Tag: CBT/GET critique

Rethinking the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome—a reanalysis and evaluation of findings from a recent major trial of graded exercise and CBT

Abstract:

Background: The PACE trial was a well-powered randomised trial designed to examine the efficacy of graded exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for chronic fatigue syndrome. Reports concluded that both treatments were moderately effective, each leading to recovery in over a fifth of patients. However, the reported analyses did not consistently follow the procedures set out in the published protocol, and it is unclear whether the conclusions are fully justified by the evidence.

Methods: Here, we present results based on the original protocol-specified procedures. Data from a recent Freedom of Information request enabled us to closely approximate these procedures. We also evaluate the conclusions from the trial as a whole.

Results: On the original protocol-specified primary outcome measure – overall improvement rates – there was a significant effect of treatment group. However, the groups receiving CBT or GET did not significantly outperform the Control group after correcting for the number of comparisons specified in the trial protocol. Also, rates of recovery were consistently low and not significantly different across treatment groups. Finally, on secondary measures, significant effects were almost entirely confined to self-report measures. These effects did not endure beyond two years.

Conclusions: These findings raise serious concerns about the robustness of the claims made about the efficacy of CBT and GET. The modest treatment effects obtained on self-report measures in the PACE trial do not exceed what could be reasonably accounted for by participant reporting biases.

Source: Carolyn E. Wilshire, Tom Kindlon, Robert Courtney, Alem Matthees, David Tuller, Keith Geraghty and Bruce Levin. Rethinking the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome—a reanalysis and evaluation of findings from a recent major trial of graded exercise and CBT. BMC PsychologyBMC series. Received: 29 May 2017; Accepted: 22 February 2018; Published: 22 March 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-018-0218-3 (Full article) © The Author(s) 2018.

Studies and surveys implicate potential iatrogenic harm of cognitive behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy for myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome patients

Abstract:

Cognitive behavorial therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) are declared to be effective and safe therapies for Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Medical policies in various countries, e.g. the UK and the Netherlands, recommend CBT and GET as evidence-based treatments. But studies and patient surveys in several countries indicate that CBT often has no effect at all and that GET has detrimental effects in a large subgroup of patients.

Editorial

ME is a disease characterized by distinctive muscular symptoms, including muscle weakness and myalgia after minor exertion lasting for days, neurological symptoms implicating cerebral dysfunction, symptoms indicating circulatory impairment and other symptoms [1,2]. CFS is primarily defined by (unexplained) chronic fatigue, which must be accompanied by at least four out of eight ‘additional’’ symptoms [3]. ME and CFS are incorrectly conceived as ‘similar disorders’ [4]. But the case criteria define three patient groups: ME and/or CFS patients [5], labeled as ME/CFS patients within this context.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) are declared to be effective [6,7] and safe [7,8] therapies for Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Medical policies in various countries, e.g. the UK [9] and the Netherlands [10], recommend CBT and GET as evidence-based treatments.

However various studies implicate that CBT, GET and other behavioral interventions, including graded activity, have negative effects on (subgroups of) ME/CFS patients.

Núñez and co-workers [11] observed that adding CBT and GET to pharmacological treatment had a negative effect on SF-36 physical functioning and pain scores. Jason and others [12,13] found that ‘non-pharmacologic therapies’ had a negative effect on the mean SF- 36 physical functioning score (changes from 5 to -35) of a large subgroup of CFS patients, with lymphocyte subsets data suggesting an elevated humoral immune response (Th2/B Cell). Although ‘Guided graded Exercise Self-help’ (GET) was qualified as “a moderately effective and safe intervention” [14], the investigators acknowledged that a patient subgroup had deteriorated after the GET trial, possibly due to “a worse exacerbation of symptoms in response to GET” [15].

In various surveys [16-18] most ME/CFS patients experienced no improvement after CBT and more than half of the patients reported GET made them worse. A detailed analysis [18] of a large-scale patient survey in the UK [19] shows that, when combinations of therapies are excluded, 73% of the patients they stayed the same after CBT, while 8% of the patients improved and 18% got worse. No less than 74% of the patients reported worsening of their symptoms after GET, 14% of the patients experienced no change and only 12% reported improvement after GET. In a recent patient survey in the Netherlands [20] 11% reported CBT had improved their health situation, 36% experienced no change, and 53% reported CBT had worsened their condition. 63% reported GET had made their symptoms (much) worse and 34% reported no change. Only 3% of the patients experienced improvement after GET. One could argue that patient surveys (through the internet) are potentially prone to many biases, but a study [21] found that ‘’unsolicited’ web-based patient ratings of care correlate well with conventional research findings, i.e. formal measurements.

As affirmed by the medical authorities in the US recently, “ME/CFS is a serious, chronic, complex, multisystem disease” [4] with “strong evidence” indicating that “immunologic and inflammatory pathologic conditions, neurotransmitter signaling disruption, microbiome perturbation, and metabolic or mitochondrial abnormalities are potentially important for the definition and treatment of ME/CFS [22]. Exertion has (prolonged) negative effects in ME/CFS [4]. For that reason studies and surveys indicating potential harm of CBT and GET in large subgroups of ME/CFS patients should be taken seriously. The ‘safety claim’ is at odds with several observations.

References

  1. Dowsett EG, Ramsay AM, McCartney RA, et al. Myalgic Encephalomyelitis – a persistent enteroviral infection? Postgrad. Med. J.66(777), 526-530 (1990).

  2. Ramsay AM, Dowsett EG, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: Then and now. In Hyde BM, Goldstein J, Levine P, editors. The Clinical and Scientific Basis of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Ottawa: The Nightingale Research Foundation pp. 81-84 (1992).

  3. Fukuda K, Straus SE, Hickie I, et al. The chronic fatigue syndrome: a comprehen­sive approach to its definition and study. Ann. Intern. Med. 121(12), 953-959 (1994).

  4. Institute of Medicine. Beyond Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syn­drome: redefining an illness. Washington, (2015).

  5. Twisk FNM. Replacing Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome with Systemic Exercise Intolerance Disease is not the way forward. Diagnostics (Basel). 6(1), 10 (2016).

  6. Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB, Rooke SE, et al. Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: a meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 28(5), 736-745 (2008).

  7. Larun L, Brurberg KG, Odgaard-Jensen J, et al. Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 4, CD003200 (2017).

  8. Bleijenberg G, Knoop H. Chronic fatigue syndrome: where to PACE from here? Lancet. 377(9768), 786-788 (2011)

  9. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Chronic fatigue syndrome/ myalgic encephalomyelitis (or encephalopathy): diagnosis and management of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (or encephalopathy) in adults and children. London (UK), (2007).

  10. CBO. Richtlijn diagnose, behandeling, begeleiding en beoordeling van patiënten met het chronisch vermoeidheidssyndroom (CVS). Utrecht (NL), (2013).

  11. Núñez M, Fernández-Solà J, Nuñez E, et al. 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. 30(3), 381-389 (2011).

  12. Jason LA, Torres-Harding S, Friedberg F, et al. Non-pharmacologic interventions for CFS: a randomized trial. J. Clin. Psychol. Med. Settings. 14(4), 275-296 (2007).

  13. Jason LA, Torres-Harding S, Brown M, et al. Predictors of change following participation in non-pharmacologic interventions for CFS. Trop. Med. Health. 36(1), 23-32 (2008).

  14. Clark LV, McCrone P, Ridge D, et al. Graded Exercise Therapy guided Self-hElp Treatment (GETSET) for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomised controlled trial in secondary care. J. Psychosom. Res. 5(2), 59-60 (2016).

  15. Cheshire A, Ridge D, Clark L, et al. Why patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/ Myalgic Encephalomyelitis improve or deteriorate with graded exercise therapy. J. Psychosom. Res. 85, 59 (2016).

  16. Kirke KD. PACE investigators’ response is misleading regarding patient survey results. J. Health. Psych. 22(9), 1168-1176 (2017).

  17. Twisk FNM, 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. Neuro. Endocrinol. Lett. 30(3), 284-299 (2009).

  18. 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. (2017).

  19. ME Association. “No decisions about me without me”. ME/CFS illness management survey results, part 1. Gawcott, Bucks (England), (2015).

  20. De Kimpe A, Crijnen B, Kuijper J, et al. Zorg voor ME – Enquête onder ME-patiënten naar hun ervaringen met de zorg in Nederland (2016).

  21. Greaves F, Pape UJ, King D, et al. Associations between Internet-based patient ratings and conventional surveys of patient experience in the English NHS: an observational study. BMJ. Qual. Saf. 21(7), 600-605 (2012).

  22. Green CR, Cowan P, Elk R, et al. National Institutes of Health pathways to prevention workshop: Advancing the research on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/ chronic fatigue syndrome. Ann. Intern. Med. 162(12), 860-865 (2015).

Source: Frank N.M. Twisk. Studies and surveys implicate potential iatrogenic harm of cognitive behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy for myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome patients. Research on Chronic Diseases. http://www.openaccessjournals.com/articles/studies-and-surveys-implicate-potential-iatrogenic-harm-of-cognitive-behavioral-therapy-and-graded-exercise-therapy-for-myalgic-en-12190.html

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. 2017 Aug 1:1359105317726152. doi: 10.1177/1359105317726152. [Epub ahead of print] http://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/hWSxVIBTzDtqisvafkhE/full (Full article)

FITNET’s Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Is Ineffective and May Impede Natural Recovery in Adolescents with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. A Review

Abstract:

The Dutch Fatigue In Teenagers on the interNET (FITNET) study claimed that after 6 months, internet based cognitive behaviour therapy in adolescents with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), led to a 63% recovery rate compared to 8% after usual care, and that this was maintained at long term follow up (LTFU).

Our reanalysis shows that their post-hoc definition of recovery included the severely ill, the unblinded trial had no adequate control group and it used lax selection criteria as well as outcomes assessed via questionnaires rather than objective outcomes, further contributing to exaggerated recovery figures. Their decision not to publish the actometer results might suggest that these did not back their recovery claims. Despite these bias creating methodological faults, the trial still found no significant difference in recovery rates (“~60%”) at LTFU, the trial’s primary goal.

This is similar to or worse than the documented 54-94% spontaneous recovery rates within 3-4 years, suggesting that both FITNET and usual care (consisting of cognitive behaviour and graded exercise therapies) are ineffective and might even impede natural recovery in adolescents with ME/CFS. This has implications for the upcoming costly NHS FITNET trial which is a blueprint of the Dutch study, exposing it to similar biases.

Source: Ghatineh S, Vink M. FITNET’s Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Is Ineffective and May Impede Natural Recovery in Adolescents with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. A Review. Behav Sci (Basel). 2017 Aug 11;7(3). pii: E52. doi: 10.3390/bs7030052. http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/7/3/52 (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)

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