Tag: Goudsmit

Bias, misleading information and lack of respect for alternative views have distorted perceptions of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and its treatment

Abstract:

The PACE trial is one of the most recent studies evaluating cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. These interventions are based on a model which assumes that symptoms are perpetuated by factors such as misguided beliefs and a lack of activity. Our analysis indicates that the researchers have shown significant bias in their accounts of the literature and may also have overstated the effectiveness of the above treatments. We submit that their approach to criticisms undermines the scientific process and is inconsistent with best practice.

Source: Goudsmit E, Howes S. Bias, misleading information and lack of respect for alternative views have distorted perceptions of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and its treatment. J Health Psychol. 2017 Aug;22(9):1159-1167. doi: 10.1177/1359105317707216. Epub 2017 May 29. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28805527

A Comparison of Case Definitions for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Abstract:

Many professionals have described the clinical presentation of myalgic
encephalomyelitis (ME), but recent efforts have focused on the development of ME
criteria that can be reliably applied. The current study compared the symptoms and
functioning of individuals who met the newly-developed Institute of Medicine (IOM)
clinical criteria to a revised version of the London criteria for ME. While 76% of a
sample diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) met the IOM criteria, 44%
met the revised London criteria. The revised London criteria identified patients with
greater physical impairment. The results of this study indicate the need for a standard
case definition with specific guidelines for operationalization. The application of case
definitions has important implications for the number of individuals identified with ME,
the pattern of symptoms experienced by these individuals, and the severity of their
symptoms and functional limitations. Sample heterogeneity across research studies
hinders researchers from replicating findings and impedes the search for biological
markers and effective treatments.

Source: Madison Sunnquist, Leonard A. Jason, Pamela Nehrke, and Ellen M. Goudsmit. A Comparison of Case Definitions for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Journal of Chronic Diseases and Management. https://www.jscimedcentral.com/ChronicDiseases/chronicdiseases-2-1013.pdf (Full article)

 

Bias, misleading information and lack of respect for alternative views have distorted perceptions of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and its treatment

Abstract:

The PACE trial is one of the most recent studies evaluating cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. These interventions are based on a model which assumes that symptoms are perpetuated by factors such as misguided beliefs and a lack of activity. Our analysis indicates that the researchers have shown significant bias in their accounts of the literature and may also have overstated the effectiveness of the above treatments. We submit that their approach to criticisms undermines the scientific process and is inconsistent with best practice.

Source: Ellen Goudsmit, Sandra Howes. Bias, misleading information and lack of respect for alternative views have distorted perceptions of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and its treatment. Jounral of Health Psychology. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1359105317707216?journalCode=hpqa

Pacing as a strategy to improve energy management in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: a consensus document

Abstract:

PURPOSE: Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a debilitating condition characterized by a number of symptoms which typically worsen following minimal exertion. Various strategies to manage the limited energy levels have been proposed. Of these, pacing has been consistently rated as one of the most helpful in surveys conducted by patient groups. This review is a response to the paucity of the information on pacing in the scientific literature.

METHOD: We describe the principle of pacing and how this can be adapted to meet individual abilities and preferences. A critical evaluation of the research was conducted to ascertain the benefits and limitations of this strategy.

RESULTS: Based on various studies, it is proposed that pacing can help to stabilize the condition and avoid post-exertional malaise.

CONCLUSION: Pacing offers practitioners an additional therapeutic option which is acceptable to the majority of patients and can reduce the severity of the exertion-related symptoms of ME/CFS.

© 2012 Informa UK, Ltd.

 

Source: Goudsmit EM, Nijs J, Jason LA, Wallman KE. Pacing as a strategy to improve energy management in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: a consensus document. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(13):1140-7. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2011.635746. Epub 2011 Dec 19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22181560

 

Graded exercise for chronic fatigue syndrome: too soon to dismiss reports of adverse reactions

Sir,

Given there is no formal system to report adverse reactions to non-pharmacological interventions such as graded exercise therapy (GET) for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME), other sources of data need to be considered when evaluating safety. As noted by Clark & White, a large survey conducted in 2001 by the charity Action for ME found that 50% of patients who received graded exercise felt worse (1, 2). They also referred to a subsequent study by the same group suggesting that many patients might not have been treated by experienced therapists (3). However, the sample was small and, as in all surveys, therapist competence was not assessed.

A review of all the surveys conducted to date not only supports the view that a significant proportion of patients experience adverse reactions following GET, but also that it is premature to attribute those reactions to practitioner inexperience or inadequate training (1, 4). For example, the results of a recent survey conducted by the ME Association showed that of the 906 individuals who had received GET, 33.1% felt “much worse” and 23.4% judged themselves to be “slightly worse” (4). Similarly, a survey of patients who had been treated in the previous 3 years, i.e. following the refinement of the protocol as discussed by Clark & White, revealed that 34% of the 722 who had tried GET perceived themselves to be worse (5).

Without details of the training of the therapist and their fidelity to the treatment manual, one can only speculate about the factors associated with poor outcome. Nijs et al. (6) discussed some of the possible reasons. However, there are additional factors that deserve consideration when evaluating the efficacy and safety of GET. Firstly, the survey results may reflect, at least in part, the experiences of patients receiving treatment in a clinical setting. As has been shown in studies on other interventions, the outcomes documented in routine practice may be more realistic than those obtained in randomized controlled trials (7). Secondly, many patients may not be able to complete graded activity schedules for various reasons, including ongoing pathology. For instance, Black & McCully (8) used an accelerometer to measure activity levels before, during and after a 4-week “training period” consistent with GET. They documented an increase in activity counts lasting between 4 and 10 days, and this was associated with higher scores for pain and fatigue. The inability to sustain target activity levels was also noted by Friedberg (9), who followed the progress of one patient during 26 sessions of GET. He recorded a 10.6% decrease in mean weekly step counts, leading Friedberg to speculate that the subjective measures of improvement might have been the result of activity substitution and a corresponding reduction in perceived stress.

Finally, we were surprised that neither of the letters cited the research by White et al. (10). This elegant study supports the growing evidence of abnormal metabolic and immunological reactions to exercise in subsets with CFS. Although their sample was small, White et al. found elevated concentrations of the pro-inflammatory cytokine tumour necrosis factor-alpha at time-points of 3 h and 3 days after exercise. In addition, they documented increased levels of the anti-inflammatory cytokine transforming growth factor-beta after normal exertion. We therefore concur with Nijs et al. (6) as well as other researchers, that GET may not be appropriate for all patients with CFS and that pacing may provide a useful, acceptable and safe alternative (6, 11, 12).

You can read the rest of this letter here: https://www.medicaljournals.se/jrm/content/abstract/10.2340/16501977-0493

Comment on: Chronic fatigue syndrome. [J Rehabil Med. 2008]

 

Source: Kindlon T, Goudsmit EM. Graded exercise for chronic fatigue syndrome: too soon to dismiss reports of adverse reactions. J Rehabil Med. 2010 Feb;42(2):184; author reply 184-6. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0493. https://www.medicaljournals.se/jrm/content/abstract/10.2340/16501977-0493 (Full article)

 

Learning to cope with chronic illness. Efficacy of a multi-component treatment for people with chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of an out-patient, multi-component programme developed for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).

METHODS: Twenty-two patients were assessed before and after six months of treatment. Findings were compared with 22 individuals on the waiting list. The programme offered medical care as well as information and counselling to help patients to understand, accept and cope with their illness.

RESULTS: At six months, there were significant differences between the groups for fatigue, self-efficacy and anxiety. Overall, 82% of the treated patients reported feeling better and 23% had improved to such a degree that they were discharged from the clinic. The gains were maintained at twelve months.

CONCLUSION: This programme was found to be both helpful and acceptable and may provide a useful first-line intervention for many patients with CFS.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Short, pragmatic programmes may be as effective as cognitive-behaviour therapy.

Comment in: Treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome: how to find a ‘new equilibrium’? [Patient Educ Couns. 2009]

 

Source: Goudsmit EM, Ho-Yen DO, Dancey CP. Learning to cope with chronic illness. Efficacy of a multi-component treatment for people with chronic fatigue syndrome. Patient Educ Couns. 2009 Nov;77(2):231-6. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.05.015. Epub 2009 Jul 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19576714

 

Illness intrusiveness in myalgic encephalomyelitis: an exploratory study

Abstract:

This study assessed the relationship between illness intrusiveness, symptoms, disability and depression in patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). Participants were 16 patients with ME and eight patients with ME plus co-morbid disorders. The patients with co-morbid disorders reported greater illness intrusiveness than the patients with ME alone, but there were no differences between the groups on the other variables. Significant correlations were found between illness intrusiveness on the one hand, and fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, disability and depression, on the other. We conclude that ME is a disabling illness, which has a major impact on various life domains.

 

Source: Goudsmit EM, Stouten B, Howes S. Illness intrusiveness in myalgic encephalomyelitis: an exploratory study. J Health Psychol. 2009 Mar;14(2):215-21. Doi: 10.1177/1359105308100205. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19237488

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome

I have just read the review of treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in the October issue of the JRSM. It included my study, but some of the details were inaccurate and the overall judgement was unfair and potentially misleading.

In the original ‘York’ review of the various treatments for CFS, my study received a validity score of two. However, after clarification regarding the statistical analysis, this was changed to three (Kleijnen, personal communication). Chambers et al. were clearly not aware of the ‘correction’ and published the original score. It’s a minor issue, but it wasn’t the only one.

Another example relates to the assessment of the results. According to the table (p. 511), the programme had no overall effect—but as the authors noted in their recent review for NICE (http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=368933, appendix 1, p. 423), there were ‘significant differences between groups for fatigue… and somatic symptoms’. They would also have been aware that 82% of the patients rated themselves as ‘better’ or ‘much better’ and that 23% had improved to such a degree that they were discharged.

To summarize, patients reported less fatigue, fewer somatic symptoms, less anxiety and depression after six months compared to the controls, and the improvements were maintained at follow-up. Yet the authors judged the treatment had ‘no overall effect’.

My study is one of the few which has assessed an alternative to the CBT-based programmes. It’s also one of the few controlled trials to include pacing, a strategy which many patients regard as a particularly helpful way of managing their limited energy. In my opinion, it deserved an accurate evaluation and a fair summary of the outcome. It didn’t get that.

You can read the rest of this comment here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1761664/

Comment on: Interventions for the treatment, management and rehabilitation of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: an updated systematic review. [J R Soc Med. 2006]

 

Source: Goudsmit EM. Chronic fatigue syndrome. J R Soc Med. 2007 Jan;100(1):7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1761664/ (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 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)