Category: Clinical Trial

Special issue on the PACE Trial

Abstract:

We are proud that this issue marks a special contribution by the Journal of Health Psychology to the literature concerning interventions to manage adaptation to chronic health problems. The PACE Trial debate reveals deeply embedded differences between critics and investigators. It reveals an unwillingness of the co-principal investigators of the PACE trial to engage in authentic discussion and debate. It leads one to question the wisdom of such a large investment from the public purse (£5 million) on what is a textbook example of a poorly done trial.

Source: David Marks. Special issue on the PACE Trial. Journal of Health Psychology. Vol 22, Issue 9, 2017. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317722370 (Full article)

Influence of morphine and naloxone on pain modulation in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Fibromyalgia and controls: a double blind randomized placebo-controlled cross-over study

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Impaired pain inhibitory and enhanced pain facilitatory mechanisms are repeatedly reported in patients with central sensitization pain. However, the exact effects of frequently prescribed opioids on central pain modulation are still unknown.

METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over trial was carried out. Ten CFS/FM patients, 11 RA patients and 20 controls were randomly allocated to the experimental (10 mg morphine or 0.2 mg/ml Naloxone) and placebo (2 ml Aqua) group. Pressure Pain Thresholds (PPTs) and temporal summation at the Trapezius and Quadriceps were assessed by algometry. Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM) efficacy and Deep Tissue Pain pressure were assessed by adding ischemic occlusion at the opposite upper arm.

RESULTS: Deep Tissue Pain pressure was lower and temporal summation higher in CFS/FM (p=0.002 respectively p=0.010) and RA patients (p=0.011 respectively p=0.047) compared to controls at baseline. Morphine had only a positive effect on PPTs in both patient groups (p time =0.034). Accordingly, PPTs increased after placebo, and no effects on the other pain parameters were objectified. There were no significant effects of naloxone nor nocebo on PPT, Deep Tissue Pain, temporal summation or CPM in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed anti-hyperalgesia effects of morphine in CFS/FM and RA patients. Nevertheless, these effects were comparable to placebo. Besides, neither morphine nor naloxone influenced Deep Tissue Pain, temporal summation or CPM. Therefore, these results suggest that the opioid system is not dominant in (enhanced) bottom-up sensitization (temporal summation) or (impaired) endogenous pain inhibition (CPM) in patients with CFS/FM or RA.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Source: Hermans L, Nijs J, Calders P, De Clerck L, Moorkens G, Hans G, Grosemans S, Roman De Mettelinge T, Tuynman J, Meeus M. Influence of morphine and naloxone on pain modulation in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Fibromyalgia and controls: a double blind randomized placebo-controlled cross-over study. Pain Pract. 2017 Jul 19. doi: 10.1111/papr.12613. [Epub ahead of print] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28722815

Muscle injections with lidocaine improve resting fatigue and pain in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: Patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) complain of long-lasting fatigue and pain which are not relieved by rest and worsened by physical exertion. Previous research has implicated metaboreceptors of muscles to play an important role for chronic fatigue and pain. Therefore, we hypothesized that blocking impulse input from deep tissues with intramuscular lidocaine injections would improve not only the pain but also fatigue of CFS patients.

METHODS: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 58 CFS patients received 20 mL of 1% lidocaine (200 mg) or normal saline once into both trapezius and gluteal muscles. Study outcomes included clinical fatigue and pain, depression, and anxiety. In addition, mechanical and heat hyperalgesia were assessed and serum levels of lidocaine were obtained after the injections.

RESULTS: Fatigue ratings of CFS patients decreased significantly more after lidocaine compared to saline injections (p = 0.03). In contrast, muscle injections reduced pain, depression, and anxiety (p < 0.001), but these changes were not statistically different between lidocaine and saline (p > 0.05). Lidocaine injections increased mechanical pain thresholds of CFS patients (p= 0.04) but did not affect their heat hyperalgesia. Importantly, mood changes or lidocaine serum levels did not significantly predict fatigue reductions.

CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that lidocaine injections reduce clinical fatigue of CFS patients significantly more than placebo, suggesting an important role of peripheral tissues for chronic fatigue. Future investigations will be necessary to evaluate the clinical benefits of such interventions.

Source: Staud R, Kizer T, Robinson ME. Muscle injections with lidocaine improve resting fatigue and pain in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. J Pain Res. 2017 Jun 26;10:1477-1486. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S139466. ECollection 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499959/ (Full article)

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