Tag: CBT/GET critique

Ignorance about post-exertional malaise and continued conflation of ME/CFS with chronic fatigue harms patients and stymies research progress

Dear Editor,

There are numerous issues with the opinion piece by Miller and coauthors. Most concern longstanding fallacies about the nature of ME/CFS and what patients believe about their illness, which — again — need to be corrected. I’d like to focus on just one: The defining and cardinal feature of ME/CFS is not fatigue, but rather post-exertional malaise (PEM).

PEM, sometimes referred to as post-exertional symptom exacerbation (PESE), can be defined as episodes during which people with ME/CFS experience significant worsening of existing symptoms and/or onset of new symptoms following amounts of physical or mental exertion or sensory stimuli that they could easily tolerate before the illness [1]. The length and severity of an episode of PEM are out of proportion to the amount of exertion or stimulus that triggered it; in severe or very severe ME/CFS patients, PEM may be triggered by, for example, short conversations with their carers or brief exposure to bright light, and these episodes may last week, months, or longer.

PEM remains poorly understood, but the concept and terminology have over recent years become much more mainstream, owing to the high prevalence of PEM in long covid [2]. The consensus opinion among ME/CFS patients is that daily activities and sensory input should be managed in such a way as to minimise PEM, because PEM severely impacts quality of life and can in some cases lead to further long-term deterioration in patients’ health and functional capacity. This concept forms the basis of pacing, an energy management strategy recommended by NICE [3].

In their opinion piece, Miller and coauthors ignore PEM when listing common symptoms of ME/CFS. This is an attempt to continue framing this illness as belonging to a family of ‘fatiguing conditions’, which, along with other ‘medically unexplained symptoms’, they argue can be treated with psychological interventions and rehabilitation.

Read the rest of this letter here: https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r977/rr-6

The risk of blaming patients for their lack of recovery

Dear Editor,

In their article on the management of patients with severe myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), Miller et al. propose a biopsychosocial model in which “a gradual, controlled approach to increasing activity is an important part of rehabilitation.” This approach, however, is far from new and has been tested in randomized trials with limited success.

The PACE study, for example, examined fourteen sessions of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) or graded exercise therapy (GET), each combined with specialist medical care. Treatment aimed to help ME/CFS patients gradually resume physical activities, address unhelpful cognitions, and reverse deconditioning. Recovery rates for GET and CBT were low and did not differ significantly from the control group, with rates of 4%, 7%, and 3%, respectively, as defined by the study’s pre-registered recovery criteria. [1] Employment and fitness data also showed no clinically significant improvement. [2]

Read the full letter by Michiel Tack here: https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r977/rr-3

The PACE Trial’s GET Manual for Therapists Exposes the Fixed Incremental Nature of Graded Exercise Therapy for ME/CFS

Abstract:

The British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published its updated guidelines for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) in October 2021. NICE concluded, after an extensive review of the literature, that graded exercise therapy (GET) is harmful and should not be used, and that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is only an adjunctive and not a curative treatment. An article by White et al., which is written by 51 researchers, claims that there are eight anomalies in the review process and the interpretation of the evidence by NICE. In this article, we reviewed the evidence they used to support their claims.

Their three most important claims are that NICE redefined the disease, that CBT and GET are effective, and that fixed incremental increases are not part of GET. However, our analysis shows that the disease was not redefined by NICE. Instead, it was redefined in the 1990s by a group of doctors, including a number of authors of White et al., when they erased the main characteristic of the disease (an abnormally delayed muscle recovery after trivial exertion, which, over the years, has evolved into post-exertional malaise) and replaced it with chronic disabling severe fatigue. Their own studies show that CBT and GET do not lead to a substantial improvement of the quality-of-life scores or a reduction in CFS symptom count, nor do they lead to objective improvement.

Also, both treatments have a negative instead of a positive effect on work and disability status. Moreover, a recent systematic review, which included one of the authors of White et al., showed that ME/CFS patients remain severely disabled after treatment with CBT. Our analysis of, for example, the PACE trial’s GET manual for therapists exposes the fixed incremental nature of GET.

Why the authors are not aware of that is unclear because eight of them were involved in the PACE trial. Three of them were centre leaders and its principal investigators, four others were also centre leaders, and another one was one of the three independent safety assessors of the trial. Moreover, many of these eight authors wrote, or were involved in writing, this manual.

In conclusion, our analysis shows that the arguments that are used to claim that there are eight anomalies in the review process and the interpretation of the evidence by NICE are anomalous and highlight the absence of evidence for the claims that are made. Furthermore, our analysis not only exposes the fixed incremental nature of GET, but also of CBT for ME/CFS.

Source:Vink M, Partyka-Vink K. The PACE Trial’s GET Manual for Therapists Exposes the Fixed Incremental Nature of Graded Exercise Therapy for ME/CFS. Life (Basel). 2025 Apr 2;15(4):584. doi: 10.3390/life15040584. PMID: 40283139. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/15/4/584 (Full text)

CBT and graded exercise therapy studies have proven that ME/CFS and long COVID are physical diseases, yet no one is aware of that

Introduction:

The cognitive behavioral model (CBmodel) (Surawy et al., ; Vercoulen et al., ) has dominated the world of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) since the 1990s. According to this model, a belief in an organic illness, known as dysfunctional beliefs, stops ME/CFS patients engaging in normal activities, resulting in avoidance behavior and deconditioning. The deconditioning then leads to further avoidance behavior and more deconditioning. According to the CBmodel, symptoms of ME/CFS are caused by deconditioning and not by an underlying illness.

Cognitive behavioral therapy with graded activity (CBTplus) and graded exercise therapy (GET) were designed to reverse the dysfunctional beliefs, the avoidance behavior and the deconditioning and lead to recovery. However, an extensive review of the literature found that CBTplus and GET do not restore the ability to work (Vink and Vink-Niese, ). Additionally, there are now many papers documenting complex disruptions to the body’s physiology in ME/CFS, particularly involving immunological and inflammatory pathways, autonomic and neurological dysfunction, abnormalities in the cellular energy production and the gene expression (Committee on the Diagnostic Criteria for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, ; Liu et al., ; Missailidis et al., ).

Source: Vink M, Vink-Niese A. CBT and graded exercise therapy studies have proven that ME/CFS and long COVID are physical diseases, yet no one is aware of that. Front Hum Neurosci. 2025 Jan 29;19:1495050. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2025.1495050. PMID: 39944089; PMCID: PMC11814198. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11814198/ (Full text)

Confirmed: The Conclusion by NICE that CBT is not an Effective Treatment for ME/CFS; Re-Analysis of a Systematic Review

Abstract:

In this article, we analyzed the systematic review by Kuut et al. into the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), a disease that predominantly affects women, and the eight trials
in it. We found many issues with the studies in the review, but also with the review itself.

For example, the systematic review by Kuut et al. included a researcher who was involved in seven of the eight studies in their review, and another one who was involved in five of them. Moreover, at least one of them was involved in every study in the review. On top of that, the three professors who were involved in the systematic review, have all built their career on the CB model and the reversibility of ME/CFS through CBT and GET and two of the systematic reviewers have a potential financial conflict of interest. Yet they failed to inform the readers about these conflicts of interest. Conducting a review in this manner and not informing the readers, undermines the credibility of a systematic review and its conclusion.

Regarding outcome differences between treatment and control group, it’s highly likely that the combination of non-blinded
trials, subjective outcomes and poorly chosen control groups, alone or together with response shift bias and/or patients filling in questionnaires in a manner to please the investigators, allegiance bias, small study effect bias and other forms of bias,
produced the appearance of positive effects, despite the lack of any substantial benefit to the patients, leading to the erroneous inference of efficacy in its absence. That CBT is not an effective treatment is highlighted by the fact that patients remained
severely disabled after treatment with it.

The absence of objective improvement as shown by the actometer, employment status and objective cognitive measures, confirms the inefficacy of CBT for ME/CFS. The systematic review did not report on safety but research by the Oxford Brookes University shows that CBT, which contains an element of graded exercise therapy, is harmful for many patients. Finally, our reanalysis highlights the fact that researchers should not mark their own homework.

Source: Vink M, Vink-Niese A. Confirmed: The Conclusion by NICE that CBT is not an Effective Treatment for ME/CFS; Re-Analysis of a Systematic Review. SciBase Neurol. 2024; 2(3): 1022. https://www.scibasejournals.org/neurology/1022.pdf (Full text)

Treatment Harms To Patients With Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Abstract:

Despite evidence of physiological and cellular abnormalities in myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), the dominant therapeutic approach has been cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET).  Patients report distress and dissatisfaction following healthcare encounters based on GET and CBT. A significant body of research suggests that CBT and GET are harmful for many patients with ME/CFS. These findings raise ethical concerns and suggest that more collaborative working between scientists, therapists and patients would be helpful in making scientific progress in this difficult field.

Source: David F Marks. (2023). Treatment Harms To Patients With Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Qeios. doi:10.32388/XUG3PT.2. https://www.qeios.com/read/XUG3PT.2 (Full text)

The Draft Report by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare Does Not Provide Any Evidence That Graded Exercise Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Are Safe and Effective Treatments for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Abstract:

The German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQWiG) recently published its draft report to the government about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). The IQWiG concluded that graded exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) should be recommended in the treatment for mild and moderate ME/CFS based on two CBT and two GET studies. In this article, we reviewed the evidence used by IQWiG to support their claims, because their conclusion is diametrically opposed to the conclusion by the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in its recently updated ME/CFS guidelines.

Our analysis shows that the trials IQWiG used in support suffered from serious flaws, which included badly designed control groups; relying on subjective primary outcomes in non-blinded studies; alliance and response shift bias, including patients in their trials who did not have the disease under investigation, selective reporting, making extensive endpoint changes and low to very low adherence of treatments.

Our analysis also shows that the report itself used one CBT and one GET study that both examined a different treatment. The report also used a definition of CBT that does not reflect the way it is being used in ME/CFS or was tested in the studies. The report noted that one study used a wrong definition of post-exertional malaise (PEM), the main characteristic of the disease, according to the report. Yet, it ignored the consequence of this, that less than the required minimum percentage of patients had the disease under investigation in that study.

It also ignored the absence of improvement on most of the subjective outcomes, as well as the fact that the IQWiG methods handbook states that one should use objective outcomes and not rely on subjective outcomes in non-blinded studies. The report concluded that both treatments did not lead to objective improvement in the six-minute walk test but then ignored that. The report did not analyze the other objective outcomes of the studies (step test and occupational and benefits status), which showed a null effect.

Finally, the report states that the studies do not report on safety yet assumes that the treatments are safe based on a tendency towards small subjective improvements in fatigue and physical functioning, even though the adherence to the treatments was (very) low and the studies included many patients who did not have the disease under investigation and, consequently, did not suffer from exertion intolerance contrary to ME/CFS patients. At the same time, it ignored and downplayed all the evidence that both treatments are not safe, even when the evidence was produced by a British university.

In conclusion, the studies used by the report do not provide any evidence that CBT and GET are safe and effective. Consequently, the report and the studies do not provide any support for the recommendation to use CBT and GET for ME/CFS or long COVID, which, in many cases, is the same or resembles ME/CFS, after an infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Source: Vink M, Vink-Niese A. The Draft Report by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare Does Not Provide Any Evidence That Graded Exercise Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Are Safe and Effective Treatments for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Diseases. 2023 Jan 16;11(1):11. doi: 10.3390/diseases11010011. PMID: 36648876; PMCID: PMC9844345. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9844345/ (Full text)

Bias in Exercise Trials for ME/CFS: the Importance of Objective Outcomes and Long-term Follow-up

Sharpe and colleagues recommend that patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) be offered cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET)1, advice that contrasts with recent NICE guidance on ME/CFS.2 The authors argue that “there are many randomized trials indicating the safety and efficacy of these treatments.”1

All of these trials, however, were nonblinded and relied on subjective symptom questionnaires as their main outcomes, a combination that creates a high risk of response bias. Treatment manuals used in these trials included explicit encouragements to raise patients’ expectations of GET and CBT. One patient booklet, for example, informed patients: “You will experience a snowballing effect as increasing fitness leads to increasing confidence in your ability. You will have conquered CFS by your own effort and you will be back in control of your body again.”3 These encouragements were not provided to participants in the control group and might have influenced how patients rated their health. In contrast to what Sharpe and colleagues claim, measuring the expectations of patients before the trial begins, does not address how therapists might have influenced symptom reporting during the trial.

There are further arguments that suggest these trials might have measured response bias rather than improvements in health. There were, for example, no clinically significant differences on objective outcome measures that are less prone to response bias such as employment figures, activity levels, or fitness tests.3 In addition, at long-term follow-up, the control group seemed to perform just as well as participants who received GET or CBT. This could not be explained by additional treatment received after the trial ended.4 These findings are difficult to interpret if patients did indeed rehabilitate successfully following GET or CBT. It is unfortunate that the authors, who were primary researchers in many of these trials, do not address these concerns.

Lastly, Sharpe and colleagues argue that “harm reported from patient community surveys reflects poorly implemented therapy.”1 Patient surveys, however, indicate that ME/CFS patients report harm of GET even if prescribed by a specialist or physiotherapist.5 The authors have previously been challenged for misrepresenting the findings of these surveys.5 Post-exertional malaise or a marked worsening of symptoms when patients exceed their energy limit, is a characteristic feature of ME/CFS.2 There are therefore reasonable safety concerns about treatments such as GET and CBT that try to push patients to exceed their limits.

Read the full article HERE.

Source: Tack, M. Bias in Exercise Trials for ME/CFS: the Importance of Objective Outcomes and Long-term Follow-up. J GEN INTERN MED 37, 3193 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-022-07704-0  (Full text)

Evidence-Based Care for People with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Letter to the Editor:

Sharpe et al. suggest that “the available evidence from randomized trials supports the use of the rehabilitative therapies of CBT and GET for patients with CFS/ME”.1 However, the current NICE guideline on the diagnosis and management of ME/CFS (which replaced the out-of-date guideline CG53 cited by Sharpe et al.) recommends that CBT and GET should not be prescribed as treatments for ME/CFS, due to the lack of evidence of efficacy and concerns about safety.2 As part of the process of updating its guidance, NICE reviewed all the relevant evidence from trials of these therapies. It concluded that none was better than low quality and that most was very low quality.3

It is notable that such therapies were first promoted and prescribed for ME/CFS before any clinical trials had been conducted to assess their efficacy or safety. In 1989, Wessely et al. acknowledged that it “may be correct in some cases” that physical and mental exertion should be avoided by people with ME/CFS, but they went on to recommend behavioural and cognitive therapies which encouraged patients to ignore their symptoms and gradually increase exercise, as there was “as yet no way” to identify the cases where such approaches may be harmful. Furthermore, the authors suggested that “it is reasonable to expect a patient to cooperate with treatment before being labelled as chronically disabled” for the purposes of receiving sickness benefits.4

Sharpe et al. acknowledge that since then CBT and GET have been “the most researched approaches” to treating what they refer to as CFS/ME. However, despite this, they conclude that “more research is needed into these approaches” and that “it would be a disservice to our patients to tell them we have nothing to offer them”.

It is deeply regrettable that, as NICE has concluded, there are currently no proven effective treatments for ME/CFS. However, it would be a far greater disservice to patients to prescribe ineffective and potentially harmful therapies than to tell them the truth. Given the history of how these therapies have been promoted, prescribed and researched, it is perhaps not surprising if some are reluctant to accept the evidence that they do not work and may be harmful. However, as Wilshire et al. concluded in their 2018 reanalysis of the PACE trial data: “The time has come to look elsewhere for effective treatments.”5

Read this article HERE.

Source: Saunders R. Evidence-Based Care for People with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Jul 5. doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07715-x. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35790668. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-022-07715-x (Full text)

The Updated NICE Guidance Exposed the Serious Flaws in CBT and Graded Exercise Therapy Trials for ME/CFS

Abstract:

The British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recently published its updated guidelines for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). NICE concluded, after an extensive review of the literature, that graded exercise therapy (GET) is harmful and should not be used, and that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is only an adjunctive and not a curative treatment. Leading proponents of the cognitive behavioural model (CBmodel) find it difficult to accept this paradigm shift.
In, for example, an article in The Lancet, they try to argue that the new NICE guideline is based on ideology instead of science. In this article we reviewed the evidence they used to support their claims. Our analysis shows that the trials they used in support suffered from serious flaws which included badly designed control groups, relying on subjective primary outcomes in non-blinded studies, including patients in their trials who didn’t have the disease under investigation or had a self-limiting disease, selective reporting, outcome switching and making extensive endpoint changes, which created an overlap in entry and recovery criteria, using a post-hoc definition of recovery which included the severely ill, not publishing results that contradict their own conclusion, ignoring their own (objective) null effect, etc.
The flaws in these trials all created a bias in favour of the interventions. Despite all these flaws, treatments that are said to lead to recovery in reality do not lead to objective improvement. Therefore, these studies do not support the claim that CBT and GET are effective treatments. Moreover, the arguments that are used to claim that NICE was wrong, in reality, highlight the absence of evidence for the safety and efficacy of CBT and GET and strengthen the decision by NICE to drop CBT and GET as curative treatments for ME/CFS.
Source: Vink M, Vink-Niese A. The Updated NICE Guidance Exposed the Serious Flaws in CBT and Graded Exercise Therapy Trials for ME/CFS. Healthcare. 2022; 10(5):898. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10050898 https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/10/5/898/htm (Full text)