ME/CFS therapies
You don't need to be Editor-In-Chief to add or edit content to WikiDoc. You can begin to add to or edit text on this WikiDoc page by clicking on the edit button at the top of this page. Next enter or edit the information that you would like to appear here. Once you are done editing, scroll down and click the Save page button at the bottom of the page.
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1] Phone:617-525-6884
Please Take Over This Page and Apply to be Editor-In-Chief for this topic: There can be one or more than one Editor-In-Chief. You may also apply to be an Associate Editor-In-Chief of one of the subtopics below. Please mail us [2] to indicate your interest in serving either as an Editor-In-Chief of the entire topic or as an Associate Editor-In-Chief for a subtopic. Please be sure to attach your CV and or biographical sketch.
Many patients do not fully recover from Chronic fatigue syndrome, even with treatment.[1] Some management strategies are suggested to reduce the consequences of having CFS. A sytematic review has shown that CFS patients are less susceptible to placebo effects than predicted, and have a low placebo response compared to patients with other diseases.[1]
Behavioral interventions
Behavioral interventions including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) have been shown to be at least partially effective in some people with CFS. A systematic review published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (October 2006)[1] found these are the only two known treatments that seem helpful. The statement of principal findings regarding CBT/GET was: "A number of RCTs (randomised controlled trials) suggest that behavioural interventions, including elements of CBT, GET and rehabilitation, may reduce symptoms and improve physical functioning of people with CFS/ME." However some uncertainty still exists over the efficacy of these treatments, especially GET for severely affected patients, as none were included in studies that passed the inclusion criteria of the review. The review also emphasized the need for more and better conducted studies of both therapies, as well as more research into the adverse affects of treatments in general as they may be under reported or poorly quantified. As mentioned in the review under the 'unanswered questions/further research' section, very few studies assessed the effectiveness of "interventions for children and young people and for severely affected patients." More research is needed on severely affected patients in general; because many treatments and studies require patients to attend a clinic, and those with the worst symptoms often receive the least support from health and social services. The authors also expressed concern about possible bias in the CFS literature, a lack of uniformity in case definitions and study inclusion/exclusion criteria (studies using any CFS criteria were included), and the basic information provided about the participants; which they state makes it difficult to assess the generalizability of the findings of many of these studies. This review found that no intervention had been proved effective in restoring the ability to work. An earlier systematic review published in 2002 also found this, although CBT was "lending a possible association between improvement in the ability to work and an increase in the number of patients employed". This earlier review also found that no specific patient characteristics seemed to serve as best predictors of positive employment outcomes in CFS patients, although did find that depression of greater severity was associated with unemployment.[1] However, another systematic review published in 2004 concluded "Only cognitive behavior therapy, rehabilitation, and exercise therapy interventions were associated with restoring the ability to work."[1]
The "Gibson Report" (Report of the Group on Scientific Research into Myalgic Encephalomyelitis 2006),[1] a political inquiry into the science of CFS provides information about treating CFS with CBT and/or GET. However, the report has been criticised by the ME Association, for: being poorly conducted, misrepresentations, omissions, lack of references, factual inaccuracies or bias, and even potentially damaging implications.[1][1][1] The "25% ME Group", a UK advocacy support group for severely affected M.E. sufferers, state, in their submission to the Gibson report,[1] that both CBT and GET are unhelpful and may be dangerous/harmful to severely affected CFS patients. The discrepancy between trial results and patient group surveys has been noted by the P.A.C.E. trial group, who are conducting a larger more detailed study into CBT and GET which is currently underway and is due for completion in 2009.[1] However, it has without explanation dropped all use of objective measures such as actometers since the original research plan was published.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)
Results from clinical studies have suggested that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an effective, evidence-based therapy for CFS.[1] The use of psychological therapies such as CBT does not imply that CFS is a psychiatric condition or that physical symptoms are not real, although the suggestion that they may be curative does suggest "proof of concept". Some CFS patients have comorbid depression and/or anxiety.[1] In addition, it is argued that CBT may teach patients various "coping strategies" to help them deal with cognitive impairments such as a deterioration of short-term memory or abbreviated attention span, although it is uncertain how changing one's schemas, as CBT theory contends, would cause improvement in these serious pathological symptoms. Dr. David Smith, a former medical advisor to the ME Association in the UK who reports to have successfully treated many children using antidepressants and therapy,[1] offers a possible explanation on his website.[1] Some patients and patient groups state that this is innaccurate, arguing that CBT is described as an "exposure therapy" e.g. UK mental health charity MIND,[1] that most of the conditions commonly listed as being suitable for CBT are behavioural and that the 2002 UK CMO's Report describes CBT as "a tool for constructively modifying attitude and behaviour."
Although the Gibson Report[1] states that CBT in general is helpful to many people with other illnesses, it is notable that RCTs of CBT in cancer have found no improvements in the course of the disease at all, and most of the helpfulness that CBT may afford illness in general is concerning matters such as e.g. high risk behaviour in a minority of AIDS patients. Dr Eleanor Stein states that the most commonly used worldwide model of illness management, the Stanford Model of Chronic Disease Self Management, shows benefits for diabetes and hypertension (conditions in which lifestyle play a strong role), but less benefit for arthritis.[1]
Carruthers and Van de Sande in their Overview of the Canadian Consensus Guidelines, [1] note that supportive counselling should not be mis-termed CBT to avoid misleading confusion between the two treatments amongst patients and doctors.
While it is controversial in regards to CFS, CBT seems to be more effective in those with less severe forms but much less effective in the severely affected. Commenting on the relevance of CBT for CFS, the report states that it has a role to play in treatment but at best is only a partial answer and more research is needed. A systematic review on CBT[1] finds that "CBT was associated with a significant positive effect on fatigue, symptoms, physical functioning and school attendance." The reviewers state that the quality of many recent trials on CBT are lower quality randomized controlled trials or trials that did not involve random allocation. The reviewers also state that one recent, good quality trial of CBT in children and adolescence supports the effectiveness of CBT. The reviewers state that reasons for withdrawals typically remain unreported, and that a degree of publication bias seems to be present in CFS/ME literature as a whole. In one study, the effect of CBT has been demonstrated up to five years after therapy.[1] A large evaluation study in Belgium, however, lead to the conclusion that while on average CBT may cause patients to feel somewhat better, objective measurement shows no reduction in their disability.[1] Another recent study found that CBT improved self-reported cognitive impairment but not actual neuropsychological test performance[1] which suggests the patients were somehow being mislead. According to researchers of one study, CBT usually aims at reducing fatigue but can also reduce pain, although higher pain at baseline was associated with a negative treatment outcome.[1] The place of CBT for children, young people and the severely affected needs to be better established, although some open studies suggest that it is helpful, so long as it is adapted for the individual patient.
Similar and related treatments
Many CFS patients face the stress of economic and legal problems. CFS sufferers may lose jobs, marriages, and the ability to work at all, causing severe financial loss and distress. A lawyer, social worker, or counsellor can be beneficial in helping the patient determine their best course, and may assist the patient with applying for work-related disability, social programs, and other aid. A study which included 45 CFS patients found that psychodynamic counselling has comparable effectiveness to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in the treatment of chronic fatigue.[1]
Graded Exercise Therapy (GE, GA, GET or Adaptive Pacing)
Several rehabilitation programs have been proposed which involve supervised or self-monitored graded exercise or activity. Such programs are designed to overcome deconditioning, increase strength and cardiovascular health, despite that there is no evidence that deconditioning is a significant factor in activity limitation, or that patients do not make the most of their restricted ability. Programs are said to incorporate considerable education wherein the sufferer learns to start at an appropriate level of activity (based upon intensity and duration) which is incrementally increased, at a rate which is supposed does not substantially increase symptoms.
The Gibson Report states GET is one of the most common treatments for CFS in the UK. Dr. Peter White found that in four studies 50-70% of patients improved with GET, and he stated that GET (combined with CBT) has only been shown to be efficacious in small trials. The Gibson Report mentions the 25% ME Group statement that, "only 5% of their members found GET helpful and 95% found it unhelpful". Many patients who submitted personal evidence to the Gibson inquiry said that they had similarly negative experiences which they attributed to their participation in GET.[1] The authors of the report expressed concern about GET treatment guidelines, arguing that there are potential risks of GET for CFS patients, "Some of our evidence suggests that GET carries some risk and patients should be advised of this." The authors stated that the CFS guidelines lacked cautions about these possible risks and they said that patients should be checked for heart trouble before attempting GET. The authors said that the perception that GET may lead to deterioration in health "has lent fuel to their often serious antipathy to the doctors offering it." A New Zealand study suggests that GET may result in self-reported improvement by reducing the degree to which patients focus on their symptoms[1] although there is no evidence that CFS patients disproportionately focus on symptoms, rather that common CFS definitions fail to describe patients' symptomology adequately.
Physiotherapy
A pilot study published in the journal Physiother Theory Pract. in Mar 2008 indicates a subgroup of CFs patients may benefit from breathing retraining, to increase lung tidal volume and lower respiratory rates. [1]
See also
Articles about ME/CFS | |
|---|---|
| Descriptions | Nomenclatures · Definitions, Guidelines, and Summaries |
| Proposed Causes and Pathophysiology | Hypothesized Causes · Pathophysiology |
| Treatments | Treatments · Therapies |
| Other | History · Controversies · Outbreaks |
References
Acknowledgement and Attribution Regarding Sources of Content
Some of the initial content on this page may be incorporated in part from copyleft sources in the public domain including wikis such as Wikipedia and AskDrWiki. Drug information for patients came from the The National Library of Medicine. Infectious disease information may have come from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Differential Diagnoses are drawn from clinicians as well as an amalgamation of 3 sources: 1.The Disease Database; 2. Kahan, Scott, Smith, Ellen G. In A Page: Signs and Symptoms. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2004:3; 3. Sailer, Christian, Wasner, Susanne. Differential Diagnosis Pocket. Hermosa Beach, CA: Borm Bruckmeir Publishing LLC, 2002:7 .
