Peter D White’s research while affiliated with The University of Sheffield and other places

Background Two million people in the UK are living with or beyond cancer and a third of them report poor quality of life (QoL) due to problems such as fatigue, fear of cancer recurrence, and concerns about returning to work. We aimed to develop and evaluate an intervention based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), suited to address the concerns of cancer survivors and in improving their QoL. We also recognise the importance of exercise and vocational activity on QoL and therefore will integrate options for physical activity and return to work/vocational support, thus ACT Plus (+). Methods We will conduct a multi-centre, pragmatic, theory driven, randomised controlled trial. We will assess whether ACT+ including usual aftercare (intervention) is more effective and cost-effective than usual aftercare alone (control). The primary outcome is QoL of participants living with or beyond cancer measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General scale (FACT-G) at 52 weeks. We will recruit 344 participants identified from secondary care sites who have completed hospital-based treatment for cancer with curative intent, with low QoL (determined by the FACT-G) and randomise with an allocation ratio of 1:1 to the intervention or control. The intervention (ACT+) will be delivered by NHS Talking Therapies, specialist services, and cancer charities. The intervention consists of up to eight sessions at weekly or fortnightly intervals using different modalities of delivery to suit individual needs, i.e. face-to-face sessions, over the phone or skype. Discussion To date, there have been no robust trials reporting both clinical and cost-effectiveness of an ACT based intervention for people with low QoL after curative cancer treatment in the UK. We will provide high quality evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding ACT+ to usual aftercare provided by the NHS. If shown to be effective and cost-effective then commissioners, providers and cancer charities will know how to improve QoL in cancer survivors and their families. Trial registration ISRCTN: ISRCTN67900293. Registered on 09 December 2019. All items from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set for this protocol can be found in Additional file 2 Table S1.

Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a disabling long-term condition of unknown cause. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published a guideline in 2021 that highlighted the seriousness of the condition, but also recommended that graded exercise therapy (GET) should not be used and cognitive–behavioural therapy should only be used to manage symptoms and reduce distress, not to aid recovery. This U-turn in recommendations from the previous 2007 guideline is controversial. We suggest that the controversy stems from anomalies in both processing and interpretation of the evidence by the NICE committee. The committee: (1) created a new definition of CFS/ME, which ‘downgraded’ the certainty of trial evidence; (2) omitted data from standard trial end points used to assess efficacy; (3) discounted trial data when assessing treatment harm in favour of lower quality surveys and qualitative studies; (4) minimised the importance of fatigue as an outcome; (5) did not use accepted practices to synthesise trial evidence adequately using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations trial evidence); (6) interpreted GET as mandating fixed increments of change when trials defined it as collaborative, negotiated and symptom dependent; (7) deviated from NICE recommendations of rehabilitation for related conditions, such as chronic primary pain and (8) recommended an energy management approach in the absence of supportive research evidence. We conclude that the dissonance between this and the previous guideline was the result of deviating from usual scientific standards of the NICE process. The consequences of this are that patients may be denied helpful treatments and therefore risk persistent ill health and disability.

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), sometimes referred to as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) and often as CFS/ME, is an illness characterized by disabling fatigue and other symptoms, typically worsened by activity. The main evidence-based treatments are rehabilitative in nature and include specific types of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET). In this article, we briefly review the evidence for their safety and effectiveness and propose that much of the controversy about them arises from misunderstandings about their nature and delivery. In particular, we emphasize that successful rehabilitation from CFS/ME does not indicate that the illness is not real. We recommend that rehabilitative treatment always be preceded by a thorough clinical assessment and delivered by appropriately trained therapists working in close collaboration with the patient. We conclude that properly applied rehabilitative treatments offer the best hope of safely improving fatigue and function for patients with CFS/ME. However, we also recognize the need for more research into the treatment of this neglected condition, especially for those most severely disabled by it.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to identify the most appropriate measure of quality of life (QoL) for patients living with and beyond cancer. Methods: One hundred eighty-two people attending cancer clinics in Central London at various stages post-treatment, completed a series of QoL measures: FACT-G, EORTC QLQ-C30 , IOCv2 (positive and negative subscales) and WEMWBS, a wellbeing measure. These measures were chosen as the commonest measures used in previous research. Correlation tests were used to assess the association between scales. Participants were also asked about pertinence and ease of completion. Results: There was a significant positive correlation between the four domain scores of the two health-related QoL measures (.32 ≤ r ≤ .72, P < .001), and a significant large negative correlation between these and the negative IOCv2 subscale scores (- .39 ≤ r ≤ - .63, P < .001). There was a significant moderate positive correlation between positive IOCv2 subscale and WEMWBS scores (r = .35, P < .001). However, neither the FACT-G nor the EORTC showed any significant correlation with the positive IOCv2 subscale. Participants rated all measures similarly with regards to pertinence and ease of use. Conclusion: There was little to choose between FACT-G, EORTC, and the negative IOC scales, any of which may be used to measure QoL. However, the two IOCv2 subscales capture unique aspects of QoL compared to the other measures. The IOCv2 can be used to identify those cancer survivors who would benefit from interventions to improve their QoL and to target specific needs thereby providing more holistic and personalised care beyond cancer treatment.

Introduction: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and fibromyalgia (FM) are both complex conditions that are challenging to treat. This may be related to an incomplete understanding of their pathophysiology, itself obfuscated by their heterogeneity. The symptomatic overlap between them and their common comorbidity suggests a shared vulnerability, which might be explained by central sensitisation. Methods: 19 CFS cases, 19 FM cases and 20 age and sex matched healthy controls (HC) were recruited primarily from secondary care clinics in London. Those with other pain disorders, psychiatric diagnoses and those taking centrally acting or opiate medications were excluded. Participants were asked to abstain from alcohol and over the counter analgaesia 48 h prior to assessment by static and dynamic quantitative sensory tests, including measures of temporal summation (TS) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Results: CS, as defined by the presence of both enhanced TS and inefficient CPM, was present in 16 (84%) CFS cases, 18 (95%) FM cases, and none of the HC (p < 0.001). Pressure pain thresholds were lower in CFS (Median222kPaIQR 146-311; p = 0.04) and FM cases (Median 189 kPa; IQR 129-272; p = 0.003) compared to HC (Median 311 kPa; IQR 245-377). FM cases differed from HC in cold-induced (FM = 22.6 °C (15.3-27.7) vs HC = 14.2 °C (9.0-20.5); p = 0.01) and heat-induced (FM = 38.0 °C (35.2-44.0) vs HC = 45.3 °C (40.1-46.8); p = 0.03) pain thresholds, where CFS cases did not. Conclusion: Central sensitisation may be a common endophenotype in chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. Further research should address whether central sensitisation is a cause or effect of these disorders.

Objective The GETSET trial found that guided graded exercise self-help (GES) improved fatigue and physical functioning more than specialist medical care (SMC) alone in adults with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) 12-weeks after randomisation. In this paper, we assess the longer-term clinical and health economic outcomes. Methods GETSET was a randomised controlled trial of 211 UK secondary care patients with CFS. Primary outcomes were the Chalder fatigue questionnaire and the physical functioning subscale of the short-form-36 survey. Postal questionnaires assessed the primary outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the intervention 12-months after randomisation. Service costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were combined in a cost-effectiveness analysis. Results Between January 2014 and March 2016, 164 (78%) participants returned questionnaires 15-months after randomisation. Results showed no main effect of intervention arm on fatigue (chi²(1) = 4.8, p = 0.03) or physical functioning (chi²(1) = 1.3, p = 0.25), adjusting for multiplicity. No other intervention arm or time*arm effect was significant. The short-term fatigue reduction was maintained at long-term follow-up for participants assigned to GES, with improved fatigue from short- to long-term follow up after SMC, such that the groups no longer differed. Healthcare costs were £85 higher for GES and produced more QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £4802 per QALY. Conclusions The short-term improvements after GES were maintained at long-term follow-up, with further improvement in the SMC group such that the groups no longer differed at long-term follow-up. The cost per QALY for GES compared to SMC alone was below the usual threshold indicating cost-effectiveness, but with uncertainty around the result.