Category: Clinical Trial

Chronic fatigue syndrome patients have no reason to accept the PACE trial results: Response to Keith J Petrie and John Weinman

Abstract:

Petrie and Weinman urge chronic fatigue syndrome patients to move on from their beliefs about their illness and accept the findings of the PACE trial. This is unreasonable in view of the failure of PACE to achieve evidence of recovery through cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise therapy in either self-reports or the objective measure of the 6-minute walking test. Contrary to their suggestion, the Institute of Medicine describes chronic fatigue syndrome not as psychological but as a serious, chronic, systemic disease, with post-exertional malaise as its main feature which inhibits exercise. Linking debate about PACE with intimidation of researchers is unjustifiable and damaging to patients.

Source: Susanna Agardy. Chronic fatigue syndrome patients have no reason to accept the PACE trial results: Response to Keith J Petrie and John Weinman. Journal of Health Psychology. First Published June 27, 2017. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1359105317715476 (Full article)

Defense of the PACE trial is based on argumentation fallacies

Abstract:

In defense of the PACE trial, Petrie and Weinman employ a series of misleading or fallacious argumentation techniques, including circularity, blaming the victim, bait and switch, non-sequitur, setting up a straw person, guilt by association, red herring, and the parade of horribles. These are described and explained.

Petrie and Weinman (2017) devote fewer than three pages to their defense of the PACE trial, but they nonetheless manage to employ a virtual catalog of misleading or fallacious argumentation techniques. These include circularity, blaming the victim, bait and switch, non-sequitur, setting up a straw person, guilt by association, red herring, and the parade of horribles. Sometimes they engage multiple fallacies in a single paragraph, as I shall explain seriatim.

Source: Steven Lubet. Defense of the PACE trial is based on argumentation fallacies. Journal of Health Psychology. First Published June 14, 2017 Editorial. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317712523 (Full article)

Further commentary on the PACE trial: Biased methods and unreliable outcomes

Abstract:

Geraghty in the year 2016, outlines a range of controversies surrounding publication of results from the PACE trial and discusses a freedom of information case brought by a patient refused access to data from the trial. The PACE authors offer a response, writing ‘Dr Geraghty’s views are based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the PACE trial’. This article draws on expert commentaries to further detail the critical methodological failures and biases identified in the PACE trial, which undermine the reliability and credibility of the major findings to emerge from this trial.

Source: Keith J Geraghty. Further commentary on the PACE trial: Biased methods and unreliable outcomes. Journal of Health Psychology, First Published June 14, 2017 Editorial. http://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/iXpCNJk6zd34nFpSy4NK/full (Full article)

Bias, misleading information and lack of respect for alternative views have distorted perceptions of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and its treatment

Abstract:

The PACE trial is one of the most recent studies evaluating cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. These interventions are based on a model which assumes that symptoms are perpetuated by factors such as misguided beliefs and a lack of activity. Our analysis indicates that the researchers have shown significant bias in their accounts of the literature and may also have overstated the effectiveness of the above treatments. We submit that their approach to criticisms undermines the scientific process and is inconsistent with best practice.

Source: Ellen Goudsmit, Sandra Howes. Bias, misleading information and lack of respect for alternative views have distorted perceptions of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and its treatment. Jounral of Health Psychology. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1359105317707216?journalCode=hpqa

Once again, the PACE authors respond to concerns with empty answers

Abstract:

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.

Source: David Tuller. Once again, the PACE authors respond to concerns with empty answers. Journal of Health Psychology. First Published April 27, 2017. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317703788 (Full article)

PACE investigators’ response is misleading regarding patient survey results

Abstract:

The PACE investigators’ citation of a patient survey might mislead readers into thinking that the experience of people with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) supports PACE findings. In fact, patient survey evidence directly contradicts the results of the PACE trial. A review of survey data published between 2001 and 2015 reveals that for most patients, graded exercise therapy leads to worsening of symptoms, cognitive behavioural therapy leads to no change in symptoms, and pacing leads to improvement. The experience of people with ME/CFS as reflected in surveys is a rich source of information, made more compelling by the consistency of results. Consequently, patient survey evidence can be used to inform practice, research and guidelines. Misrepresentation of patient experience must be vigorously challenged, to ensure that patients and health professionals make decisions about therapies based on accurate information.

Source: Karen D. Kirke. PACE investigators’ response is misleading regarding patient survey results. Journal of Health Psychology. First Published May 11, 2017. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317703787 (Full article)

Randomised controlled trial of online continuing education for health professionals to improve the management of chronic fatigue syndrome: a study protocol

Abstract:

INTRODUCTION: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a serious and debilitating illness that affects between 0.2%-2.6% of the world's population. Although there is level 1 evidence of the benefit of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) for some people with CFS, uptake of these interventions is low or at best untimely. This can be partly attributed to poor clinician awareness and knowledge of CFS and related CBT and GET interventions. This trial aims to evaluate the effect of participation in an online education programme, compared with a wait-list control group, on allied health professionals' knowledge about evidence-based CFS interventions and their levels of confidence to engage in the dissemination of these interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised controlled trial consisting of 180 consenting allied health professionals will be conducted. Participants will be randomised into an intervention group (n=90) that will receive access to the online education programme, or a wait-list control group (n=90). The primary outcomes will be: 1) knowledge and clinical reasoning skills regarding CFS and its management, measured at baseline, postintervention and follow-up, and 2) self-reported confidence in knowledge and clinical reasoning skills related to CFS. Secondary outcomes include retention of knowledge and satisfaction with the online education programme. The influence of the education programme on clinical practice behaviour, and self-reported success in the management of people with CFS, will also be assessed in a cohort study design with participants from the intervention and control groups combined.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at The University of New South Wales (approval number HC16419). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal articles and presentations at scientific conferences and meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12616000296437.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Source: Li SH, Sandler CX1, Casson SM, Cassar J, Bogg T, Lloyd AR, Barry BK. Randomised controlled trial of online continuing education for health professionals to improve the management of chronic fatigue syndrome: a study protocol. BMJ Open. 2017 May 10;7(5):e014133. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014133. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28495811

Do graded activity therapies cause harm in chronic fatigue syndrome?

Abstract:

Reporting of harms was much better in the PACE (Pacing, graded Activity, and Cognitive behavioural therapy: a randomised Evaluation) trial than earlier chronic fatigue syndrome trials of graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy. However, some issues remain. The trial’s poor results on objective measures of fitness suggest a lack of adherence to the activity component of these therapies. Therefore, the safety findings may not apply in other clinical contexts. Outside of clinical trials, many patients report deterioration with cognitive behavioural therapy and particularly graded exercise therapy. Also, exercise physiology studies reveal abnormalities in chronic fatigue syndrome patients’ responses to exertion. Given these considerations, one cannot conclude that these interventions are safe and risk-free.

 

Source: Tom Kindlon. Do graded activity therapies cause harm in chronic fatigue syndrome? Journal of Health Psychology. March 20, 2017. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317697323 (Full article)

 

The problem of bias in behavioural intervention studies: Lessons from the PACE trial

Abstract:

Geraghty’s recent editorial on the PACE trial for chronic fatigue syndrome has stimulated a lively discussion. Here, I consider whether the published claims are justified by the data. I also discuss wider issues concerning trial procedures, researcher allegiance and participant reporting bias. Cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy had modest, time-limited effects on self-report measures, but little effect on more objective measures such as fitness and employment status. Given that the trial was non-blinded, and the favoured treatments were promoted to participants as ‘highly effective’, these effects may reflect participant response bias. In non-blinded trials, the issue of reporting biases deserves greater attention in future.

 

Source: Carolyn Wilshire. The problem of bias in behavioural intervention studies: Lessons from the PACE trial. Journal of Health Psychology. First published date: March-23-2017. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317700885 (Full article)

 

PACE team response shows a disregard for the principles of science. Journal of Health Psychology

Abstract:

The PACE trial of cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis has raised serious questions about research methodology. An editorial article by Geraghty gives a fair account of the problems involved, if anything understating the case. The response by White et al. fails to address the key design flaw, of an unblinded study with subjective outcome measures, apparently demonstrating a lack of understanding of basic trial design requirements. The failure of the academic community to recognise the weakness of trials of this type suggests that a major overhaul of quality control is needed.

 

Source: Jonathan Edwards. PACE team response shows a disregard for the principles of science. Journal of Health Psychology. First published date: March-28-2017. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317700886 (Full article)