Tag: comment

Giving thyroid hormones to clinically hypothyroid but biochemically euthyroid patients. Long-term treatment is being used

Editor—During the past six months I have become aware of an increasing number of patients with normal results of thyroid function tests who are being treated with a daily dose of up to 100 ìg thyroxine—mainly as a result of publicity being given in the lay media to a hypothesis put forward by Gordon R B Skinner and colleagues.2 These biochemically euthyroid patients invariably have several symptoms that are compatible with a clinical diagnosis of hypothyroidism, but many of them also have agreed diagnostic criteria for the chronic fatigue syndrome, a condition that does involve dysfunction of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis but not hypothyroidism.

You can read the full article here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2127520/pdf/9345188.pdf

 

Source: Shepherd C. Giving thyroid hormones to clinically hypothyroid but biochemically euthyroid patients. Long-term treatment is being used. BMJ. 1997 Sep 27;315(7111):814. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2127520/pdf/9345188.pdf

 

Disagreements still exist over the chronic fatigue syndrome

Editor—Although the ME Association welcomes the royal colleges’ unequivocal conclusion that the chronic fatigue syndrome is a genuine and disabling condition,1 we also agree that their report will “engender disagreement on both sides of the Atlantic.”2 We have no problem in accepting that the alternative name for the condition—myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)—is pathologically incorrect, and this is a matter that we now intend to address. However, labels are important to patients as well as doctors, and support groups throughout the world are unanimous in their view that “chronic fatigue syndrome” is a totally inadequate way of describing the symptomatology and associated disability. The chronic fatigue syndrome may well become a dustbin diagnosis for anyone with chronic fatigue, and a new name that is acceptable to both doctors and patients clearly needs to be found.

You can read the full comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125625/pdf/9006489.pdf

 

Source: Shepherd C. Disagreements still exist over the chronic fatigue syndrome. BMJ. 1997 Jan 11;314(7074):146. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125625/pdf/9006489.pdf

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome

“Biopsychosocial approach” may be difficult in practice

This week a joint working group of the Royal Colleges of Physicians, Psychiatrists, and General Practitioners in Britain issued a report on chronic fatigue syndrome.’ The report constitutes, arguably, the finest contemporary position statement in the field, and physicians and patients are well advised to read it, but it is sure to engender disagreement on both sides of the Atlantic.

The term chronic fatigue syndrome is relatively new. It first appeared in the 1988 proposal by the United States Centers for Disease Control to formalise a working case definition for symptoms that had been variously named and attributed to numerous causes for over two centuries. Through field testing, the case definition was revised and simplified in 1994. In essence, it classifies a constellation of prolonged and debilitat ing symptoms as worthy of medical attention and study (see box). Related case criteria were developed by consensus at Oxford in 199 .4 Neither the American nor the Oxford criteria assume the syndrome to be a single nosological entity. As the royal colleges’ report concludes, the term chronic fatigue syndrome is appropriate because it carries none of the inaccurate aetiological implications of the alternative acronyms-myalgic encephalomyelitis, chronic fatigue syndrome, and immune dysfunction syndrome.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2359057/pdf/bmj00562-0007.pdf

 

Source: Straus SE. Chronic fatigue syndrome. BMJ. 1996 Oct 5;313(7061):831-2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2359057/

 

Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Patients’ beliefs about their illness were probably not a major factor

Comment on: Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. [BMJ. 1996]

 

EDITOR,-Michael Sharpe and colleagues’ study confirms that the best medical advice for patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome is not “nothing can be done” or that “the disease will burn itself out.”‘ The study produced improvement in 73% of the patients, which is comparable to the 80% improvement produced by my management techniques.2 3 Interestingly, my approach seems to be fundamentally different from that of Sharpe and colleagues.

You can read the full comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350897/pdf/bmj00539-0053d.pdf

 

Source: Ho-Yen DO. Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Patients’ beliefs about their illness were probably not a major factor. BMJ. 1996 Apr 27;312(7038):1097-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8616430

 

Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Essential elements of the treatment must be identified

Comment on: Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. [BMJ. 1996]

 

EDITOR,-We have several practical and theoretical concerns about Michael Sharpe and colleagues’ study of cognitive behaviour therapy in the chronic fatigue syndrome.’ The authors managed to obtain almost 100% uptake of treatment and compliance among patients who were attending an infectious diseases clinic and were strongly convinced that their chronic fatigue had a physical cause. We would struggle to engage our patients similarly, even with two hours for an initial appointment, and we could not offer them anything approaching an hour of treatment a week for four months. The difference between what was provided in the study and what clinicians can routinely offer their patients makes it important to identify the essential elements of the treatment.

The package given included cognitive techniques such as “question[ing] a simple disease explanation,” “strategies to reduce excessive perfectionism and self criticism,” and a problem solving approach of “gradual and consistent increases in activity.” The continuing improvement after the end oftreatment is unusual for the cognitive psychotherapies and suggests that the behavioural component was most effective. We find it puzzling, therefore, that the authors attribute the beneficial effects of treatment to “a specific effect on illness perpetuating beliefs and coping behaviour,” particularly as these attitudes did not change substantially. The patients would inevitably report less avoidance of exercise if they were complying with the study. After treatment at least half of the patients still believed that the illness was physical (from tables 2 and 5), and the vast majority still applied the damaging label of “myalgic encephalomyelitis”2 to their condition.

You can read the full comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350875/pdf/bmj00539-0053b.pdf

 

Source: Lawrie SM. Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Cognitive behavior therapy. Essential elements of the treatment must be identified. BMJ. 1996 Apr 27;312(7038):1097; author reply 1098. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350875/

 

Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Cognitive behavior therapy should be compared with placebo treatments

Comment on: Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. [BMJ. 1996]

 

EDITOR,-Lest Michael Sharpe and colleagues’ paper lends respectability to the notion that the chronic fatigue syndrome is a diagnostic entity or suggests that cognitive behaviour therapy has any value specific to the condition,1 I wish to make three points.

Firstly, the disorder that the authors treated is heterogeneous, the only defining criteria used being fatigue, impaired daily activities, and the absence of signs of physical disease or “severe depression.” Claims for a specific effect in any diffuse symptom complex are dangerous. Quinine is effective in many cases of cramp, but neither the symptom nor the benefit is specific.

Secondly, cognitive behaviour therapy and any comparable substitute were denied the control patients, who were therefore matched only on pretreatment criteria regarding their clinical state and not controlled in respect of a comparable treatment. Despite the authors’ claim for a “specificity of treatment effect” the benefits shown are consistent with the provision of much attention, encouragement, and a positive attitude to the nature of the illness and the strategies to counter it.’

You can read the full comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350872/pdf/bmj00539-0053c.pdf

 

Source: Pearce J. Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Cognitive behavior therapy should be compared with placebo treatments. BMJ. 1996 Apr 27; 312(7038): 1097–1098. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8616428

 

Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Use an interdisciplinary approach

Comment on: Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. [BMJ. 1996]

 

EDITOR,-From their randomised trial in the chronic fatigue syndrome Michael Sharpe and colleagues conclude that cognitive behaviour therapy is more effective than “medical care” in improving day to day function.1 It is not clear that the data presented justify this conclusion. Firstly, the authors do not compare like with like: the group given cognitive behaviour therapy received 16 hours of therapy while the “medical” group received no intervention. Secondly, the “medical” group of patients were “advised to increase their level of activity by as much as they felt able,” which may have had adverse effects if the activity was unsupervised and inappropriate.2 This could have affected the results by making the group given cognitive behaviour therapy seem to improve by more than they did. Thirdly, all patients, and particularly those with the chronic fatigue syndrome, need detailed discussion of their problems. Many doctors will not have been aware that in providing such discussion-surely the duty of all doctors-they were in part providing cognitive behaviour therapy.

You can read the full comment here:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350862/pdf/bmj00539-0053a.pdf

 

Source: Eaton KK. Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Use an interdisciplinary approach. BMJ. 1996 Apr 27;312(7038):1096; author reply 1098. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350862/

 

Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Good general care may offer as much benefit as cognitive behaviour therapy

Comment on: Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. [BMJ. 1996]

 

EDITOR,-Successful outcomes have been reported from controlled clinical trials of an eclectic range of treatments-from immunotherapy to magnesium supplementation-for the chronic fatigue syndrome.’ Unpublished data suggest that equal success can be achieved with some forms of alternative therapy (for example, homoeopathy) when patients believe strongly in the approach. Most physicians, however, continue to view all such results with healthy scepticism. An equally cautious view needs to be taken when assessing Michael Sharpe and colleagues’ study of cognitive behaviour therapy.2 In a disorder that is almost certainly heterogeneous in nature, two important questions need to be answered before we can conclude that cognitive behaviour therapy is of value.

You can read the full comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350899/pdf/bmj00539-0052b.pdf

 

Source: Shepherd C. Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Good general care may offer as much benefit as cognitive behaviour therapy. BMJ. 1996 Apr 27;312(7038):1096; author reply 1098. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350899/

 

Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Evening primrose oil and magnesium have been shown to be effective

EDITOR,-In their paper on cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome Michael Sharpe and colleagues state that many pharmacological treatments have been suggested but none are of proved value.1 Last year Lewith stated that the only two treatments that had been properly evaluated were evening primrose oil and magnesium by injection.2 Intramuscular magnesium supplements have been given to patients with low red cell magnesium in a double blind placebo controlled trial; myalgia and fatigue improved in about 70% of subjects.3 Evening primrose oil has been used to treat myalgic encephalomyelitis and is the only other treatment that has been adequately tested in a controlled trial. High doses in randomised controlled trials have been shown to have a significant effect in 70-80% of patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis or the chronic fatigue syndrome.4 I would be interested to hear Sharpe and colleagues’ comments about these papers.

You can read the full comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350915/pdf/bmj00539-0052a.pdf

Comment on: Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. [BMJ. 1996]

 

Source: Chilton SA. Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Evening primrose oil and magnesium have been shown to be effective. BMJ. 1996 Apr 27;312(7038):1096; author reply 1098. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8616424

 

Brainstem hypoperfusion in CFS

Comment on: Brainstem perfusion is impaired in chronic fatigue syndrome. [QJM. 1995]

 

Sir, Costa and his colleagues {QJ Med 1995; 88:767-73) are to be congratulated for providing more information about chronic fatigue syndrome. Hypocapnia is a powerful and readily available cerebral vasoconstrictor.1

The ‘cerebral vasoconstriction, and reduction in cerebral blood flow, are initiated when the arterial pCO2 has fallen 2 mmHg below normal. When the pCO2 has fallen by 25 mmHg, cerebral blood flow is decreased by about one third … the maximum possible reduction of blood flow that can be achieved by respiratory alkalaemia is of the order of 40 per cent’.2

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/89/2/163.1.long

 

Source: Nixon PG. Brainstem hypoperfusion in CFS. QJM. 1996 Feb;89(2):163-4. http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/89/2/163.1.long