1. Guest, for the 'News in Brief' week beginning 10th February 2020 - click here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

US ME/CFS Clinician Coalition: Guideline - Diagnosing and Treating ME/CFS, 2019

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Samuel, Sep 1, 2019.

  1. Samuel

    Samuel Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    1,746
    omf sent this out:

    vvv
    NEW GUIDELINES FOR DIAGNOSING AND TREATING ME/CFS
    A resource for clinicians and patients.

    The U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition, a group of U.S. ME/CFS experts, has authored a handout on the basics of diagnosis and management of ME/CFS.

    This handout is being made available for the medical community to help them better understand how to recognize ME/CFS and how to appropriately care for patients. Patients may also find it useful to provide this handout to their own providers.

    ME/CFS experts in the U.S. formed the ME/CFS Clinician Coalition in March 2018 with the goals of advancing the clinical care of people with ME/CFS and providing clinical insights to researchers in the field. More information on the 2019 summit is available here. Linda Tannenbaum actively participated in these coalition meetings.

    The handout on diagnosis and management provides a link for medical providers who are interested in getting more information on the coalition.
    ^^^

    a (non-tracking non-redirected-google-drive/pdf) url seems to be https://www.omf.ngo/2019/09/01/new-guidelines-for-diagnosing-and-treating-me-cfs .
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2019
    Ravn, ahimsa, JaneL and 23 others like this.
  2. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,094
    Likes Received:
    14,738
  3. InitialConditions

    InitialConditions Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    1,671
    Location:
    North-west England
    Despite not being in the US, this is the sort of handout I'd take to my doctor. Clear, short, and to the point.
     
    Ravn, rvallee, Dolphin and 2 others like this.
  4. Andy

    Andy Committee Member & Outreach

    Messages:
    8,621
    Likes Received:
    62,601
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Direct link to the document is
    Code:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SG7hlJTCSDrDHqvioPMq-cX-rgRKXjfk/view


    For me, the focus is still too much on fatigue, and that last part is not the experience of many of us here. Rest may not eliminate fatigue, but it can certainly alleviate it - if it doesn't then I'd argue the patient isn't resting enough (or for the very severe they can't rest sufficiently to alleviate it).
    ETA: Cleaned the link to the document.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2019
    Lidia Thompson, Squeezy, Ravn and 5 others like this.
  5. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,039
    Likes Received:
    34,226
    Location:
    UK
    My main criticism would be that the 4 'core symptoms' are inadequate.

    In it's description of PEM it says 'typically delayed and prolonged exacerbation of symptoms' but apart from fatigue and sleep disturbance' it gives no indication of what the 'symptoms' are.

    Prolonged headaches, sore throats, noise and light intolerance and lack of balance/dizziness (which may or may not be part of orthostatic intolerance) should feature somewhere; or even just mentioning 'flu-like symptoms' would be more accurate. I hate to say it but, it wasn't nicknamed 'Yuppie flu' for nothing.
     
  6. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,899
    Likes Received:
    9,509
    You often see this wording in research papers. It’s from the Fukuda et al. criteria. However, the wording was actually “not substantially alleviated by rest”.
     
    Annamaria, JemPD, Squeezy and 12 others like this.
  7. Sean

    Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,912
    Likes Received:
    15,733
    That link contains a Facebook referral.

    The clean link is

     
    Squeezy, Ravn, Esther12 and 4 others like this.
  8. Andy

    Andy Committee Member & Outreach

    Messages:
    8,621
    Likes Received:
    62,601
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Thanks for spotting that, I've edited the link in my post as well.
     
    adambeyoncelowe likes this.
  9. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,059
    Likes Received:
    9,970
    To facilitate sharing online:

     
    rvallee likes this.
  10. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,059
    Likes Received:
    9,970
    To facilitate sharing online:

     
    rvallee likes this.
  11. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,059
    Likes Received:
    9,970
    To facilitate sharing online:

     
  12. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,059
    Likes Received:
    9,970
    To facilitate sharing online:

     
  13. Medfeb

    Medfeb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    2,354
    The IOM criteria lists the "substantially impaired" as follows - it does have "not substantially alleviated"
    "A substantial reduction or impairment in the ability to engage in pre- illness levels of occupational, educational, social, or personal activities that persists for more than 6 months and is accompanied by fatigue, which is often profound, is of new or definite onset (not lifelong), is not the result of ongoing excessive exertion, and is not substantially alleviated by rest"​
     
    Squeezy, Ravn, Hutan and 4 others like this.
  14. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,059
    Likes Received:
    9,970
    To facilitate sharing online:

     
  15. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    24,949
    Location:
    Canada
    Looks pretty decent. The best part is that it's short and to the point. 30+ page handbooks are definitely not being read by physicians. This one is 5 pages (6 minus the cover).

    One remarkable thing is that this is basically a perfect negative of the psychosocial model.

    One model takes patient experience and objective reality into account. The other dismisses and contradicts patient experience and has been strongly and consistently objected to for decades on the basis that it does not represent reality and has been demonstrably disastrous in outcome.

    Without knowing any of the details, how much sense does it make that model #2 is the one used in practice and aggressively defended and promoted despite delivering exactly zero progress in about 2 decades?

    It would make an interesting test, removing all identifying details and asking for input from experts.
     
    Keebird, Squeezy, Ravn and 8 others like this.
  16. Aroa

    Aroa Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    394
    Location:
    Spain
    Many thanks to all the people involved !!! I find it very helpful.

    I already gave it to one of my doctors :)
     
  17. Annamaria

    Annamaria Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    503
    This.
     
    alktipping, Amw66, James and 2 others like this.
  18. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    24,949
    Location:
    Canada
    It's going to take a while to overturn decades of disinformation.

    I think that if it emphasized too much on this, it's likely that the reaction would be for many to dig their heels in and reject all of it. It's mostly a matter of opinion and sadly the same rules that dominate in politics also apply here because of this. Contradicting information is often more likely to be met with even stronger beliefs in the wrong direction. Medical professionals are no better at this when it comes to ambiguity.

    It takes gotcha! moments to do a full 180. Slow reversals based on mounting evidence simply don't provide this as long as the garbage research dominating the field stands. Even with the overwhelming and consistent evidence that GET is clearly harmful, the advice is still just as defended today as it ever was. That's why disinformation is so damaging, it has huge inertia even beyond its initial push.

    It's all stupid but we are dealing with aggressive malicious stupidity, so it's a steep uphill (both ways) struggle.
     
    Grigor, JemPD, Squeezy and 3 others like this.
  19. Andy

    Andy Committee Member & Outreach

    Messages:
    8,621
    Likes Received:
    62,601
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Which is why it's important to speak out when it's seen, even when it's coming from a group who are obviously working to improve the situation. I'm grateful for their efforts, but without any further insight into why they chose the message that they have put out, I can only take it at face value, which is that I think they focus too much still on fatigue. I'd highlight this to them directly but there doesn't seem to be a central point of contact, perhaps I'll just need to collect their individual emails and send an email to all.

    A further thought I've had. While it's understandable to focus on trying to get across how disabling this condition can be, and obviously there is a history of neglecting to consider those who are at the severe end of the scale, but is there not also a risk of leaving those at the "very mild" end of the spectrum.

    This section, with my comment in square brackets, raises issues for me.
    So I would question how "moderate to severe" should be defined. What is moderate to severe PEM? Going by this 'mild PEM' would be both a hallmark of ME/CFS but, at the same time, not enough to get you diagnosed with ME/CFS. And the strong possibility that someone mild could be in constant PEM does not seem to be recognised. Given that most people that clinicians are likely to see will be, initially, mild, this seems be quite problematic to me.
     
    Annamaria, JemPD, Ravn and 6 others like this.
  20. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    34,746
    Yes I found myself pondering this, and whether in some way a person with mild ME might nonetheless present with 'moderate' core illness features. Even if by some quirk of meaning it did include those mildly affected, it would still send out the wrong message. And for all we know they might be looking to exclude those at the mild end!
     
    Ravn, alktipping and Andy like this.

Share This Page