that the therapists are cowboys and the treatment is hype. Who's going to fund them to do a proper trial then?
     
  8. 5vforest

    5vforest Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    201
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    I’ve seen some screenshots from a Facebook group that made me pretty upset. (I won’t share them here because I’m unsure if they were allowed to be reposted in the first place.)

    it appears that there are clinics offering this apheresis as a part of a complete “protocol”, and that patients are warned that they will not get better unless they “fully commit” to a protocol that includes supplements, intermittent fasting, “staying positive”, among other things.

    I understand how the hype snowballs but it seems that we have fully put the cart before the horse.

    I am also worried that anyone with long COVID is by definition still in the early stages of illness and has a higher chance of a “natural recovery”. How many of these patients are going to mistaken for evidence of XYZ treatment being a miracle? I would also be a lot more interested if people were indeed reporting near-full recovery after a few sessions of apheresis. But even the model patient, Dr. Khan, has done upwards of a dozen sessions and is still sick?
     
    MSEsperanza, rainy, ukxmrv and 28 others like this.
  9. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,520
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    I don't think 'patients driving demand' is a reasonable defence. Patients can want all sorts of things if they think they might be cured. Responsible doctors don't necessarily agree. We've had patients that desperate that they pay vast sums to get their necks fused. And when that doesn't work, they go back again for more spinal surgery. Maybe the people offering the aphaeresis are doing it entirely as a public service, maybe they aren't. But, regardless, it's not right to offer a procedure before it is known to be useful.

    But how do they "know (unpublished)"? Does any part of this knowing involve blinding?

    BTW @SNT Gatchaman, I know it must be feeling as if we are relentlessly negative. I do appreciate you posting about what people are reporting about this issue.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2021
    MSEsperanza, merylg, Anna H and 25 others like this.
  10. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,847
    Location:
    UK
    It seems that not everyone who has the aphoresis treatment for long covid is recovering. I assume lots of physiological measures are being recorded by the doctors administering it so they can try to determine for which patients it might be useful, and what factors change for the better after treatment, and whether the effect is temporary or long lasting, both on symptoms and on objective measures.

    I understand the people being treated are also being given blood thinning clot busting drugs, so I don't understand how the doctors can tell which treatment is making the difference in patients' symptoms and objective data without a proper clinical trial. There is also the factor that has to be allowed for that all the pwLC have had it for less than 2 years, many for much shorter times, and there is natural recovery, as well as significant fluctuation, happening with LC people.

    The treatment is also expensive for patients and has very limited availability, so only accessible to a few who can afford it, making the motivation to believe it's working extremely high in those using up life savings or going into debt to pay for it. As with things like LP, the combination of belief and the adrenaline generated by excitement at receiving a treatment that promises success can carry pwME through a few weeks or even months of feeing more energised, and with improved symptoms. Some drugs also have short term effectiveness for some patients. But the effect, with people who have ME with PEM, of sham treatment does not last, and severe crashes tend to follow, sometimes with a return to a lower level of functioning than before treatment started.

    All these factors make me very wary of getting excited by a few recovery stories. But I am still fascinated by this approach to LC and hope a clinical trial is set up soon. Of course I want it to work, whether for all pwLC, or a subset who can be determined in advance by tests.
     
    merylg, Anna H, lycaena and 26 others like this.
  11. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    I do not have good understanding of what is actually happening at these clinics and with the patients. Maybe the treatment is undeniably working for some patients. If this is not the case and the effectiveness is still uncertain then treatment with apheresis outside of a clinical trial seems very questionable. Especially when it's expensive and invasive.
     
  12. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    https://meassociation.org.uk/2021/10/a-new-treatment-for-long-covid/

    With >100 patients treated already, the clinic should have published at least some very preliminary report describing the effects.
     
    merylg, lycaena, Simbindi and 8 others like this.
  13. Ariel

    Ariel Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,055
    Location:
    UK
    Sorry if this has been covered but are there any good or even reasonable trials of this going on? (Sorry I didn't understand the position). If something is working so well, and there are so many patients lining up, why wouldn't you do proper trials? Has it just not happened yet or is it underway alongside the many others doing it on a speculative basis?
     
    merylg, MEMarge, FMMM1 and 5 others like this.
  14. TiredSam

    TiredSam Committee Member

    Messages:
    10,482
    Location:
    Germany
    Private doctors were offering Rituximab privately for 10k a time before the blinded trials were finished, even though they were asked not to. Doctors are performing expensive and damaging spinal surgery. Now we have this. It's a pattern we are sadly seeing regularly - going straight from anecdotal improvements to expensive and potentially devastating treatments. The private doctors offering them rarely seem to publish their track record, either because they're too busy or it's too difficult or takes too long to get published or some such similar excuse.

    Prof Scheibenbogen should have learnt from her experiments with Rituximab what can go wrong:

    ME/CFS Doctors in Germany

    The work of Amy Proal has been discussed on the forum before. You can form your own opinion of the quality of her research by reading this thread:

    https://www.s4me.info/threads/hypothesis-piece-by-amy-proal-a-microbiologist-with-me-cfs.134/

    After 8 years of this illness I'm of the opinion that many of our "well known MECFS researchers" are a very mixed bag and often disappoint. Sadly they are all we've got, but the times I've seen a new researcher appear trumpeting great hope, followed by exciting updates then by everything going rather quiet within a few years...

    Flug and Mella were exemplary in their approach and the patient community appreciated it, even when it led to a null result. I haven't seen many other researchers / clinicians practising science to those standards. Now when the next great new thing comes along I just hope that too many patients don't get hurt or stripped of their savings.
     
    rainy, merylg, Joh and 41 others like this.
  15. SNT Gatchaman

    SNT Gatchaman Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,255
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Thanks @Hutan, it has been a little rough lately.

    I find this a very unusual situation for all the reasons we've discussed above. This will (I hope) be my last post on this subject until formal scientific reporting occurs. It appears this thread has not been helpful. I think I have not done a good job with my part in this discussion and I regret that. I started this thread as an offshoot from these new findings related to long COVID. I wanted to explore what the implications for the micro-clot finding could be, in terms of a potential disease mechanism in ME. This was fascinating to me and I could see how it might all hang together, based on what I had learned and my own (admittedly short term) disease experiences.

    However, it's been too easy to keep wondering what on earth is happening with the apheresis treatments. Unfortunately, so much of that story is opaque at the moment. I have tried to summarise what is being described elsewhere and draw inferences about the situation, assuming best intention from those inexperienced in LC (and ME) who suddenly found themselves deep in it. These were clinicians with (presumably) no pre-conceived notions of what LC/ME was and they weren't massaging data to support some flawed disease model - psychogenic or biological. There also appear to be significant difficulties in blinding for this type of treatment.

    Given that this was so fast-moving I thought it was also good to report what was being said/written - though again, through a frosted glass. It might have been better if I had not tried to defend the situation as it appeared to me.

    Regardless, if this did subsequently turn out to be an inflexion point in ME research, this forum's summaries and comments might help historians/authors to review the timeline of events.

    I would prefer to get the horse back in front of the cart. For my part, I am pleased to now be involved in supporting the basic scientific research into the cells and proteins associated with inflammation and coagulation in LC/ME (all needing rapid upskilling for me, of course). In my own area, if my situation allows, I would also like to arrange for some targeted imaging studies to try and answer some fundamental questions on fatigue and PEM, and potentially how they might relate to red cells and vessels. Perhaps one day you might even discuss a short paper and I will excuse myself from the room.

    In closing, the micro-clot finding from the South Africa / Liverpool team and the apheresis finding from the German clinic have drawn in new researchers into LC (and presumably by extension ME). New researcher blood seems a good thing and perhaps old ideas that were inappropriately left unloved will now have their time in the sun. Leaving aside the many unknowns of the apheresis, I maintain confidence that the biological science researchers are approaching things methodically and appropriately. I would also expect that drug therapies will be similarly evaluated on the clinical side.

    [The moderators may wish to consider closing this thread and starting afresh with published data when / if it appears.]

    Copied post: Some responses to this post are on the thread considering the microclot hypothesis.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2021
    merylg likes this.
  16. Kitty

    Kitty Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,032
    Location:
    UK
    You must forgive us for a bit of a pile-on in response to some of the apheresis stuff, @SNT Gatchaman! Some of us have just been watching similar stories play out for decades. Many of us (me included) would have been much more excited about it the first time round.

    It's actually got worse with the advent of social media. Previously, finding were discussed in newsletters and on message boards, and it was often patients themselves who got carried away by compelling-sounding theories. Nowadays, the researchers are reporting results on Twitter, and I'm guessing they're ill prepared for what happens when an idea gains momentum and then runs away.

    Add to that a large population of well-networked new patients, who haven't had the experience of seeing 10–15 equally plausible sounding theories or treatments announced with a big fanfare, only to disappear into obscurity. When sick people are clamouring for a new treatment from the practitioners who're involved in testing or developing it, it must be difficult at times to spot the beginning of a slippery ethical slope—especially if the idea is picked up by groups other than the one who first worked on it. Once the genie's out of the bottle, they've lost control.
     
  17. FMMM1

    FMMM1 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,591
    There's a consistent message on this forum that unblinded/inadequately blinded trials are fine (they seem to be normal in psychological interventions) but you must use objective outcome indicators such as actimetry (FitBit type devices), [EDIT - in these cases]-----. OK if you can blind, and use objective outcome indicators, then that's better.

    I've been through the mill myself --- par for the course and you seem to be OK with it --- good. I think we'd rather find out the flaws in something rather than promoting/accepting something which isn't going to improve the quality of life.
     
    merylg, Snow Leopard, obeat and 6 others like this.
  18. Peter Trewhitt

    Peter Trewhitt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,633
    Perhaps a red herring, but there is also the cultural meme, spread in films and TV dramas, that if you have a currently untreatable condition the best course of action is to become a trial subject or look for an experimental treatment in the early stages of being developed.

    I have no objection to people participating in experimental interventions as long as those providing it are clear about risks and the evidence, expressing unambiguously the difference between logically possible benefits and what we currently know, and that those participating are able to objectively asses potential costs and the current evidence base or lack of it.

    To allow such experimental interventions to take place ethically we also need some way of preventing over enthusiasm from the clinicians and patient desperation as factors clouding judgement. (However how possible is this in practice?)
     
    merylg, Alton, MEMarge and 11 others like this.
  19. Kitty

    Kitty Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,032
    Location:
    UK
    I suspect it isn't, if there's no external ethics approval and participants have to pay for the treatment. Research projects take a strict approach to those issues for very good reasons.

    Patients can be really poorly placed to assess risks unless they're getting unbiased information. Apheresis might sound relatively benign, but it's still invasive and there could be serious adverse effects if it's not done properly or patients aren't monitored properly afterwards.

    The fact that treatments like this aren't keyed into patients' usual primary care systems is another potential risk, particular in countries with socialised healthcare. What happens if you develop some weird deficiency or circulation problem weeks later, and either you don't have enough knowledge to connect it to the treatment, or your GP has no idea how to access information from the clinic to help them work out what's going on?
     
    merylg, sebaaa, ladycatlover and 10 others like this.
  20. Ariel

    Ariel Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,055
    Location:
    UK
    merylg, Alton, MEMarge and 4 others like this.

Share This Page