Tuller summarizes issues with PACE in Health Affairs

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email

David Tuller has published a new article in the Health Affairs blog that summarizes the issues with the conduct of the PACE trial and also examines the ways in which PACE and other studies have impacted the attitudes of doctors and the clinical guidelines used by doctors to treat patients.

Tuller’s series of articles reporting on the flaws in the PACE trial have created an unprecedented level of challenge over PACE’s conduct and conclusions. As Tuller notes, “What makes these public rebukes of PACE so noteworthy is that they take on a well-established treatment paradigm that has, for years, successfully defended itself against vigorous criticism from patients and advocacy groups” despite mounting evidence of serious physiological impairment. And for perhaps the first time, these criticisms are being raised by prominent researchers and clinicians from outside the field. They have requested access to the data and called on Lancet to ensure that an independent review is conducted.

But the PACE story is not just about the conduct of a single trial and it’s not just about research. As Tuller notes, “The PACE results have exerted a major influence on public health policies, clinical treatment guidelines, and societal attitudes, not just in the U.K. but in the U.S. as well.” The U.K.’s National Health Service focuses on CBT and GET while various U.S. clinical guidelines, including those from the CDC, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Cleveland Clinic, Kaiser Permanente, and UpToDate recommend CBT and GET.

As Tuller notes, these recommendations are based largely on PACE and other Oxford studies. But a recent NIH report said that Oxford could “impair progress and cause harm” and called for it to be retired because it includes patients with other conditions. As I explained to Tuller, “Basing recommendations for ME/CFS on studies like PACE that include patients who do not have ME/CFS is not only bad science but is medically unethical and creates a serious risk of harm” to these patients. 

What is especially significant about UpToDate’s clinical guidelines is that they recommend that the IOM criteria be used for diagnosis but then recommend PACE-style CBT and GET for treatment. But the IOM stated that ME/CFS is not psychological or deconditioning and that it is characterized by a systemic intolerance to even trivial activity. A recommendation for PACE-style CBT and GET is clearly inappropriate and creates a risk of harm for patients.

A basic assumption of evidence-based medicine is that the recommendations are based on studies into the same disease. Until medical education providers stop using evidence from studies in patients with other conditions, doctors are going to continue to be misled on the nature of the disease and patients with ME/CFS are going to continue to be at risk of harm.

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

Leave a Comment

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

Latest News

Sign petition To Fix ME/CFS tracking In US!

In August, we shared with you that we and six other ME/CFS organizations had submitted a proposal to the National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS) to fix the coding of ME/CFS in the US International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-CM). Today, we are writing with an update on that proposal and asking that you sign the

Read More »

NICE announces roundtable event to ensure implementation of ME/CFS guideline

NICE announced today that it will hold a roundtable in September as the next step in the publication of the ME/CFS guideline. The roundtable will include representatives from patient organisations and charities, relevant professional societies, NHS England and NHS Improvement, NICE and the guideline committee. It aims to, “better understand the issues raised and determine

Read More »

#MEAction & 6 ME Orgs Call for CDC to Change How it Tracks ME/CFS

Together with six other organizations, we have submitted a proposal to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to add myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) to the neurological chapter of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-CM).  Today, ME/CFS does not exist in the US ICD-10-CM. Instead,  most US doctors assign the code for chronic fatigue

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