Tag: CBT/GET critique

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)

Studies on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Graded Exercise Therapy for ME/CFS are misleading

Abstract:

There have been a number of studies on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) for ME/CFS based on a treatment model where the disease is perpetuated by cognitive processes. Although the studies are flawed and the model lacks scientific support, the treatments are described as evidence based. The studies are non-blinded and rely on subjective outcomes. There are no objective measures of adherence. The diagnostic criteria vary, and the participating patients often have one or several psychiatric diagnoses apart from suffering from chronic fatigue. The underlying model has no theoretical foundation and is at odds with physiological findings. Surveys suggest that the efficacy of CBT is no better than placebo and that GET is harmful. Therefore, cognitive behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy for ME/CFS are not evidence based.

 

Source: Sten Helmfrid. Studies on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Graded Exercise Therapy for ME/CFS are misleading.

This is a translation of an article published in Socialmedicinsk tidskrift, Stockholm, Sweden, on September 28 th , 2016. http://socialmedicinsktidskrift.se

Academic paper: Studies on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Graded Exercise Therapy for ME/CFS are misleading. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309351210_Studies_on_Cognitive_Behavioral_Therapy_and_Graded_Exercise_Therapy_for_MECFS_are_misleading [accessed Apr 2, 2017].

Can patients with chronic fatigue syndrome really recover after graded exercise or cognitive behavioural therapy? A critical commentary and preliminary re-analysis of the PACE trial

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Publications from the PACE trial reported that 22% of chronic fatigue syndrome patients recovered following graded exercise therapy (GET), and 22% following a specialised form of CBT. Only 7% recovered in a control, no-therapy group. These figures were based on a definition of recovery that differed markedly from that specified in the trial protocol.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether these recovery claims are justified by the evidence.

METHODS: Drawing on relevant normative data and other research, we critically examine the researchers’ definition of recovery, and whether the late changes they made to this definition were justified. Finally, we calculate recovery rates based on the original protocol-specified definition.

RESULTS: None of the changes made to PACE recovery criteria were adequately justified. Further, the final definition was so lax that on some criteria, it was possible to score below the level required for trial entry, yet still be counted as ‘recovered’. When recovery was defined according to the original protocol, recovery rates in the GET and CBT groups were low and not significantly higher than in the control group (4%, 7% and 3%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS: The claim that patients can recover as a result of CBT and GET is not justified by the data, and is highly misleading to clinicians and patients considering these treatments.

 

Source: Carolyn Wilshire, Tom Kindlon, Alem Matthees & Simon McGrath. Can patients with chronic fatigue syndrome really recover after graded exercise or cognitive behavioural therapy? A critical commentary and preliminary re-analysis of the PACE trial. Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior Volume 5, 2017 – Issue 1. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21641846.2017.1259724 (Full article)

 

PACE trial claims of recovery are not justified by the data: a rejoinder to Sharpe, Chalder, Johnson, Goldsmith and White (2017)

Abstract:

Background: Recently, we critically evaluated the claim from the PACE trial that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) can lead to recovery from chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). We showed that the trial’s definition of recovery was so loose it failed to capture the term’s core meaning. Also, this definition was substantially loosened very late in the trial, in ways that favoured the study hypotheses. The investigators do not acknowledge any of these criticisms and stand by their original analyses.

Purpose: To examine the arguments advanced in defence of PACE’s recovery claims.

Methods: Drawing on various sources of evidence, we consider three major arguments raised in defence of PACE’s recovery claims: (1) that since there is no agreed definition of recovery, it comes down to a matter of opinion; (2) that the original definition was ‘too stringent’; and (3) the revised definition generates results that align with previous studies.

Results: We find that: (1) ‘recovery’ is a strong claim, which implies evidence a return to health, and that the trial’s final definition did not preserve this core meaning; (2) there is no evidence to suggest that the original protocol-specified definition was ‘too stringent’; (3) absolute recovery rates from other studies are not a legitimate source of support for the recovery definition used.

Conclusions: The PACE trial provides no evidence that CBT and GET can lead to recovery from CFS. The recovery claims made in the PACE trial are therefore misleading for patients and clinicians.

 

Source: Carolyn Wilshire, Tom Kindlon & Simon McGrath. PACE trial claims of recovery are not justified by the data: a rejoinder to Sharpe, Chalder, Johnson, Goldsmith and White (2017). Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior. Volume 5, 2017 – Issue 1. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21641846.2017.1299358

 

‘PACE-Gate’: When clinical trial evidence meets open data access

Abstract:

Science is not always plain sailing and sometimes the voyage is across an angry sea. A recent clinical trial of treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome (the PACE trial) has whipped up a storm of controversy. Patients claim the lead authors overstated the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy by lowering the thresholds they used to determine improvement. In this extraordinary case, patients discovered that the treatments tested had much lower efficacy after an information tribunal ordered the release of data from the PACE trial to a patient who had requested access using a freedom of information request.

© The Author(s) 2016.

 

Source: Geraghty KJ. ‘PACE-Gate’: When clinical trial evidence meets open data access. J Health Psychol. 2016 Nov 1. pii: 1359105316675213. [Epub ahead of print] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27807258

 

RE: ‘Treatment outcome in adults with chronic fatigue syndrome: a prospective study

Sir,

In a very impressive paper1 embracing a large cohort (834) of ME CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis, Chronic fatigue syndrome) patients selected by the Fukuda criteria, we can see in Table 4 the associations and changes of baseline characteristics with physical function at follow-up in the Chalder Fatigue scale −0.47 (−0.58 to −0.36) and in the SF-36 (physical function phase) 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87). This perhaps represents approximately an 8% change after the PACE recommended GET/CBT therapy after a variable number of months of therapy. This shows a relatively insignificant improvement. Do we presume that the authors therefore are not emphatically encouraging the PACE recommendation of GET/CBT as a means of primary treatment of ME CFS?

Comment in

Comment on

Source: Enlander D. RE: ‘Treatment outcome in adults with chronic fatigue syndrome: a prospective study. QJM. 2014 Jan;107(1):87. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hct169. Epub 2013 Aug 22. https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/107/1/87/1513843/RE-Treatment-outcome-in-adults-with-chronic

 

Health-related quality of life in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: group cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise versus usual treatment. A randomised controlled trial with 1 year of follow-up

Abstract:

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) produces physical and neurocognitive disability that significantly affects health-related quality of life (HRQL). Multidisciplinary treatment combining graded exercise therapy (GET) cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and pharmacological treatment has shown only short-term improvements.

Aim: To compare the effects on HRQL of (1) multidisciplinary treatment combining CBT, GET, and pharmacological treatment, and (2) usual treatment (exercise counselling and pharmacological treatment) at 12 months of follow-up.

Design: Prospective, randomized controlled trial with a follow-up of 12 months after the end of treatment.

Method: Patients consecutively diagnosed with CFS (Fukuda criteria) were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 60) or usual treatment (n = 60) groups. HRQL was assessed at baseline and 12 months by the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form questionnaire (SF-36). Secondary outcomes included functional capacity for activities of daily living measured by the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and comorbidities.

Results: At baseline, the two groups were similar, except for lower SF-36 emotional role scores in the intervention group. At 12 months, the intervention did not improve HRQL scores, with worse SF-36 physical function and bodily pain scores in the intervention group.

Conclusion: Multidisciplinary treatment was not superior to usual treatment at 12 months in terms of HRQL. The possible benefits of GET as part of multidisciplinary treatment for CFS should be assessed on an individual patient basis.

 

Source: Núñez M, Fernández-Solà J, Nuñez E, Fernández-Huerta JM, Godás-Sieso T, Gomez-Gil E. Health-related quality of life in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: group cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise versus usual treatment. A randomised controlled trial with 1 year of follow-up. Clin Rheumatol. 2011 Mar;30(3):381-9. doi: 10.1007/s10067-010-1677-y. Epub 2011 Jan 15. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21234629

For a list of references see: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10067-010-1677-y

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome: Harvey and Wessely’s (bio)psychosocial model versus a bio(psychosocial) model based on inflammatory and oxidative and nitrosative stress pathways

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: In a recently published paper, Harvey and Wessely put forward a ‘biopsychosocial’ explanatory model for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), which is proposed to be applicable to (chronic) fatigue even when apparent medical causes are present.

METHODS: Here, we review the model proposed by Harvey and Wessely, which is the rationale for behaviourally oriented interventions, such as cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET), and compare this model with a biological model, in which inflammatory, immune, oxidative and nitrosative (IO&NS) pathways are key elements.

DISCUSSION: Although human and animal studies have established that the pathophysiology of ME/CFS includes IO&NS pathways, these abnormalities are not included in the model proposed by Harvey and Wessely. Activation of IO&NS pathways is known to induce fatigue and somatic (F&S) symptoms and can be induced or maintained by viral and bacterial infections, physical and psychosocial stressors, or organic disorders such as (auto)immune disorders. Studies have shown that ME/CFS and major depression are both clinical manifestations of shared IO&NS pathways, and that both disorders can be discriminated by specific symptoms and unshared or differentiating pathways. Interventions with CBT/GET are potentially harmful for many patients with ME/CFS, since the underlying pathophysiological abnormalities may be intensified by physical stressors.

CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to Harvey and Wessely’s (bio)psychosocial model for ME/CFS a bio(psychosocial) model based upon IO&NS abnormalities is likely more appropriate to this complex disorder. In clinical practice, we suggest physicians should also explore the IO&NS pathophysiology by applying laboratory tests that examine the pathways involved.

 

Source: Maes M, Twisk FN. Chronic fatigue syndrome: Harvey and Wessely’s (bio)psychosocial model versus a bio(psychosocial) model based on inflammatory and oxidative and nitrosative stress pathways. BMC Med. 2010 Jun 15;8:35. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-35. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2901228/ (Full article)

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome: la bête noire of the Belgian health care system

Abstract:

The World Health Organization acknowledges Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME)/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) to be a medical illness. ME/CFS is characterized by disorders in the inflammatory and oxidative and nitrosative stress (IO&NS) pathways. In 2002, the Belgian government started with the development of CFS “Reference Centers”, which implement a “psychosocial” model. The medical practices of these CFS Centers are defined by the Superior Health Council, e.g. treatment should be based upon Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Graded Exercise Therapy (GET); and biological assessments and treatments of ME/CFS should not be employed.

Recently, the Belgian government has evaluated the outcome of the treatments at the CFS Centers. They concluded that a “rehabilitation therapy” with CBT/GET yielded no significant efficacy in the treatment of ME/CFS and that CBT/GET cannot be considered to be curative therapies.

In case reports, we have shown that patients who were “treated” at those CFS centers with CBT/GET in fact suffered from IO&NS disorders, including intracellular inflammation, an increased translocation of gram-negative enterobacteria (leaky gut), autoimmune reactions and damage by O&NS.

Considering the fact that these findings are exemplary for ME/CFS patients and that GET may even be harmful, it means that many patients are maltreated by the Belgian CFS Centers. Notwithstanding the above, the government and the CFS Centers not only continue this unethical and immoral policy, but also reinforce their use of CBT/GET in patients with ME/CFS treated at those Centers.

 

Source: Maes M, Twisk FN. Chronic fatigue syndrome: la bête noire of the Belgian health care system. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2009;30(3):300-11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19855351

 

A review on cognitive behavorial therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) in myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) / chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS): CBT/GET is not only ineffective and not evidence-based, but also potentially harmful for many patients with ME/CFS

Abstract:

Benign Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) / Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) is a debilitating disease which, despite numerous biological abnormalities has remained highly controversial. Notwithstanding the medical pathogenesis of ME/CFS, the (bio)psychosocial model is adopted by many governmental organizations and medical professionals to legitimize the combination of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) for ME/CFS. Justified by this model CBT and GET aim at eliminating presumed psychogenic and socially induced maintaining factors and reversing deconditioning, respectively.

In this review we invalidate the (bio)psychosocial model for ME/CFS and demonstrate that the success claim for CBT/GET to treat ME/CFS is unjust. CBT/GET is not only hardly more effective than non-interventions or standard medical care, but many patients report that the therapy had affected them adversely, the majority of them even reporting substantial deterioration.

Moreover, this review shows that exertion and thus GET most likely have a negative impact on many ME/CFS patients. Exertion induces post-exertional malaise with a decreased physical performance/aerobic capacity, increased muscoskeletal pain, neurocognitive impairment, “fatigue”, and weakness, and a long lasting “recovery” time.

This can be explained by findings that exertion may amplify pre-existing pathophysiological abnormalities underpinning ME/CFS, such as inflammation, immune dysfunction, oxidative and nitrosative stress, channelopathy, defective stress response mechanisms and a hypoactive hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

We conclude that it is unethical to treat patients with ME/CFS with ineffective, non-evidence-based and potentially harmful “rehabilitation therapies”, such as CBT/GET.

 

Source: Twisk FN, Maes M. A review on cognitive behavorial therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) in myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) / chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS): CBT/GET is not only ineffective and not evidence-based, but also potentially harmful for many patients with ME/CFS. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2009;30(3):284-99. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19855350