No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Assessment of the scientific rigour of randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy for patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: A systematic review
Abstract
Cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy have been promoted as effective treatments for patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. However, criticism on the scientific rigour of these studies has been raised. This review assessed the methodological quality of studies on the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy. The methodological quality of the 18 included studies was found to be relatively low, as bias was prominently found, affecting the main outcome measures of the studies (fatigue, physical functioning and functional impairment/status). Future research should focus on including more objective outcome measures in a well-defined patient population.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
The analysis of the 2017 Cochrane review reveals flaws, which means that contrary to its findings, there is no evidence that graded exercise therapy is effective. Because of the failure to report harms adequately in the trials covered by the review, it cannot be said that graded exercise therapy is safe. The analysis of the objective outcomes in the trials provides sufficient evidence to conclude that graded exercise therapy is an ineffective treatment for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome.
Background:
The PACE trial was a well-powered randomised trial designed to examine the efficacy of graded exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for chronic fatigue syndrome. Reports concluded that both treatments were moderately effective, each leading to recovery in over a fifth of patients. However, the reported analyses did not consistently follow the procedures set out in the published protocol, and it is unclear whether the conclusions are fully justified by the evidence.
Methods:
Here, we present results based on the original protocol-specified procedures. Data from a recent Freedom of Information request enabled us to closely approximate these procedures. We also evaluate the conclusions from the trial as a whole.
Results:
On the original protocol-specified primary outcome measure - overall improvement rates - there was a significant effect of treatment group. However, the groups receiving CBT or GET did not significantly outperform the Control group after correcting for the number of comparisons specified in the trial protocol. Also, rates of recovery were consistently low and not significantly different across treatment groups. Finally, on secondary measures, significant effects were almost entirely confined to self-report measures. These effects did not endure beyond two years.
Conclusions:
These findings raise serious concerns about the robustness of the claims made about the efficacy of CBT and GET. The modest treatment effects obtained on self-report measures in the PACE trial do not exceed what could be reasonably accounted for by participant reporting biases.
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) are considered to be enigmatic diseases. Several studies propose that the combination of cognitive behaviour therapy with a graded activity protocol (CBT+), justified by a so-called (bio)psychosocial (explanatory) model, is an effective treatment option for CFS (ME).
Objective
A critical review of five Dutch hallmark studies that allegedly support this claim.
Methods
An analysis of the five CBT+ studies with special attention to the patients studied, the criteria (subjective and objective measures and cut-off scores) used to select participants and to define improvement and recovery, the consistency of the definitions of caseness (being diagnosed as a CFS patient at entry) versus the definitions of improvement and recovery after CBT+, and the objective effects.
Results
The studies investigated suffer from various methodological flaws. Apart from these methodological shortcomings, the claim that CBT+ is an effective treatment option for CFS is not substantiated by the data reported. Some studies investigated CFS patients, other studies investigated CF patients, labelled as CFS patients, or combinations of CFS and CF patients. No study investigated the effect of CBT+ in a group of patients meeting the (original) diagnostic criteria for ME. The effects of CBT+ on subjective measures, for example fatigue and disability, if present, are insufficient to achieve normal values. Impressive recovery and improvement rates are based on very loose criteria for subjective measures. Cut-off scores for subjective measures used to define improvement and recovery in studies show overlap with cut-off scores for CFS caseness in one or more of the other studies. More importantly, looking at the objective measures, the proof of clinical improvement after CBT+ is lacking.
Conclusion
Solid evidence of effectiveness of CBT+ for CFS, let alone ME, is lacking in the five hallmark studies. The lack of objective improvement indicates CBT+ is ineffective. This conclusion confirms the outcome of the large-scale PACE-trial in the UK.
BACKGROUND: Publications from the PACE trial reported that 22% of chronic fatigue syndrome patients recovered following graded exercise therapy (GET), and 22% following a specialised form of CBT. Only 7% recovered in a control, no-therapy group. These figures were based on a definition of recovery that differed markedly from that specified in the trial protocol.
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether these recovery claims are justified by the evidence.
METHODS: Drawing on relevant normative data and other research, we critically examine the researchers’ definition of recovery, and whether the late changes they made to this definition were justified. Finally, we calculate recovery rates based on the original protocol-specified definition.
RESULTS: None of the changes made to PACE recovery criteria were adequately justified. Further, the final definition was so lax that on some criteria, it was possible to score below the level required for trial entry, yet still be counted as ‘recovered’. When recovery was defined according to the original protocol, recovery rates in the GET and CBT groups were low and not significantly higher than in the control group (4%, 7% and 3%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The claim that patients can recover as a result of CBT and GET is not justified by the data, and is highly misleading to clinicians and patients considering these treatments.
The PACE trial concluded that Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) are moderately effective in managing Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) and yielded a 22% recovery rate. Nonetheless, the recently released individual participant data shows that 13.3% of patients had already recovered, on one or both primary outcomes, upon entering the trial. Moreover, no one classified as recovered achieved the physical functioning, together with the fatigue scores, of the healthy sedentary controls from another trial by the PACE trial's lead principal investigator or achieved Kennedy's definition of recovery, whereby symptoms are eliminated and patients return to premorbid levels of functioning, due to CBT or GET (alone). Therefore, CBT and GET do not lead to actual recovery.
After CBT and GET therapy, 59% and 61% of participants, respectively were labeled as improvers in the original paper, which was lowered by the PACE trial authors to 20% and 21% in the newly released papers in which they used the original protocol; nevertheless, only 3.7% and 6.3% were objective improvers in the objective 6-minute walk test as defined by the same improvement of 50% or more, as used by the trial itself, to classify someone as an improver. If the effect of Specialist Medical Care had been removed from the analysis, then 0% and 1.3% of patients improved objectively with CBT and GET, respectively. Highlighting the fact that unblinded trials like the PACE trial, should not rely on subjective primary outcomes, but use either objective primary outcomes alone, or combined with subjective primary outcomes, as a methodological safeguard against erroneous inference of efficacy in its absence. The objective individual participant data shows that in up to 82.2% and 79.8% of ME patients their health might have been negatively affected by CBT and GET, respectively. The independent PACE trial review had shown that this proportion was between 46% and 96%, and found to be between 63% and 74% by surveys involving more than 3000 patients by the Norwegian, British, and the Dutch ME Associations. These data confirm the conclusions of a number of studies that patient health was negatively affected by CBT and GET, including one that found that in 82% of patients with severe ME their symptoms were made worse by GET. Analysis of the individual participant PACE trial data has shown that CBT and GET are ineffective and (potentially) harmful, which invalidates the assumption and opinion-based biopsychosocial model. Consequently, we should stop using CBT and GET as (compulsory) treatments for ME/CFS to prevent further unnecessary suffering inflicted on patients by physicians, which is the worst of all harms, yet totally preventable.
Science is not always plain sailing and sometimes the voyage is across an angry sea. A recent clinical trial of treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome (the PACE trial) has whipped up a storm of controversy. Patients claim the lead authors overstated the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy by lowering the thresholds they used to determine improvement. In this extraordinary case, patients discovered that the treatments tested had much lower efficacy after an information tribunal ordered the release of data from the PACE trial to a patient who had requested access using a freedom of information request.
Background:
Meta-analyses have been inconclusive about the efficacy of cognitive behaviour therapies (CBTs) delivered in groups of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) due to a lack of adequate studies.
Methods:
We conducted a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with 204 adult CFS patients from our routine clinical practice who were willing to receive group therapy. Patients were equally allocated to therapy groups of 8 patients and 2 therapists, 4 patients and 1 therapist or a waiting list control condition. Primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle and compared the intervention group (n = 136) with the waiting list condition (n = 68). The study was open label.
Results:
Thirty-four (17%) patients were lost to follow-up during the course of the trial. Missing data were imputed using mean proportions of improvement based on the outcome scores of similar patients with a second assessment. Large and significant improvement in favour of the intervention group was found on fatigue severity (effect size = 1.1) and overall impairment (effect size = 0.9) at the second assessment. Physical functioning and psychological distress improved moderately (effect size = 0.5). Treatment effects remained significant in sensitivity and per-protocol analyses. Subgroup analysis revealed that the effects of the intervention also remained significant when both group sizes (i.e. 4 and 8 patients) were compared separately with the waiting list condition.
Conclusions:
CBT can be effectively delivered in groups of CFS patients. Group size does not seem to affect the general efficacy of the intervention which is of importance for settings in which large treatment groups are not feasible due to limited referral.
Background
There is a concern in the literature that harm from interventions is insufficiently documented in clinical trials in general, and in those assessing psychological treatments in particular. A recent decision by a trial steering committee to stop recruitment into a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a psychological intervention for personality disorder led to an investigation of the recording of harm in trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).
Methods
The protocols and final reports of all 82 NIHR trials funded between 1995 and 2013 were examined for the reporting of adverse events. These were subdivided by category of intervention.
Results
None of the psychological intervention trials mentioned the occurrence of an adverse event in their final report. Trials of drug treatments were more likely to mention adverse events in their protocols compared with those using psychological treatments. When adverse events were mentioned, the protocols of psychological interventions relied heavily on severe adverse events guidelines from the National Research Ethics Service (NRES), which were developed for drug rather than psychological interventions and so may not be appropriate for the latter.
Conclusions
This survey supported the belief that the reporting of adverse events in psychological treatments is weak and the criteria used may not be appropriate. Recommendations are made as to how current practice might be improved.
• The complexities of the chronic fatigue syndrome and the methodologic problems associated with its study indicate the need for a comprehensive, system atic, and integrated approach to the evaluation, classi fication, and study of persons with this condition and other fatiguing illnesses. We propose a conceptual framework and a set of guidelines that provide such an approach. Our guidelines include recommendations for the clinical evaluation of fatigued persons, a revised case definition of the chronic fatigue syndrome, and a strategy for subgrouping fatigued persons in formal investigations.
Background
A multi-centre, four-arm trial (the PACE trial) found that rehabilitative cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) were more effective treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) than specialist medical care (SMC) alone, when each was added to SMC, and more effective than adaptive pacing therapy (APT) when added to SMC. In this study we compared how many participants recovered after each treatment.
Method
We defined recovery operationally using multiple criteria, and compared the proportions of participants meeting each individual criterion along with two composite criteria, defined as (a) recovery in the context of the trial and (b) clinical recovery from the current episode of the illness, however defined, 52 weeks after randomization. We used logistic regression modelling to compare treatments.
Results
The percentages (number/total) meeting trial criteria for recovery were 22% (32/143) after CBT, 22% (32/143) after GET, 8% (12/149) after APT and 7% (11/150) after SMC. Similar proportions met criteria for clinical recovery. The odds ratio (OR) for trial recovery after CBT was 3.36 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64–6.88] and for GET 3.38 (95% CI 1.65–6.93), when compared to APT, and after CBT 3.69 (95% CI 1.77–7.69) and GET 3.71 (95% CI 1.78–7.74), when compared to SMC (p values ⩽0.001 for all comparisons). There was no significant difference between APT and SMC. Similar proportions recovered in trial subgroups meeting different definitions of the illness.
Conclusions
This study confirms that recovery from CFS is possible, and that CBT and GET are the therapies most likely to lead to recovery.
The PACE trial compared the effectiveness of adding adaptive pacing therapy (APT), cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), or graded exercise therapy (GET), to specialist medical care (SMC) for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. This paper reports the relative cost-effectiveness of these treatments in terms of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and improvements in fatigue and physical function.
Resource use was measured and costs calculated. Healthcare and societal costs (healthcare plus lost production and unpaid informal care) were combined with QALYs gained, and changes in fatigue and disability; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed.
SMC patients had significantly lower healthcare costs than those receiving APT, CBT and GET. If society is willing to value a QALY at £30,000 there is a 62.7% likelihood that CBT is the most cost-effective therapy, a 26.8% likelihood that GET is most cost effective, 2.6% that APT is most cost-effective and 7.9% that SMC alone is most cost-effective. Compared to SMC alone, the incremental healthcare cost per QALY was £18,374 for CBT, £23,615 for GET and £55,235 for APT. From a societal perspective CBT has a 59.5% likelihood of being the most cost-effective, GET 34.8%, APT 0.2% and SMC alone 5.5%. CBT and GET dominated SMC, while APT had a cost per QALY of £127,047. ICERs using reductions in fatigue and disability as outcomes largely mirrored these findings.
Comparing the four treatments using a health care perspective, CBT had the greatest probability of being the most cost-effective followed by GET. APT had a lower probability of being the most cost-effective option than SMC alone. The relative cost-effectiveness was even greater from a societal perspective as additional cost savings due to reduced need for informal care were likely.
Non-pharmacological behavioral treatments for CFS have been suggested as promising. These trials have tested protocols composed
of behavioral, cognitive and cognitive–behavioral interventions but there have been few efforts to differentially evaluate
their outcomes. The primary purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness of nurse delivered non-pharmacologic
interventions. In the present study, 114 participants diagnosed with CFS were randomly assigned to four 6-month interventions.
The interventions were: cognitive–behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, anaerobic activity, and a relaxation control group.
The study found that these interventions led to increases in several areas of functioning, with more consistent changes occurring
among those participants in the cognitive condition. For the 25 variables in this study, significant change occurred for 28%,
20%, 16%, and 12% of the variables for the cognitive, cognitive behavior therapy, anaerobic activity, and relaxation conditions,
respectively. However, the majority of participants continued to be diagnosed with CFS following the treatment trial. Implications
of these findings are discussed.
Across different medical fields, authors have placed a greater emphasis on the reporting of efficacy measures than harms in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), particularly of nonpharmacologic interventions. To rectify this situation, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group and other researchers have issued guidance to improve the reporting of harms. Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) based on increasing activity levels are often recommended for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS). However, exercise-related physiological abnormalities have been documented in recent studies and high rates of adverse reactions to exercise have been recorded in a number of patient surveys. Fifty-one percent of survey respondents (range 28-82%, n=4338, 8 surveys) reported that GET worsened their health while 20% of respondents (range 7-38%, n=1808, 5 surveys) reported similar results for CBT.
Using the CONSORT guidelines as a starting point, this paper identifies problems with the reporting of harms in previous RCTs and suggests potential strategies for improvement in the future. Issues involving the heterogeneity of subjects and interventions, tracking of adverse events, trial participants’ compliance to therapies, and measurement of harms using patient-oriented and objective outcome measures are discussed. The recently published PACE (Pacing, graded activity, and cognitive behaviour therapy: a randomised evaluation) trial which explicitly aimed to assess “safety”, as well as effectiveness, is also analysed in detail. Healthcare professionals, researchers and patients need high quality data on harms to appropriately assess the risks versus benefits of CBT and GET.
Trial findings show cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) can be effective treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome, but patients' organisations have reported that these treatments can be harmful and favour pacing and specialist health care. We aimed to assess effectiveness and safety of all four treatments.
In our parallel-group randomised trial, patients meeting Oxford criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome were recruited from six secondary-care clinics in the UK and randomly allocated by computer-generated sequence to receive specialist medical care (SMC) alone or with adaptive pacing therapy (APT), CBT, or GET. Primary outcomes were fatigue (measured by Chalder fatigue questionnaire score) and physical function (measured by short form-36 subscale score) up to 52 weeks after randomisation, and safety was assessed primarily by recording all serious adverse events, including serious adverse reactions to trial treatments. Primary outcomes were rated by participants, who were necessarily unmasked to treatment assignment; the statistician was masked to treatment assignment for the analysis of primary outcomes. We used longitudinal regression models to compare SMC alone with other treatments, APT with CBT, and APT with GET. The final analysis included all participants for whom we had data for primary outcomes. This trial is registered at http://isrctn.org, number ISRCTN54285094.
We recruited 641 eligible patients, of whom 160 were assigned to the APT group, 161 to the CBT group, 160 to the GET group, and 160 to the SMC-alone group. Compared with SMC alone, mean fatigue scores at 52 weeks were 3·4 (95% CI 1·8 to 5·0) points lower for CBT (p = 0·0001) and 3·2 (1·7 to 4·8) points lower for GET (p = 0·0003), but did not differ for APT (0·7 [-0·9 to 2·3] points lower; p = 0·38). Compared with SMC alone, mean physical function scores were 7·1 (2·0 to 12·1) points higher for CBT (p = 0·0068) and 9·4 (4·4 to 14·4) points higher for GET (p = 0·0005), but did not differ for APT (3·4 [-1·6 to 8·4] points lower; p=0·18). Compared with APT, CBT and GET were associated with less fatigue (CBT p = 0·0027; GET p = 0·0059) and better physical function (CBT p=0·0002; GET p<0·0001). Subgroup analysis of 427 participants meeting international criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome and 329 participants meeting London criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis yielded equivalent results. Serious adverse reactions were recorded in two (1%) of 159 participants in the APT group, three (2%) of 161 in the CBT group, two (1%) of 160 in the GET group, and two (1%) of 160 in the SMC-alone group.
CBT and GET can safely be added to SMC to moderately improve outcomes for chronic fatigue syndrome, but APT is not an effective addition.
UK Medical Research Council, Department of Health for England, Scottish Chief Scientist Office, Department for Work and Pensions.
In this randomized noninferiority study, the effectiveness and efficiency of stepped care for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was compared to care as usual. Stepped care was formed by guided self-instruction, followed by cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) if the patient desired it. Care as usual encompassed CBT after a waiting period.
A total of 171 CFS patients were randomly allocated to stepped care or care as usual. Patients in both conditions were assessed 3 times: at baseline, after guided self-instruction or the waiting period, and after CBT. The primary outcome variables were fatigue severity (Checklist Individual Strength) and disabilities (Sickness Impact Profile and Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36).
An intention to treat analysis showed that stepped care (N = 84) for CFS is noninferior to care as usual (N = 85). Both conditions were equivalent in reducing fatigue severity, reducing disabilities, and increasing physical functioning. The treatment results of both conditions were in accordance with those of previous randomized controlled trials testing the effectiveness of CBT for CFS. The total therapist time needed to treat a patient was significantly less in the stepped care condition.
Stepped care is as effective as CBT and is more time efficient for the therapist.
Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) is known to reduce fatigue severity in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). How this change in symptomatology is accomplished is not yet understood. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the effect of CBT on fatigue is mediated by an increase in physical activity.
Three randomized controlled trials were reanalysed, previously conducted to evaluate the efficacy of CBT for CFS. In all samples, actigraphy was used to assess the level of physical activity prior and subsequent to treatment or a control group period. The mediation hypothesis was analysed according to guidelines of Baron & Kenny [Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1986)51, 1173-1182]. A non-parametric bootstrap approach was used to test statistical significance of the mediation effect.
Although CBT effectively reduced fatigue, it did not change the level of physical activity. Furthermore, changes in physical activity were not related to changes in fatigue. Across the samples, the mean mediation effect of physical activity averaged about 1% of the total treatment effect. This effect did not yield significance in any of the samples.
The effect of CBT on fatigue in CFS is not mediated by a persistent increase in physical activity.
To evaluate the acceptability and efficacy of adding cognitive behaviour therapy to the medical care of patients presenting with the chronic fatigue syndrome.
Randomised controlled trial with final assessment at 12 months.
An infectious diseases outpatient clinic.
60 consecutively referred patients meeting consensus criteria for the chronic fatigue syndrome.
Medical care comprised assessment, advice, and follow up in general practice. Patients who received cognitive behaviour therapy were offered 16 individual weekly sessions in addition to their medical care.
The proportions of patients (a) who achieved normal daily functioning (Karnofsky score 80 or more) and (b) who achieved a clinically significant improvement in functioning (change in Karnofsky score 10 points or more) by 12 months after randomisation.
Only two eligible patients refused to participate. All randomised patients completed treatment. An intention to treat analysis showed that 73% (22/30) of recipients of cognitive behaviour therapy achieved a satisfactory outcome as compared with 27% (8/30) of patients who were given only medical care (difference 47 percentage points; 95% confidence interval 24 to 69). Similar differences were observed in subsidiary outcome measures. The improvement in disability among patients given cognitive behaviour therapy continued after completion of therapy. Illness beliefs and coping behaviour previously associated with a poor outcome changed more with cognitive behaviour therapy than with medical care alone.
Adding cognitive behaviour therapy to the medical care of patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome is acceptable to patients and leads to a sustained reduction in functional impairment.
This study evaluated the long-term outcome of cognitive behavior therapy versus relaxation therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome.
Sixty patients who participated in a randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavior therapy versus relaxation therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome were invited to complete self-rated measures and participate in a 5-year follow-up interview with an assessor who was blind to treatment type.
Fifty-three patients (88%) participated in the follow-up study: 25 received cognitive behavior therapy and 28 received relaxation therapy. A total of 68% of the patients who received cognitive behavior therapy and 36% who received relaxation therapy rated themselves as "much improved" or "very much improved" at the 5-year follow-up. Significantly more patients receiving cognitive behavior therapy, in relation to those in relaxation therapy, met criteria for complete recovery, were free of relapse, and experienced symptoms that had steadily improved or were consistently mild or absent since treatment ended. Similar proportions were employed, but patients in the cognitive behavior therapy group worked significantly more mean hours per week. Few patients crossed the threshold for "normal" fatigue, despite achieving a good outcome on other measures. Cognitive behavior therapy was positively evaluated and was still used by over 80% of the patients.
Cognitive behavior therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome can produce some lasting benefits but is not a cure. Once therapy ends, some patients have difficulty making further improvements. In the future, attention should be directed toward ensuring that gains are maintained and extended after regular treatment ends.
To investigate whether 12 weeks of graded exercise with pacing would improve specific physiological, psychological and cognitive functions in people with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).
Randomised controlled trial.
Human performance laboratory at the University of Western Australia.
61 patients aged between 16 and 74 years diagnosed with CFS.
Either graded exercise with pacing (32 patients) or relaxation/flexibility therapy (29 patients) performed twice a day over 12 weeks.
Changes in any of the physiological, psychological or cognitive variables assessed.
Following the graded exercise intervention, scores were improved for resting systolic blood pressure (P = 0.018), work capacity (W.kg(-1)) (P = 0.019), net blood lactate production (P = 0.036), depression (P = 0.027) and performance on a modified Stroop Colour Word test (P = 0.029). Rating of perceived exertion scores, associated with an exercise test, was lower after graded exercise (P = 0.013). No such changes were observed in the relaxation/flexibility condition, which served as an attention-placebo control.
Graded exercise was associated with improvements in physical work capacity, as well as in specific psychological and cognitive variables. Improvements may be associated with the abandonment of avoidance behaviours.
Objectives:
To test the hypothesis that group cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) will produce an effective and cost-effective management strategy for patients in primary care with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalopathy (CFS/ME).
Design:
A double-blind, randomised controlled trial was adopted with three arms. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 6 and 12 months after first assessment and results were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.
Setting:
A health psychology department for the management of chronic illness in a general hospital in Bristol, UK.
Participants:
Adults with a diagnosis of CFS/ME referred by their GP.
Interventions:
The three interventions were group CBT incorporating graded activity scheduling, education and support group (EAS) and standard medical care (SMC).
Outcome measures:
The primary outcome measure was the Short Form with 36 Items (SF-36) physical and mental health summary scales. Other outcome measures included the Chalder fatigue scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, General Health Questionnaire, physical function (shuttles walked, walking speed and perceived fatigue), health utilities index and cognitive function (mood, recall and reaction times).
Results:
A total of 153 patients were recruited to the trial and 52 were randomised to receive CBT, 50 to EAS and 51 to SMC. Twelve patients failed to attend for the 12-month follow-up and 19 patients attended one follow-up, but not both. The sample was found to be representative of the patient group and the characteristics of the three groups were similar at baseline. Three outcome measures, SF-36 mental health score, Chalder fatigue scale and walking speed, showed statistically significant differences between the groups. Patients in the CBT group had significantly higher mental health scores [difference +4.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) +0.72 to +7.97, p = 0.019], less fatigue (difference -2.61, 95% CI -4.92 to -0.30, p = 0.027) and were able to walk faster (difference +2.83 shuttles, 95% CI +1.12 to +5.53, p = 0.0013) than patients in the SMC group. CBT patients also walked faster and were less fatigued than those randomised to EAS (walking speed: difference +1.77, 95% CI +0.025 to +3.51, p = 0.047; fatigue: difference -3.16, 95% CI -5.59 to -0.74, p = 0.011). Overall, no other statistically significant difference across the groups was found, although for many measures a trend towards an improved outcome with CBT was seen. Except for walking speed, which, on average, increased by +0.87 shuttles (95% CI +0.09 to +1.65, p = 0.029) between the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, the scores were similar at 6 and 12 months. At baseline, 30% of patients had an SF-36 physical score within the normal range and 52% had an SF-36 mental health score in the normal range. At 12 months, the physical score was in the normal range for 46% of the CBT group, 26% of the EAS group and 44% of SMC patients. For mental health score the percentages were CBT 74%, EAS 67% and SMC 70%. Of the CBT group, 32% showed at least a 15% increase in physical function and 64% achieved a similar improvement in their mental health. For the EAS and SMC groups, this improvement in physical and mental health was achieved for 40 and 60% (EAS) and 49 and 53% (SMC), respectively. The cost-effectiveness of the intervention proved very difficult to assess and did not yield reliable conclusions.
Conclusions:
Group CBT did not achieve the expected change in the primary outcome measure as a significant number did not achieve scores within the normal range post-intervention. The treatment did not return a significant number of subjects to within the normal range on this domain; however, significant improvements were evident in some areas. Group CBT was effective in treating symptoms of fatigue, mood and physical fitness in CFS/ME. It was found to be as effective as trials using individual therapy in these domains. However, it did not bring about improvement in cognitive function or quality of life. There was also evidence of improvement in the EAS group, which indicates that there is limited value in the non-specific effects of therapy. Further research is needed to develop better outcome measures, assessments of the broader costs of the illness and a clearer picture of the characteristics best fitted to this type of intervention.
In their response to Geraghty, the PACE investigators state that they have “repeatedly addressed” the various methodological concerns raised about the trial. While this is true, these responses have repeatedly failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the trial’s very serious flaws. This commentary examines how the current response once again demonstrates the ways in which the investigators avoid acknowledging the obvious problems with PACE and offer non-answers instead—arguments that fall apart quickly under scrutiny.
The continued critiques of the PACE trial highlight how differing beliefs about the causes of chronic fatigue syndrome still influence how scientific studies in this area are accepted and evaluated. Causal beliefs about chronic fatigue syndrome and a modern version of Cartesian dualism are important in understanding the reaction to the PACE trial. The continued debate on the PACE trial seems to miss the fact that science is incremental. An unfortunate outcome of the PACE controversy and intimidation of researchers may be less research in the area. It is time to move on from criticism and collect more data on effective treatments.
Background:
Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a debilitating multisystem condition affecting more than 1 million adults in the United States.
Purpose:
To determine benefits and harms of treatments for adults with ME/CFS and identify future research needs.
Data sources:
MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases (January 1988 to September 2014); clinical trial registries; reference lists; and manufacturer information.
Study selection:
English-language randomized trials of the effectiveness and adverse effects of ME/CFS treatments.
Data extraction:
Data on participants, study design, analysis, follow-up, and results were extracted and confirmed. Study quality was dual-rated by using prespecified criteria; discrepancies were resolved through consensus.
Data synthesis:
Among 35 treatment trials enrolling participants primarily meeting the 1994 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Oxford case definitions of CFS, the immune modulator rintatolimod improved some measures of exercise performance compared with placebo in 2 trials (low strength of evidence). Trials of galantamine, hydrocortisone, IgG, valganciclovir, isoprinosine, fluoxetine, and various complementary medicines were inconclusive (insufficient evidence). Counseling therapies and graded exercise therapy compared with no treatment, relaxation, or support improved fatigue, function, global improvement, and work impairment in some trials; counseling therapies also improved quality of life (low to moderate strength of evidence). Harms were rarely reported across studies (insufficient evidence).
Limitation:
Trials were heterogeneous and were limited by size, number, duration, applicability, and methodological quality.
Conclusion:
Trials of rintatolimod, counseling therapies, and graded exercise therapy suggest benefit for some patients meeting case definitions for CFS, whereas evidence for other treatments and harms is insufficient. More definitive studies comparing participants meeting different case definitions, including ME, and providing subgroup analysis are needed to fill research gaps.
Background:
Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) added to specialist medical care (SMC), or graded exercise therapy (GET) added to SMC, are more effective in reducing fatigue and improving physical function than both adaptive pacing therapy (APT) plus SMC and SMC alone for chronic fatigue syndrome. We investigate putative treatment mechanisms.
Methods:
We did a planned secondary mediation analysis of the PACE trial comparing SMC alone or SMC plus APT with SMC plus CBT and SMC plus GET for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. 641 participants were recruited from six specialist chronic fatigue syndrome clinics in the UK National Health Service between March 18, 2005, and Nov 28, 2008. We assessed mediation using the product of coefficients method with the 12 week measure of the mediators and the 52 week measure of the outcomes. The primary outcomes were fatigue measured by the Chalder fatigue scale and physical function measured by the physical function subscale of the SF-36. We included confounder covariates and used treatment by mediator interaction terms to examine differences in mediator-outcome relations by treatment group.
Findings:
The largest mediated effect for both CBT and GET and both primary outcomes was through fear avoidance beliefs with an effect of larger magnitude for GET (standardised effects ×10, CBT vs APT, fatigue -1.22, 95% CI -0.52 to -1.97, physical function 1.54, 0.86 to 2.31; GET vs APT, fatigue -1.86, -0.80 to -2.89, physical function 2.35, 1.35 to 3.39). Increase in exercise tolerance (6 min walk distance) was a potent mediator of the effect of GET (vs APT, fatigue -1.37, 95% CI -0.76 to -2.21, physical function 1.90, 1.10 to 2.91), but not CBT.
Interpretation:
Our main finding was that fear avoidance beliefs were the strongest mediator for both CBT and GET. Changes in both beliefs and behaviour mediated the effects of both CBT and GET, but more so for GET. The results support a treatment model in which both beliefs and behaviour play a part in perpetuating fatigue and disability in chronic fatigue syndrome.
Funding:
UK Medical Research Council, Department of Health for England, Scottish Chief Scientist Office, Department for Work and Pensions, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, and Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London.
Psychopharmacology and psychotherapy are the two main therapies in mental health. It is common practice to consider adverse events (AEs) of medications, but it's not clear this occurs with psychotherapy.
his study investigates the frequency with which reports of AEs occur in clinical trials using either psychopharmacology alone, psychotherapy alone, or combined approaches.
Forty-five articles of randomized trials published in high-impact journals were chosen from a Medline search, and separated into three groups of 15 articles: pharmacotherapy alone (M), psychotherapy alone (T) and combined studies that looked at the effect of both a psychotherapeutic (CT) and psychopharmacologic (CM) intervention. Criteria for what defines an AE were established and the papers were rated for mentions of AEs in papers as a whole and by each section.
The χ(2)-analysis of AE mentions showed significant differences between the four study conditions in terms of each paper as a whole (χ(2):10.1,p<0.018), and by section. Medication (M+CM) and psychotherapy papers (T+CT) were then combined into two groups to compare the odds that one was more likely to mention AEs than the other. Bivariate logistic regression yielded statistically significant odds ratios ranging from 9.33 to 20.99, with medications being far more likely to mention AEs.
We believe the difference in reports of AEs mirrors the attitudes researchers and providers. It's critical to consider, and standardize the definition of, AEs in psychotherapy, and imperative to identify and address potential AEs in psychotherapy research.
The present pilot study was designed to test the effects of a 12-week group-based cognitive behavioral stress management (CBSM) intervention on stress, quality of life, and symptoms in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). We hypothesized that participants randomized to CBSM would report improvements in perceived stress, mood, quality of life, and CFS symptomatology from pre- to postintervention compared to those receiving a psychoeducational (PE) seminar control.
We recruited 69 persons with a bona fide diagnosis of CFS and randomized 44 to CBSM and 25 to PE. Participants completed the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Profile of Mood States (POMS), Quality of Life Inventory (QOLI), and a Centers for Disease Control (CDC)-based CFS symptom checklist pre- and postintervention.
Repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a significant Group×Time interaction for PSS, POMS-total mood disturbance (TMD), and QOLI scores, such that participants in CBSM evidenced greater improvements than those in PE. Participants in CBSM also reported decreases in severity of CFS symptoms vs. those in PE.
Results suggest that CBSM is beneficial for managing distress, improving quality of life, and alleviating CFS symptom severity.
Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) produces physical and neurocognitive disability that significantly affects health-related quality of life (HRQL). Multidisciplinary treatment combining graded exercise therapy (GET) cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and pharmacological treatment has shown only short-term improvements. To compare the effects on HRQL of (1) multidisciplinary treatment combining CBT, GET, and pharmacological treatment, and (2) usual treatment (exercise counselling and pharmacological treatment) at 12 months of follow-up. Prospective, randomized controlled trial with a follow-up of 12 months after the end of treatment. Patients consecutively diagnosed with CFS (Fukuda criteria) were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 60) or usual treatment (n = 60) groups. HRQL was assessed at baseline and 12 months by the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form questionnaire (SF-36). Secondary outcomes included functional capacity for activities of daily living measured by the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and comorbidities. At baseline, the two groups were similar, except for lower SF-36 emotional role scores in the intervention group. At 12 months, the intervention did not improve HRQL scores, with worse SF-36 physical function and bodily pain scores in the intervention group. Multidisciplinary treatment was not superior to usual treatment at 12 months in terms of HRQL. The possible benefits of GET as part of multidisciplinary treatment for CFS should be assessed on an individual patient basis.
Rationale, aims and objectives The research community has for more than three decades tried to unravel the diagnostic mystery that is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). This has resulted in considerable amounts of time and money being invested in attempts aimed at establishing the aetiology and pathogenesis of CFS. All of this investment has produced evidence of an interesting variety of endocrine, immune, infectious, muscular and neurological abnormalities in CFS; however, the cause remains elusive. The absence of a known causative agent or diagnostic test for CFS has resulted in the development of a number of CFS case definitions. As such, the main objectives of this paper are to provide a critical review of the similarities and differences between the varying approaches to CFS case definition. The conflicts and controversies that have emerged as a result of the differing definitional criterion for CFS are highlighted and the potential impact on future research is identified.
Methods, results and conclusions This paper presents a critical review of the most frequently used case definitions in CFS. There are currently five case definitions of CFS; however, the most prominent and widely used of these definitions is the 1994 Centre for Disease Control and Prevention Case Definitions. However, the pre-eminence of this definition over the others has never been substantiated and it has been widely criticized for its lack of specificity. Furthermore, none of the above case definitions have produced evidence to demonstrate their accuracy or precision at defining cases of CFS. A summary description of the symptom profile included in each of the case definitions is provided. The inconsistencies that have emerged in CFS research as a consequence of differing approaches to case definition are also highlighted and discussed.
Myalgic encephalomyelitis is a common disability but frequently misinterpreted. Amongst 6,000 patients referred for general microbiological diagnosis between 1975 and 1987, 420 cases were recognized. Coxsackie B neutralization tests, in 205 of these, demonstrated significant titres in 103/205 (50%), while of 124 additionally investigated for enteroviral IgM, 38/124 (31%) were positive. This illness is distinguished from a variety of other post-viral states by an unique clinical and epidemiological pattern characteristic of enteroviral infection. Prompt recognition and advice to avoid over-exertion is mandatory. Routine diagnosis, specific therapy and prevention, await further technical advances.
To test the efficacy of a graded aerobic exercise programme in the chronic fatigue syndrome.
Randomised controlled trial with control treatment crossover after the first follow up examination.
Chronic fatigue clinic in a general hospital department of psychiatry.
66 patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome who had neither a psychiatric disorder nor appreciable sleep disturbance.
Random allocation to 12 weeks of either graded aerobic exercise or flexibility exercises and relaxation therapy. Patients who completed the flexibility programme were invited to cross over to the exercise programme afterwards.
The self rated clinical global impression change score, "very much better" or "much better" being considered as clinically important.
Four patients receiving exercise and three receiving flexibility treatment dropped out before completion. 15 of 29 patients rated themselves as better after completing exercise treatment compared with eight of 30 patients who completed flexibility treatment. Analysis by intention to treat gave similar results (17/33 v 9/33 patients better). Fatigue, functional capacity, and fitness were significantly better after exercise than after flexibility treatment. 12 of 22 patients who crossed over to exercise after flexibility treatment rated themselves as better after completing exercise treatment 32 of 47 patients rated themselves as better three months after completing supervised exercise treatment 35 of 47 patients rated themselves as better one year after completing supervised exercise treatment.
These findings support the use of appropriately prescribed graded aerobic exercise in the management of patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome.
Longitudinal studies have shown that physical illness attributions are associated with poor prognosis in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Speculation exists over whether such attributions influence treatment outcome. This study reports the effect of illness beliefs on outcome in a randomized controlled trial of cognitive-behavior therapy versus relaxation. Causal attributions and beliefs about exercise, activity, and rest were recorded before and after treatment in 60 CFS patients recruited to the trial. Physical illness attributions were widespread, did not change with treatment, and were not associated with poor outcome in either the cognitive-behavior therapy group or the control group. Beliefs about avoidance of exercise and activity changed in the cognitive behavior therapy group, but not in the control group. This change was associated with improved outcome. These findings suggest that physical illness attributions are less important in determining outcome (at least in treatment studies) than has been previously thought. In this study, good outcome is associated with change in avoidance behavior, and related beliefs, rather than causal attributions.
Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) seems a promising treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but the applicability of this treatment outside specialised settings has been questioned. We compared CBT with guided support groups and the natural course in a randomised trial at three centres.
Of 476 patients diagnosed with CFS, 278 were eligible and willing to take part. 93 were randomly assigned CBT (administered by 13 therapists recently trained in this technique for CFS), 94 were assigned the support-group approach, and 91 the control natural course. Multidimensional assessments were done at baseline, 8 months, and 14 months. The primary outcome variables were fatigue severity (on the checklist individual strength) and functional impairment (on the sickness impact profile) at 8 and 14 months. Data were analysed by intention to treat.
241 patients had complete data (83 CBT, 80 support groups, 78 natural course) at 8 months. At 14 months CBT was significantly more effective than both control conditions for fatigue severity (CBT vs support groups 5.8 [2.2-9.4]; CBT vs natural course 5.6 [2.1-9.0]) and for functional impairment (CBT vs support groups 263 [38-488]; CBT vs natural course 222 [3-441]). Support groups were not more effective for CFS patients than the natural course. Among the CBT group, clinically significant improvement was seen in fatigue severity for 20 of 58 (35%), in Karnofsky performance status for 28 of 57 (49%), and self-rated improvement for 29 of 58 (50%). Prognostic factors for outcome after CBT were a higher sense of control predicting more improvement, and a passive activity pattern and focusing on bodily symptoms predicting less improvement.
CBT was more effective than guided support groups and the natural course in a multicentre trial with many therapists. Our study showed a lower proportion of patients with improvement than CBT trials with a few highly skilled therapists.
The aim of this study was to investigate the potential mechanisms underlying the efficacy of graded exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Forty-nine CFS patients were randomized to a 12-week graded exercise programme or to standard medical care. At the end of treatment the exercise group rated themselves as significantly more improved and less fatigued than the control group. A decrease in symptom focusing rather than an increase in fitness mediated the treatment effect. Graded exercise appears to be an effective treatment for CFS and it operates in part by reducing the degree to which patients focus on their symptoms.
Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome
- L Larun
- K G Brunberg
- J Odgaard-Jensen
Larun L, Brunberg KG, Odgaard-Jensen J, et al.
(2017) Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome. Cochrane Library 4: CD003200.
Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome
and Prevention (CDC)
(2018) Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic
fatigue syndrome. Available at: https://www.
cdc.gov/me-cfs/index.html
(accessed
21
February 2018).
Myalgische Encefalomyelitis (ME)
The Health Council of the Netherlands (2018)
Myalgische Encefalomyelitis (ME). Available
at:
https://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/nl/taakwerkwijze/werkterrein/optimale-gezondheidszorg/mecvs (accessed 21 March 2018).