Tag: critique

Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome

Comment on: Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. [QJM. 2004]

 

Sir,

I read Severens et al.’s article on the cost-effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy for patients with unexplained chronic fatigue1 with interest, although as several subjects met the CDC criteria for ‘idiopathic chronic fatigue’ rather than ‘chronic fatigue syndrome’,2,,3 I prefer to use the term ‘unexplained chronic fatigue’ as defined by Fukuda et al.3 to describe the patient sample under consideration.

To be able to regard the presented cost estimates as a valid reflection of the medical costs of patients with unexplained chronic fatigue, it is imperative to demonstrate that there are no differences between participants who are included in the analysis and participants who are excluded from the analysis.

According to the authors: ‘An extensive comparison between participants in the cost-effectiveness analyse (n = 171) and the remaining clinical study participants (n = 99) did not reveal any statistically significant differences regarding age, duration of CFS complaints, and scores for Sickness Impact Profile, Karnofsky score, physical activity, a self-efficacy scale, a causal attribution list, and functional impairment.’ (pp. 158–9).

Although details are lacking in the article, baseline data of the included and excluded participants are available from a publication of the Health Care Insurance Board of the Netherlands (College voor zorgverzekeringen).4 Comparing baseline variables of the two groups using two-tailed independent sample t-tests yields the results that are presented in Table 1. The table shows that physical activity (measured by a motion-sensing device called the actometer), self-efficacy, and psychological well-being (measured by the symptom checklist 90) are significantly different at the 0.05 level. The p values for physical activity (p = 0.0081) and self-efficacy (p = 0.0046) are particularly small.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/6/379.long

 

Source: Stouten B. Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. QJM. 2004 Jun;97(6):379-80. http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/6/379.long (Full article)

 

Heresies in textbook on psychiatry

In journal no. 5/2004( 1 ) reported Textbook of Psychiatry by Ulrik Fredrik Malt et al ( 2 ). This book contains erroneous information relating to the description of neurasthenia. The authors classify chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), post-viral fatigue syndrome (PVFS) and myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) as neurasthenia, diagnosis code F48.0, and has thus reclassified suffering from a neurological condition to be a psychiatric condition. This was done in Malts first textbook of psychiatry, published in 1994.

WHO has since 1969 classified Thurs the 1st as neurological disease and is not going to change that in the upcoming revision. The English psychiatrists Simon Wessely, Michael Sharpe and their counterparts, often called Wessely School, has spent countless publications in more than a decade trying to to psychiatric ME / CFS, which in part has been internationally condemned.

Leading Norwegian psychiatrists are influenced by Wessely School doctrine, and this doctrine has been continued in Textbook of Psychiatry ( 2 ). In WHO’s Guide to mental health in primary care , which Wessely has helped to develop, is ME / CFS wrongly classified under mental disorders, F48.0. Wrong classification has been debated in the British House several times. WHO were involved and confirmed that ME / CFS should continue to be classified under G93.3 and that no disease can be classified in more than one category. According to ICD-10 is to be post-viral fatigue syndrome specifically excluded before the diagnosis neurasthenia set. Secretary of State for the UK Department of Health, Lord Warner, had in the House of Lords regret their statements in support of Wessely misclassification.

Director of WHO’s Collaborating Centre at King’s College London, Professor Rachel Jenkins has had to bow and accept the WHO’s official position, namely that ME / CFS should be classified under G93.3. The book is stopped and will come in a revised edition. When a country has accepted WHO’s regulations, it is mandatory to follow ICDs classification.

Malt and employee classification of ME / CFS in Textbook of Psychiatry ( 2 ) is contrary to the WHO system. It is highly regrettable that new generations healthcare are taught in heresy by reading the chapter on psychosomatic disorders in this book. In my view, the discussion of ME / CFS is removed, the book withdrawn and come out in a revised edition.

A consensus panel of medical experts has developed new clinical criteria for ME / CFS ( 3 ) These criteria provide a more accurate description of reality.

You can read the full letter here: http://tidsskriftet.no/article/1015463

 

Source: E. Stormorken. Heresies in textbook on psychiatry. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2004 May 6;124(9):1277; author reply 1277. [Article in Norwegian] http://tidsskriftet.no/article/1015463 (Full article)

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome: an endocrine disease off limits for endocrinologists?

Abstract:

Endocrinologists were not included in the multidisciplinary working groups that prepared two recent reports on chronic fatigue syndrome, despite its unequalled clinical overlap with Addison’s disease, which is a classic endocrine disorder. The failure to include at least one endocrinologist in those panels may explain why in their extensive reports there is not a single word about the 42 clinical features that chronic fatigue syndrome shares with Addison’s disease, including all the signs and symptoms listed in the case definition of this syndrome.

Comment in: Dr Baschetti rides/writes again. [Eur J Clin Invest. 2004]

 

Source: Baschetti R. Chronic fatigue syndrome: an endocrine disease off limits for endocrinologists? Eur J Clin Invest. 2003 Dec;33(12):1029-31. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14636284

 

Review: cognitive behavioural interventions may be effective for chronic fatigue syndrome and chronic back pain

Comment on: Systematic review of mental health interventions for patients with common somatic symptoms: can research evidence from secondary care be extrapolated to primary care? [BMJ. 2002]

 

Psychological disorders have a high financial burden with many indirect costs. Behavioural strategies and cognitive behavioural interventions may be effective for a range of mental disorders, including some of the most chronic, severe and costly mental health problems.1 Very few medical professionals are adequately trained to deliver such treatments, however. This article is both timely and important because it emphasises the need to disseminate cognitive behaviour therapies more widely.

Raine et al conducted a thorough review of the efficacy of psychological treatments for common somatic symptoms: chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome and chronic back pain. The results were consistent with the findings by the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures:2 cognitive behaviour interventions and behaviour therapy are effective for treating chronic back pain and chronic fatigue syndrome. Raine et al found that treatment effects were stronger in secondary care compared with primary care settings. Furthermore, antidepressants were effective in both settings for treating irritable bowel syndrome.

The review has some limitations. First, as in all secondary analyses, the review is based only on published studies (that are more likely to report positive outcomes). There may also be problems with how interventions were defined and implemented. The majority of studies did not follow a treatment manual and did not measure adherence to the therapy protocol. The distinction between “behaviour therapy” and “cognitive-behaviour therapy” therefore remains elusive. This leaves important questions unanswered about how and why these treatments work (ie the mechanisms and mediators of change).3

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://ebmh.bmj.com/content/6/2/55.long

 

Source: Hofmann SG. Review: cognitive behavioural interventions may be effective for chronic fatigue syndrome and chronic back pain. Evid Based Ment Health. 2003 May;6(2):55. http://ebmh.bmj.com/content/6/2/55.long (Full article)

 

Diverse etiologies for chronic fatigue syndrome

Comment on: Markers of viral infection in monozygotic twins discordant for chronic fatigue syndrome. [Clin Infect Dis. 2002]

 

SIR—Koelle et al.  recently studied 22 pairs of identical twins discordant for chronic fatigue syndrome and concluded that there was no major contribution for viral infections in the perpetuation of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). The authors should be commended for their methodology and the use of well-matched control subjects. However, the study raised several issues.

First, similar to previous studies, the approach of Koelle et al.  was to look for statistical differences among the well-matched pairs with respect to the presence of viral antibodies and, more specifically, the presence of DNA of the viruses studied. Although these viruses were no more prevalent among the patients with CFS than among their healthy twins, one cannot conclude that these viruses are not the cause of CFS in a small subset of patients. CFS has been described in a small number of patients who had had well-documented acute Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), and parvovirus B19 infections, and many of the patients responded to specific antiviral therapy. Of the first 200 patients with CFS who we evaluated for viral etiologies , only ∼10% had etiologies that were attributed to the viruses studied by Koelle et al. Chlamydia pneumoniae infection, an uncommon, although treatable, cause of CFS, was also dismissed in a previous, smaller study .

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/5/671.long

 

Source: Chia JK, Chia A. Diverse etiologies for chronic fatigue syndrome. Clin Infect Dis. 2003 Mar 1;36(5):671-2; author reply 672-3. http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/5/671.long (Full article)

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome/ME

Comment on: Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis. [Br J Gen Pract. 2002]

 

In previous correspondence,1 I challenged the trivialisation of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), and the generalisation and speculation in an editorial on chronic fatigue.2 The authors dismissed my arguments as, in their opinion, I had not demonstrated that I ‘was prepared and able accurately to read and interpret a scientific article’.3 I consider this remark to be unfair and unjustified.

I shall discuss each of their points in turn. First, they denied that by referring to the illness as ‘fatigue or its synonyms’, they were trivialising ‘the suffering of patients with PUPS (persistent unexplained physical symptoms)’. The authors must be aware of the controversy surrounding the word ‘fatigue’. As one affected surgeon wrote: ‘there is nothing in your experience in medical school, residency, or practice with its gruelling hours and sleep deprivation that even approaches the fatigue you feel with this illness. Fatigue is the most pathetically inadequate term’.4 Other writers on the subject recognise this, which is probably why most tend to describe the main symptom as profound, debilitating or disabling fatigue. But this was not the case here. The authors clearly equated CFS with (normal) tiredness and chronic fatigue. Elsewhere, they referred to ‘commonplace symptoms’ and in their response, again wrote about ‘fatigue and its synonyms’

You can read the full comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314477/pdf/12528593.pdf

 

Source: Goudsmit E. Chronic fatigue syndrome/ME. Br J Gen Pract. 2002 Dec;52(485):1023-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314477/pdf/12528593.pdf

 

Chronic unexplained fatigue

Comment on: Chronic unexplained fatigue. [Postgrad Med J. 2002]

 

I found the editorial on chronic fatigue syndrome by White both surprising and disappointing, because he used the title “Chronic unexplained fatigue” and the subtitle “A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”, but his editorial, by ignoring very important facts about chronic fatigue syndrome, actually perpetuates that riddle, rather than helping to solve it.

If a puzzling and poorly manageable condition shares more than 40 features, including all of its diagnostic criteria, with a well known and easily treatable disease, this astounding clinical overlap should not be ignored, because reason not only suggests that the mysterious illness may simply be a form of the well known disease, but also hints that it is worthwhile assessing whether the classic therapy for that treatable disease could be effective for the enigmatic condition as well.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1757928/pdf/v078p00763a.pdf

 

Source: Baschetti R. Chronic unexplained fatigue. Postgrad Med J. 2002 Dec;78(926):763; author reply 763. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1757928/pdf/v078p00763a.pdf

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis

Comment in: Chronic fatigue syndrome/ME. [Br J Gen Pract. 2002]

Comment on: Doctors and social epidemics: the problem of persistent unexplained physical symptoms, including chronic fatigue. [Br J Gen Pract. 2002]

 

In their editorial (Journal, May 2002), Stanley et al argued that chronic fatigue should be categorised under ‘persistent unexplained physical symptoms’, and that these are often the result of the somatisation of ‘unhappiness’ and the misinterpretation of ‘normal functioning’. However, their analysis contained some notable flaws.

Firstly, there is more to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) than ‘tiredness and its synonyms’ and to ignore symptoms, such as vertigo, nausea, and photophobia, both misrepresents and trivialises this illness.

Secondly, the authors alluded to widespread somatisation, despite the lack of evidence that this is a major problem in relation to CFS. The suggestion that this is a homogeneous population of unhappy, prejudiced, attention-seekers is difficult to reconcile with evidence-based medicine, and the subtle accusations of mass exaggeration are stigmatising and unhelpful.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314419/pdf/12236282.pdf

 

Source: Goudsmit E. Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis. Br J Gen Pract. 2002 Sep;52(482):763; author reply 763-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314419/pdf/12236282.pdf (Full article)

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis

Comment on: Doctors and social epidemics: the problem of persistent unexplained physical symptoms, including chronic fatigue. [Br J Gen Pract. 2002]

 

The editorial in the May 2002 issue by Drs Stanley, Peters and Salmon1 questions the validity of the report to the Chief Medical Officer stating that chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalopathy (CFS/ME) ‘is indeed a chronic illness meriting significant NHS resources, including the unreserved attention of the medical profession.’ They suggest that CFS/ME may be a ‘social epidemic’ where symptoms are generated by psychogenic mechanisms. They set high standards for discussions of these issues, advocating that information ‘must be interpreted within a rigorous scientific framework such as that afforded by the methods of qualitative research.’ Let us do just that. There have been repeated reports of objectively measurable physiological changes in CFS/ME.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314419/pdf/12236282.pdf

 

Source: Pall ML. Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis. Br J Gen Pract. 2002 Sep;52(482):762; author reply 763-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314419/pdf/12236282.pdf (Full article)

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis

Comment on: Doctors and social epidemics: the problem of persistent unexplained physical symptoms, including chronic fatigue. [Br J Gen Pract. 2002]

 

Readers of your editorial of May 2002 may easily gain the impression that the medical profession’s ‘established scientific methods’ have shown that CFS/ME is not a real illness and that people with CFS/ME are not really ill but are simply unhappy.

Such a perception of CFS/ME runs strongly counter to our experience at the registered charity, Westcare UK. Over the past 13 years we have been offering, with beneficial results, professional help to well over 700 patients with CFS/ME.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314419/pdf/12236282.pdf

 

Source: Sykes R. Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis. Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis. Br J Gen Pract. 2002 Sep;52(482):762-3; author reply 763-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314419/pdf/12236282.pdf (Full article)