Tag: Lightning Process

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Lightning Process in addition to specialist medical care for paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial

Editor’s Comment: Numerous critiques of the Lightning Process have been made by physicians, medical practitioners, and patient organizations. There are cases in which LP has resulted in long-lasting physical harm. (You can read about these cases here and here.)  Dr. Charles Shepherd, an ME/CFS specialist, does not recommend LP for any ME/CFS patients.

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: Investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Lightning Process (LP) in addition to specialist medical care (SMC) compared with SMC alone, for children with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/myalgic encephalitis (ME).

DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised controlled open trial. Participants were randomly assigned to SMC or SMC+LP. Randomisation was minimised by age and gender.

SETTING: Specialist paediatric CFS/ME service.

PATIENTS: 12-18 year olds with mild/moderate CFS/ME.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Function Subscale (SF-36-PFS) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included pain, anxiety, depression, school attendance and cost-effectiveness from a health service perspective at 3, 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS: We recruited 100 participants, of whom 51 were randomised to SMC+LP. Data from 81 participants were analysed at 6 months. Physical function (SF-36-PFS) was better in those allocated SMC+LP (adjusted difference in means 12.5(95% CI 4.5 to 20.5), p=0.003) and this improved further at 12 months (15.1 (5.8 to 24.4), p=0.002). At 6 months, fatigue and anxiety were reduced, and at 12 months, fatigue, anxiety, depression and school attendance had improved in the SMC+LP arm. Results were similar following multiple imputation. SMC+LP was probably more cost-effective in the multiple imputation dataset (difference in means in net monetary benefit at 12 months £1474(95% CI £111 to £2836), p=0.034) but not for complete cases.

CONCLUSION: The LP is effective and is probably cost-effective when provided in addition to SMC for mild/moderately affected adolescents with CFS/ME.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN81456207.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Source: Crawley EM, Gaunt DM, Garfield K, Hollingworth W, Sterne JAC, Beasant L, Collin SM, Mills N, Montgomery AA. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Lightning Process in addition to specialist medical care for paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child. 2017 Sep 20. pii: archdischild-2017-313375. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2017-313375. [Epub ahead of print] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28931531

Chronic fatigue syndrome and experience with the Lightning Process

The cause of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalopathy (CFS/ME) is not well understood and is disputed, and therapeutic options are limited. Many patients who attended the Lightning Process course reported positive effects. This should lead to a randomised controlled intervention trial.

Since 2008 several thousand patients with CFS/ME have attended the Lightning Process (LP) course in Norway (1). The course is a three-day intensive brain rehearsal programme with the option for follow-up. Although what triggers CFS/ME in the individual case may vary, it is assumed that symptoms maintenance and chronification can be attributed to a stress response with elevated state of alertness and persisting activation of the sympathetic nervous system, driven by classic and operant conditioning mechanisms. The Lightning Process is based on these theories of stress.

You can read the rest of this article here: http://tidsskriftet.no/en/2016/03/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-and-experience-lightning-process

 

Source: Landmark L, Lindgren RM, Sivertsen B, Magnus P, Conradi S, Thorvaldsen SN, Stanghelle JK. Chronic fatigue syndrome and experience with the Lightning Process. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2016 Mar 15;136(5):396. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.15.1214. ECollection 2016. [Article in English, Norwegian] http://tidsskriftet.no/en/2016/03/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-and-experience-lightning-process (Full article)

 

Comparing specialist medical care with specialist medical care plus the Lightning Process for chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (SMILE Trial)

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a relatively common and potentially serious condition with a limited evidence base for treatment. Specialist treatment for paediatric CFS/ME uses interventions recommended by National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) including cognitive behavioural therapy, graded exercise therapy and activity management. The Lightning Process (LP) is a trademarked intervention derived from osteopathy, life-coaching and neuro-linguistic programming, delivered over three consecutive days as group sessions. Although over 250 children with CFS/ME attend LP courses each year, there are no reported studies on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness.

METHODS: This pragmatic randomised controlled trial is set within a specialist paediatric CFS/ME service in the south west of England. Children and young people with CFS/ME (n = 80 to 112), aged 12 to 18 years old will be randomised to specialist medical care (SMC) or SMC plus the LP. The primary outcome will be physical function (SF-36 physical function short form) and fatigue (Chalder Fatigue Scale).

DISCUSSION: This study will tell us whether adding the LP to SMC is effective and cost-effective compared to SMC alone. This study will also provide detailed information on the implementation of the LP and SMC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81456207 (31 July 2012).

 

Source: Crawley E, Mills N, Hollingworth W, Deans Z, Sterne JA, Donovan JL, Beasant L, Montgomery A. Comparing specialist medical care with specialist medical care plus the Lightning Process for chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (SMILE Trial). Trials. 2013 Dec 26;14:444. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-444. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3879423/ (Full article)

 

The feasibility and acceptability of conducting a trial of specialist medical care and the Lightning Process in children with chronic fatigue syndrome: feasibility randomized controlled trial (SMILE study)

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) or myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) is relatively common in children with limited evidence for treatment. The Phil Parker Lightning Process (LP) is a trademarked intervention, which >250 children use annually. There are no reported studies investigating the effectiveness or possible side effects of LP.

METHODS: The trial population was drawn from the Bath and Bristol NHS specialist paediatric CFS or ME service. The study was designed as a pilot randomized trial with children (aged 12 to 18 years) comparing specialist medical care with specialist medical care plus the Lightning Process. Integrated qualitative methodology was used to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the recruitment, randomization and interventions.

RESULTS: A total of 56 children were recruited from 156 eligible children (1 October 2010 to 16 June 2012). Recruitment, randomization and both interventions were feasible and acceptable. Participants suggested changes to improve feasibility and acceptability and we incorporated the following in the trial protocol: stopped collecting 6-week outcomes; introduced a second reminder letter; used phone calls to collect primary outcomes from nonresponders; informed participants about different approaches of each intervention and changed our recommendation for the primary outcome for the full study from school attendance to disability (SF-36 physical function subscale) and fatigue (Chalder Fatigue Scale).

CONCLUSIONS:Conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate an alternative treatment such as LP is feasible and acceptable for children with CFS or ME. Feasibility studies that incorporate qualitative methodology enable changes to be made to trial protocols to improve acceptability to participants. This is likely to improve recruitment rate and trial retention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Feasibility study first randomization: 29 September 2010. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81456207 (31 July 2012). Full trial first randomization: 19 September 2012.

 

Source: Crawley E, Mills N, Beasant L, Johnson D, Collin SM, Deans Z, White K, Montgomery A. The feasibility and acceptability of conducting a trial of specialist medical care and the Lightning Process in children with chronic fatigue syndrome: feasibility randomized controlled trial (SMILE study). Trials. 2013 Dec 5;14:415. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-415. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4235039/ (Full article)

 

Experiences of young people who have undergone the Lightning Process to treat chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis–a qualitative study

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a serious condition characterized by debilitating but unexplained fatigue. Treatment alternatives are few, and especially so for young people. The aetiology of CFS/ME is still unclear and controversial, but rehabilitative interventions seem so far most promising. The Lightning Process is a 3-day training programme that has recently become available, but no outcome studies have yet been published. It is a non-medical training programme that combines concepts from Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Life Coaching and Osteopathy. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of young people with CFS/ME after they had undergone the Lightning Process.

DESIGN: Qualitative research study.

METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with an opportunistic sample recruited through open advertisements of nine young people, aged 14-26, who had undergone the treatment, and three of their parents. Inductive thematic analysis was used to evaluate the content of the interviews.

RESULTS: Mostly positive experiences were reported of the Lightning Process. Two reported dissatisfaction and no improvement, while seven were satisfied and were much improved. Particular helpful aspects were the theoretical rationale, practical exercises, and the technique they learned. Less helpful aspects were the intensity and short duration of the treatment with little follow-up, the secrecy surrounding it, and feelings of being blamed if the treatment did not work.

CONCLUSIONS: As this is the first report of young people’s experiences with the Lightning Process, it will be important to consider the helpful and unhelpful treatment components for future refinement of interventions for CFS/ME.

© 2012 The British Psychological Society.

 

Source: Reme SE, Archer N, Chalder T. Experiences of young people who have undergone the Lightning Process to treat chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis–a qualitative study. Br J Health Psychol. 2013 Sep;18(3):508-25. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8287.2012.02093.x. Epub 2012 Sep 19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22989369