Response to AHRQ's continued support of PACE

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email

On February 3, 2016, a group of patient organizations and advocates (including #MEAction) sent a followup letter to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) further detailing concerns with the 2015 AHRQ Evidence Review and reiterating their request, originally made in November 2015, to reanalyze the conclusions of AHRQ’s Evidence Review in light of the long-known concerns with PACE and with the Oxford definition. #MEAction signed onto the original letter after running a poll which showed almost unanimous support from our members.

Background

In November 2015, a group of U.S. organizations sent a letter to the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) requesting a review of the concerns raised with PACE in a series of articles by journalist David Tuller. Based on these concerns and the call by the National Institute of Health (NIH) Pathways to Prevention report to retire the Oxford definition because it could “impair progress and cause harm”, the letter recommended the following steps as appropriate and necessary to protect patients:

  • The AHRQ revise its evidence review to reflect the issues with PACE and with Oxford studies in general;
  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) remove findings based on PACE and other Oxford studies from current and planned medical education;
  • HHS use its leadership position to communicate these concerns to other medical education providers;
  • HHS call for The Lancet to seek an independent reanalysis of PACE.

The Agency Responses

In AHRQ’s response the authors of the evidence review noted that the review had already considered some of the concerns raised by Tuller and that the additional information would not change the review’s conclusions. Yet, the evidence review ranked PACE as a “Good” study with “undetected” reporting bias, a rating that is not consistent with the long-known concerns with PACE but one that could presumably influence conclusions. Further, AHRQ’s response did not address the concerns with using Oxford studies as the basis of recommendations of treatment benefits and harms for ME/CFS patients. The February 3, 2016 letter from patient organizations and advocates details these concerns and reiterates the request to reevaluate the evidence review conclusions.

CDC’s response, further clarified by a followup email, stated that the IOM and P2P “have placed the findings of the PACE trial in an appropriate context for moving the field forward.” They stated the need for research and that CDC would be conducting a collaborative initiative to prepare new medical education materials. However, CDC’s response did not address the question of whether findings and recommendations based on Oxford studies would be allowed in new medical education materials for this disease. The CDC has been asked to specifically respond to this question. That response will be shared when it is available.

HHS did not responded to the request to call on The Lancet to seek an independent review.

If you have not done so, please join in with us and sign this petition calling for AHRQ and CDC to act to protect patients.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on google
Google+
Share on email
Email

2 thoughts on “Response to AHRQ's continued support of PACE”

  1. Hi there, Thank you for this article! It appears that three links to dropbox content are not working (?) – you may want to double-check: “a letter” “AHRQ’s response” and “CDC’s response”

    1. thanks! I am not sure why those links sometimes worked and sometimes didn’t. I uploaded the documents to #MEAction and changed the links– would you mind letting me know if they all work for you?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest News

I #ChooseToChallenge gender bias in medicine and medical research.

#MEAction Celebrates International Women’s Day

Today is International Women’s Day!  #MEAction is joining in the IWD #ChooseToChallenge theme to challenge gender bias in medicine and medical research.  You can participate by creating and sharing your own #ChooseToChallenge image, share one of the ones we created for you, and reading /watching /sharing one or all of the resources we compiled for

Read More »

NHS England omits advice to apply clinical judgement re vaccine

It has come to light that a letter from NHS England and NHS Improvement to all vaccination centres and GPs in the UK has omitted advice that health professionals can and should apply their clinical judgement when placing people in group 6. Vaccination of people with underlying health conditions that put them at risk of

Read More »
Waiting for Superman Book on table

Waiting for Superman – UK Book Giveaway and Review

Do you want to win a free copy of Waiting for Superman? We have three copies to give away to people in the UK!  To enter, all you have to do is follow #MEAction UK on Instagram, like and comment on this post. The deadline is 9am (GMT) Monday 8th March! Win a copy! Thank

Read More »

Help keep our work going

We rely on donations from people like you to keep fighting for equality for people with ME.

Donate

Get actions alerts and news direct to your inbox

You can choose what you want to be kept up to date on.

Subscribe
Scroll to Top