Tag: critique

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. Patients were not representative of all patients with the syndrome.

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

 

EDITOR,-Michael Sharpe and colleagues conclude that cognitive behaviour therapy leads to a sustained reduction in functional impairment for patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome.1 The levels of disability of the 60 patients who took part in the study suggest, however, that these patients do not represent a comprehensive cross section of patients with the syndrome. The 60 patients scored 60-78 on the Karnofsky scale assessing disability and so represent a different population from the 143 patients reported on by Case History Research on ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis), who would have scored 30-60 (R Gibbons et al, first world congress on chronic fatigue syndrome and related disorders, Brussels, Nov 1995). Fifty nine of these 143 patients reported functional deterioration after sustained, incrementally increased physical exertion.

The authors did not assess other symptoms common in the chronic fatigue syndrome, such as pain, nausea, muscle weakness, or balance problems-a measure of the reduction of which was taken as a standard for “success” in an earlier trial.2 The lack of evidence of significant changes in other measures besides “the principal complaint of severe fatigue” in the authors’ study tends to diminish the validity of their conclusions.

You can read the full comment here:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350876/pdf/bmj00539-0052c.pdf

 

Source: Gibbons R, Macintyre A, Richards C. Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Patients were not representative of all patients with the syndrome. BMJ. 1996 Apr 27;312(7038):1096; author reply 1098. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350876/

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/

 

Illness behaviour in the chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple sclerosis. Disentangling common characteristics is not so easy

Comment on: “Abnormal” illness behaviour in chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple sclerosis. [BMJ. 1995]

 

EDITOR,-Over the past few years I have seen a growing number of patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome who have been told by psychiatrists and psychologists that abnormal illness behaviour and psychosocial factors are the main factors perpetuating their disability. Few patients have accepted or believed this explanation; neither have I. The ME Association now has evidence that the fashionable theory of abnormal illness behaviour linked to somatisation is being used by several agencies as a convenient excuse for turning down applications for financial benefits or for putting pressure on vulnerable patients to undergo speculative “rehabilitation” programmes, which they may be reluctant to participate in.

Although Peter Trigwell and colleagues conclude that patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple sclerosis have virtually identical patterns of illness behaviour without any form of shared aetiology, their study suggests that the two conditions may have more in common than just central fatigue and uncertainty about long term prognosis.’ When DeLuca et al examined patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome, patients with multiple sclerosis, and healthy controls using a paced auditory serial addition test (a method of assessing processing of complex auditory information) they found that both groups of patients scored significantly below the controls, indicating similar difficulties with tasks that require simultaneous processing of cognitive information.2

You can read the full comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2551397/pdf/bmj00615-0064a.pdf

 

Source: Shepherd C. Illness behaviour in the chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple sclerosis. Disentangling common characteristics is not so easy. BMJ. 1995 Oct 21;311(7012):1093. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2551397/pdf/bmj00615-0064a.pdf

 

Illness behaviour in the chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple sclerosis. Choice of multiple sclerosis as comparison condition was inappropriate

Comment on: “Abnormal” illness behaviour in chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple sclerosis. [BMJ. 1995]

 

EDITOR,-Peter Trigwell and colleagues compared patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome with patients with multiple sclerosis and report similar responses on Pilowsky’s illness behaviour questionnaire.’ There is accumulating evidence that the chronic fatigue syndrome is a functional disorder, with psychological, social, and physical factors implicated in its cause, whereas in multiple sclerosis the primary cause is physical. Wood et al compared patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome with patients with various muscle diseases and found a threefold increase in psychiatric diagnoses in the group with the chronic fatigue syndrome.2 Wessely et al describe an important prospective cohort study and conclude that common infections play little part in causing the chronic fatigue syndrome but that both previous psychological disorder and previous fatigue are associated with its development.3

We agree with Trigwell and colleagues that illness behaviour is highly relevant to the chronic fatigue syndrome, but we share their reservations about the particular method of assessing this. We also suggest that the choice of multiple sclerosis as a comparison condition was inappropriate. Multiple sclerosis, in contrast to muscle diseases, follows a relapsing and remitting course, often manifests sensory (subjective) rather than motor (objective) signs, and might therefore lead to illness behaviour that is abnormal, albeit for different reasons from those that might apply in the chronic fatigue syndrome.

You can read the full comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2551396/pdf/bmj00615-0063c.pdf

 

Source: Campion PD, Dowrick CF, Edwards RH. Illness behaviour in the chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple sclerosis. Choice of multiple sclerosis as comparison condition was inappropriate. BMJ. 1995 Oct 21;311(7012):1092-3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2551396/pdf/bmj00615-0063c.pdf

Patients with a self diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis

Comment on: Patients with a self diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis. [BMJ. 1995]

 

EDITOR,-S J Hurel and colleagues should have checked their facts more thoroughly before making such a generalised attack on the content of literature produced by the two support groups for patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME).

The ME Association does not believe that candida albicans is involved in the pathogenesis of the condition. Our booklet Guidelines for the Care of Patients states that “no reliable scientific evidence has ever been published to support such a link” and that “consequently, anti-candida regimes involving highly restricted diets, probiotics and antifungal drugs cannot be recommended.”2 Equally, we repeatedly warn our members about the serious dangers of colonic cleansing (particularly in relation to the risk of unhygienic operators transferring gastrointestinal pathogens) and advise extreme caution when consulting herbalists or buying over the counter herbal remedies. If we really were producing literature that contained pseudoscientific nonsense and advocated dubious forms of alternative therapy I doubt whether the Department of Health would be providing funding to expand the work of our information department.

Had the authors checked with our booklet they would have found that we are not in favour of self diagnosis and strongly recommend consideration of nearly 50 physical and psychological conditions that can present with chronic fatigue as the principal clinical feature. In this context pituitary tumours are specifically mentioned as we are aware of at least two other cases similar to that reported by Hurel and colleagues in which misdiagnosis occurred. Furthermore, our literature emphasises that “significant or progressive weight loss is not a normal feature of ME, and where it occurs alternative explanations (eg hormonal) should always be excluded.”

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2550999/pdf/bmj00614-0065a.pdf

 

Source: Shepherd C. Patients with a self diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis. BMJ. 1995 Oct 14;311(7011):1021. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2550999/pdf/bmj00614-0065a.pdf (Full comment)

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Comment on: Chronic fatigue syndrome: a follow up study. [J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1994]

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome: a follow up study by Bonner et al’ reported that 47 patients initially diagnosed with “chronic fatigue” were contacted for follow up four years later. The authors indicated that “These patients were initially assessed before the current criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome became available, but most would have satisfied the criteria retrospectively” (p 617). At the outset, all patients were offered cognitive behavioural treatment and some were offered antidepressant medications. Each patient then made a decision to either undergo or decline cognitive behavioural treatment. Four years later, those patients who reported functional improvement were more likely to have elected to receive the cognitive behavioural treatment. Additionally, patients in the group that did not report any functional improvement were more likely to score higher on measures of depression.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) case definition,2 the proposed revisions to the CDC case definition,3 and the guidelines for research set forth by Sharpe et al4 were cited, but the researchers did not make it clear as to which criteria were used to diagnose which patients. Thus it is unknown whether uniform criteria were applied to diagnose all patients at the outset. Moreover, the authors did not specify just how many of the initial 47 patients met any of the cited criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome, as opposed to chronic fatigue. In short, they did not differentiate the exact number of chronic fatigue syndrome v chronic fatigue cases.

Only 29 of the original 47 patients (62%) agreed to be interviewed for the follow up. Thus 18 (38%) of the original patients were not included in the outcome data, where 10 subjects reported little or no improvement and 19 subjects reported improvement or recovery. The authors acknowledged that the small patient sample size constituted a methodological shortcoming, but nevertheless concluded “that there is a strong association between successful completion of [cognitive] treatment and the absence of functional disability at the four year follow up” (p 620). They further suggest that costs associated with long term disability could be reduced by the utilisation of cognitive therapy in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome. We would like to emphasise that the small patient sample size, together with the lack of availability of almost 40% of the initial patients for interview at follow up, make such conclusions highly inappropriate.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1073573/pdf/jnnpsyc00030-0116.pdf

 

Source: Lipkin DM, Robin R, Vasquez L, Plioplys AV, Plioplys S. Chronic fatigue syndrome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1995 Jun;58(6):764-5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1073573/

 

Influence of patients’ expectations on disease

EDITOR,-Michael Loudon continues the debate about the contribution of psychological factors to the development of the chronic fatigue syndrome and the influence of patients’ expectations on the prognosis.

I developed glandular fever over a year ago. For three months earlier this year I had considerable but variable difficulty in getting out of bed in the morning, muscle “woodenness” all over, and wobbly legs in association with a still positive PaulBunnell test. Normal activities have not been a problem for some time now, but I am still struggling to resume sporting activities at something like my previous level.

Why do we seek to make general statements? It is so easy to illustrate the futility of trying to generalise. For example, the teenage son of one of my colleagues on the nursing staff at our hospice died of hepatitis arising from the early stages of glandular fever, despite his transfer to a liver unit. By contrast, I had a normal appetite from the beginning of my illness and no abdominal tenderness. If this lad died of hepatitis and I had no hepatitis at all, does anyone suggest that he did not have a helpful attitude to his illness, while I did to mine? I think not. Why not? Because when we understand and can measure we accept that there is a range of organically based illness.

Surely the reason why there is scepticism about whether the chronic fatigue syndrome has an organic basis is because of the implications for long term absenteeism from work as well as the cost to the country in benefits.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2541947/pdf/bmj00463-0066e.pdf

 

Source: Ife S. Influence of patients’ expectations on disease. BMJ. 1994 Oct 29;309(6962):1160-1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2541947/