Tag: CBT/GET critique

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)

Is It Useful to Question the Recovery Behaviour of Patients with ME/CFS or Long COVID?

Abstract:

For the last few decades, medical guidelines have recommended treating patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) with graded exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). Moreover, doctors have questioned the recovery behaviour of these patients and stimulated them to follow these treatments so that they would be able to go back to work. In this article, we reviewed trials of GET and CBT for ME/CFS that reported on work status before and after treatment to answer the question of whether doctors should continue to question the recovery behaviour of patients with ME/CFS.

Our review shows that more patients are unable to work after treatment than before treatment with CBT and GET. It also highlights the fact that both treatments are unsafe for patients with ME/CFS. Therefore, questioning the recovery behaviour of patients with ME/CFS is pointless. This confirms the conclusion from the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which has recently published its updated ME/CFS guideline and concluded that CBT and GET are not effective and do not lead to recovery.

Studies on CBT and GET for long COVID have not yet been published. However, this review offers no support for their use in improving the recovery of patients with an ME/CFS-like illness after infection with COVID-19, nor does it lend any support to the practice of questioning the recovery behaviour of these patients.

Source: Vink M, Vink-Niese F. Is It Useful to Question the Recovery Behaviour of Patients with ME/CFS or Long COVID? Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Feb 18;10(2):392. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10020392. PMID: 35207003. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/10/2/392 (Full text)

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome patients’ reports of symptom changes following cognitive behavioural therapy, graded exercise therapy and pacing treatments: Analysis of a primary survey compared with secondary surveys

Abstract:

Cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy are promoted as evidence-based treatments for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. This article explores patients’ symptom responses following these treatments versus pacing therapy, an approach favoured by many sufferers. We analyse data from a large cross-sectional patient survey (n = 1428) and compare our findings with those from comparable patient surveys (n = 16,665), using a mix of descriptive statistics and regression analysis modelling.

Findings from analysis of primary and secondary surveys suggest that cognitive behavioural therapy is of benefit to a small percentage of patients (8%-35%), graded exercise therapy brings about large negative responses in patients (54%-74%), while pacing is the most favoured treatment with the lowest negative response rate and the highest reported benefit (44%-82%).

Source: Geraghty K, Hann M, Kurtev S. Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome patients’ reports of symptom changes following cognitive behavioural therapy, graded exercise therapy and pacing treatments: Analysis of a primary survey compared with secondary surveys. J Health Psychol. 2019 Sep;24(10):1318-1333. doi: 10.1177/1359105317726152. Epub 2017 Aug 29. PMID: 28847166. https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/hWSxVIBTzDtqisvafkhE/full (Full text)

ME/CFS and the biopsychosocial model: a review of patient harm and distress in the medical encounter

Abstract:

Objective: Despite the growing evidence of physiological and cellular abnormalities in myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), there has been a strong impetus to tackle the illness utilizing a biopsychosocial model. However, many sufferers of this disabling condition report distress and dissatisfaction following medical encounters. This review seeks to account for this discord.

Methods: A narrative review methodology is employed to synthesize the evidence for potential iatrogenesis.

Results: We identify seven potential modalities of iatrogenesis or harm reported by patients: difficulties in reaching an acceptable diagnosis; misdiagnosis, including of other medical and psychological conditions; difficulties in accessing the sick role, medical care and social support; high levels of patient dissatisfaction with the quality of medical care; negative responses to controversial therapies (cognitive behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy); challenges to the patient narrative and experience; psychological harm (individual and collective distress).

Conclusion: The biopsychosocial framework currently applied to ME/CFS is too narrow in focus and fails to adequately incorporate the patient narrative. Misdiagnosis, conflict, and harm are observable outcomes where doctors’ and patients’ perspectives remain incongruent. Biopsychosocial practices should be scrutinized for potential harms. Clinicians should consider adopting alternative patient-centred approaches.

Implications for rehabilitation: Patients with ME/CFS may report or experience one or more of the modalities of harms and distress identified in this review. It is important health and rehabilitation professionals seek to avoid and minimize harms when treating or assisting ME/CFS patients. There are conflicting models of ME/CFS; we highlight two divergent models, a biopsychosocial model and a biomedical model that is preferred by patients. The ‘biopsychosocial framework’ applied in clinical practice promotes treatments such as cognitive behavioral therapy and exercise therapy, however, the evidence for their success is contested and many patients reject the notion their illness is perpetuated by dysfunctional beliefs, personality traits, or behaviors. Health professionals may avoid conflict and harm causation in ME/CFS by adopting more concordant ‘patient-centred’ approaches that give greater prominence to the patient narrative and experience of illness.

Source: Geraghty KJ, Blease C. Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and the biopsychosocial model: a review of patient harm and distress in the medical encounter. Disabil Rehabil. 2019 Dec;41(25):3092-3102. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1481149. Epub 2018 Jun 21. PMID: 29929450. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29929450/

ME/CFS: Exercise goals should be set by patients and not driven by treatment plan, says NICE

Letter:

Rapid Response:

Patient reports of harm from GET cannot be ignored

Dear Editor

Professor Trudie Chalder from King’s College Hospital states that:

“The NICE guidelines for CFS/ME are at odds with the research evidence. Researchers from different institutions in different countries have found graded exercise therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy to be effective for some patients with CFS.

Evidence has shown they reduce fatigue and improve functioning without harm, if delivered by trained therapists in specialist clinics. Being a clinician and researcher in this field, I can’t help but think clinicians will be confused by this message from a respected organisation.”

Having carefully reviewed all the very extensive evidence on efficacy and safety for graded exercise therapy (GET) from relevant clinical trials, medical experts and from people with ME/CFS, the NICE guideline committee concluded that in addition to there being no sound evidence for efficacy for GET there was also consistent patient evidence of harm, sometimes serious and persisting, occurring.

Read the rest of this letter HERE. 

Source: Charles Shepherd. BMJ 2021; 375 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2643 (Published 29 October 2021) BMJ 2021;375:n2643

Charities, patients, and researchers are working together to find the cause and effective treatments for ME/CFS

People with ME/CFS feel let down by the medical establishment because almost all biomedical research until recently has been funded by the charity sector. Almost all government funding has gone into research based on a flawed psychosocial model of causation involving abnormal beliefs and behaviours and deconditioning. This research resulted in the current NICE guideline recommendations, published in 2007, for cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET).3

Having reviewed clinical trial and patient evidence for these interventions,4 NICE now states in the introduction to the draft of its updated guideline on ME/CFS5 that “because of the harms reported by people with ME/CFS, as well as the committee’s own experience of the effects when people exceed their energy limits, the draft guideline says that any programme based on fixed incremental increases in physical activity or exercise, for example graded exercise therapy (GET), should not be offered for the treatment of ME/CFS.” It also emphasises that CBT is not a treatment or cure for ME/CFS.

Read the full article HERE.

Source: Shepherd C B. Charities, patients, and researchers are working together to find the cause and effective treatments for ME/CFS BMJ 2021; 374 :n1854 doi:10.1136/bmj.n1854 https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1854.full