Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a controversial illness, with apparent disagreements between medical authorities and patient support organisations regarding safe and effective treatments. The aim of this study was to measure the extent of different views regarding treatments, comparing patient support organisations and medical authorities in the UK.
METHODS: Two independent raters analysed two groups of resources: UK patient support websites and both medical websites and textbooks. A 5-point Likert scale was developed with the question ‘With what strength does the source recommend these treatments?’ The various treatments were divided into the following four groups: complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), pharmacological, rehabilitative, and pacing therapies.
RESULTS: There were significant differences between the scores for patient support organisations and medical sources for all 4 treatment groups. The results for supporting CAM were 74% (patient group) vs 16% (medical source) (p<0.001), 71% vs 42% for pharmacological (p=0.01), 28% vs 94% for rehabilitative (p<0.001) and 91% vs 50% for pacing treatments (p=0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: There were substantially different treatment recommendations between patient support organisations and medical sources. Since expectations can determine response to treatment, these different views may reduce the engagement in and effectiveness of rehabilitative therapies recommended by national guidelines and supported by systematic reviews.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Source: Mallet M, King E, White PD. A UK based review of recommendations regarding the management of chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res. 2016 Sep;88:33-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.07.008. Epub 2016 Jul 17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27521650
Comment
Ellen M Goudsmit 2016 Aug 16 12:55 p.m.
It should be noted that the PACE trial did not assess pacing as recommended by virtually all patient groups. This behavioural strategy is based on the observation that minimal exertion tends to exacerbate symptoms, plus the evidence that many with ME and CFS cannot gradually increase activity levels for more than a few days because of clinically significant adverse reactions [1]. It does not make any assumptions about aetiology.
The authors state that “It should be remembered that the moderate success of behavioural approaches does not imply that CFS/ME is a psychological or psychiatric disorder.” I submit that this relates to CBT and GET and not to strategies such as pacing. It might be helpful here to remind readers that the GET protocol for CFS/ME (as tested in most RCTs) is partly based on an operant conditioning theory, which is generally regarded as psychological [2]. The rehabilitative approaches promoted in the UK, i.e. CBT and GET, tend to focus on fatigue and sleep disorders, both of which may be a result of stress and psychiatric disorders e.g. depression. A review of the literature from the ‘medical authorities’ in the UK shows that almost without exception, they tend to limit the role of non-psychiatric aetiological factors to the acute phase and that somatic symptoms are usually attributed to fear of activity and the physiological effects of stress.
I informed the editor that as it read, the paper suggests that 1. patients have no sound medical source to support their preference for pacing and that 2. the data from the PACE trial provides good evidence against this strategy. I clarified that the trial actually evaluated adaptive pacing therapy (a programme including advice on stress management and a version of pacing that permits patients to operate at 70% of their estimated capability.) The editor chose not to investigate this issue in the manner one expects from an editor of a reputable journal. In light of the above issues, the information about pacing in this paper may mislead readers.
Interested scientists may find an alternative analysis of the differing views highly illuminating [3].
[1]. Goudsmit, EM., Jason, LA, Nijs, J and Wallman, KE. Pacing as a strategy to improve energy management in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: A consensus document. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2012, 34, 13, 1140-1147. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2011.635746.]
[2]. Goudsmit, E. The PACE trial. Are graded activity and cognitive-behavioural therapy really effective treatments for ME? Online 18th March 2016. http://www.axfordsabode.org.uk/me/ME-PDF/PACE trial the flaws.pdf
[3]. Friedberg, F. Cognitive-behavior therapy: why is it so vilified in the chronic fatigue syndrome community? Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior, 2016, 4, 3, 127-131. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21641846.2016.1200884