Inara
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Is this planned by vanElzekker?Studies replicating Dr. David Systrom's invasive CPET studies should also be done.
https://because.massgeneral.org/cam...gue-syndrome-exercise-challenge-study/c168141
Is this planned by vanElzekker?Studies replicating Dr. David Systrom's invasive CPET studies should also be done.
Would people diagnosed with ME/CFS stop progressing if they stayed out of PEM.
By progressing, you mean deteriorating(?)This research would take years and have to be very well thought out before starting.
YesBy progressing, you mean deteriorating(?)
I agree but this is an important question to answer, if we can stop deterioration by proving its caused by PEM episodes then that will improve many patient's lives until there is a treatment/cure.I don't think you could research this ethically; ie have a 'control' group who are advised not to pace themselves and stay withing their energy envelope (ie like all the PACE style research effectively does by getting people to increase their activity even if they suffer for it).
To resurrect this thread.
I would suggest that studies that assesses the level of impairment in patients on a large scale, i.e. physical and cognitive impairment, in a way that helps support patients access state support and insurance payouts, could make a huge difference to patients lives. If there was solid evidence presented in the printed literature that, if need be, a patient could use to back up their claim for state/insurance support then far more patients would be able to live more securely and healthily.
Yes, to all those suggestions.I think that is an interesting idea. I wonder if there could be an addition to the DecodeME project (with separate funding) that looked into these issues taking advantage of the cohort that is being developed (and even diagnostic information to get agregate levels and types of impairment).
I feel that any study should have a heavy involvement of patients to help direct into what is really impairment (why and how symptoms really causes impairments in activities).
My other thought was is this something that a patient collective could do - survey patients, collate and write up results (along with some academic support).
Biomarkers. We need biomarkers. And while disability support is much needed as it is difficult to prove you are disabled, we need to be careful in my view to not encourage a for-profit test that is not well accepted in the medical community. Ideally a Widely available test that does not rely on self-report, and a test that both diagnose and measure the impairment and doesn’t require anyone to mortgage their home, go hungry, or send their blood to Germany.To resurrect this thread.
I would suggest that studies that assesses the level of impairment in patients on a large scale, i.e. physical and cognitive impairment, in a way that helps support patients access state support and insurance payouts, could make a huge difference to patients lives. If there was solid evidence presented in the printed literature that, if need be, a patient could use to back up their claim for state/insurance support then far more patients would be able to live more securely and healthily.
Yep, I'm not arguing against a biomarker, but we don't how long that will take, or even if we will ever get one.Biomarkers. We need biomarkers. And while disability support is much needed as it is difficult to prove you are disabled, we need to be careful in my view to not encourage a for-profit test that is not well accepted in the medical community. Ideally a Widely available test that does not rely on self-report, and a test that both diagnose and measure the impairment and doesn’t require anyone to mortgage their home, go hungry, or send their blood to Germany.
And if we have convincing literature that supports the level of disability reported by patients then it might well improve the chance of more funding for a biomarker, and/or other biomedical research.
I think one of the important things is that ideas of what imparements matter are driven from patients (and carers) rather than any academics. That way the things that really matter come across - also temporal issues around imparements need to be raised (for example, the inability to plan to see friends not knowing how well you will be on a given day; or the effects of PEM being one activity a week etc)2) Do we need to start with our own categories in order to reflect the effects of an energy limiting chronic illness?
In the UK, if you apply for Personal Independence Payment or PIP (one of our main disability benefits), an important principle is whether an impairment affects you for more than 50% of the time. Provided it does, it can be regarded as affecting you all of the time, and can therefore be considered as part of the application.
Is this principle useful in trying to establish an individual's broad level of function, or would something else work better?
It doesn't seem to cover the notion of an imparemtent in the form of if I do X then I won't be able to do {x,y,z,....} for a time t (with bounds) but if I don't do i where i is from {x,y,z,.....} then I have the option of doing i at most days in the future.
I think one of the important things is that ideas of what imparements matter are driven from patients (and carers) rather than any academics.
@MEMarge re PSP research targetingI think that is an interesting idea. I wonder if there could be an addition to the DecodeME project (with separate funding) that looked into these issues taking advantage of the cohort that is being developed (and even diagnostic information to get agregate levels and types of impairment).
I feel that any study should have a heavy involvement of patients to help direct into what is really impairment (why and how symptoms really causes impairments in activities).
My other thought was is this something that a patient collective could do - survey patients, collate and write up results (along with some academic support).