CBT for anxiety in kids with autism meta-analysed

A short post today to bring the findings reported by Celal Perihan and colleagues [1] to your attention with regards to the use of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for anxiety in the context of paediatric autism.

It was yet another case of authors meta-analysing (boiling down) the data from the existing research literature and coming to a conclusion. Twenty-odd studies reported on the use of CBT - talking therapy - for an important quality-of-life draining issue for many diagnosed on the autism spectrum: anxiety (see here and see here). Researchers concluded that CBT did seem to be associated with a reduction in some anxiety-linked symptoms/behaviours but things weren't altogether cut-and-dried on the usefulness of CBT in this context.

I wasn't surprised by these results. I've blogged before about how CBT for anxiety in the context of autism might be a useful option for some (see here). That being said, I'm not 100% in favour of CBT being used in this context. I say that because, as things stand, we don't know enough about why anxiety seems to be over-represented in relation to autism (see here). I've opined on various occasions that anxiety is probably a lot more than 'just a comorbidity' when it comes to some autism (see here). In that context, the use of CBT 'for anxiety' is a little bit like saying that CBT is being used 'for autism'. And the evidence for that is pretty unconvincing (see here).

If you really want to convince me that CBT is good for anxiety in the context of autism, try pitting CBT against some of the other non-psychology interventions that have been talked about for anxiety in relation to autism (see here). See what comes out on top rather than just looking at CBT vs. treatment-as-usual (whatever that means). Oh, and bear in mind that we still don't know enough about the presentation of anxiety in those on the autism spectrum who are perhaps not able to participate in CBT (see here)...

----------

[1] Perihan C. et al. Effects of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Reducing Anxiety in Children with High Functioning ASD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Autism Dev Disord. 2019. Feb 27.

----------

PACE trial for chronic fatigue syndrome (still) being put through its paces: a reply

I'm bringing the paper published by Michael Sharpe and colleagues [1] to your attention today in the interest of balance and peer-reviewed 'right to reply'.

The Sharpe paper concerns the PACE trial, the study which reported that "when added to specialist medical care, cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise therapy were more effective in improving both fatigue and physical function in participants with CFS [chronic fatigue syndrome], than both adaptive pacing therapy and specialised medical care alone."

Anyone with a little bit of knowledge about the PACE trial will know that it's a 'contentious' topic within CFS (and ME, myalgic encephalomyelitis) circles. Indeed, the Sharpe paper comes about as a direct result of a reanalysis paper (see here) which reported findings raising "serious concerns about the robustness of the claims made about the efficacy of CBT [cognitive behavioural therapy] and GET [graded exercise therapy]" in the context of CFS/ME. 'Serious concerns' is putting it mildly considering how others have described the PACE trial and some of its tenets (see here).

Sharpe et al, who were authors listed on the original PACE trial paper [2], have had to defend their work/findings before in the peer-reviewed realm (see here). Same as before, the name Carolyn Wilshire is addressed and her teams reanalysis of the PACE trial data [3]. Said data was, I might add, (partially) released only following intervention from the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) here in Blighty (see here). More recent events have similarly reiterated that 'access to raw study data' is something that CFS/ME researchers perhaps need to bear in mind at study conception (see here).

I'm not going to clinically dissect the Sharpe paper in this post because (a) 'interpretation' forms quite a bit of the reply to the Wilshire reanalysis, and (b) your opinion on the scientific quality of the Sharpe reply is most likely going to be shaped by where you stand in terms of the whole CBT/GET for CFS/ME discussion. Indeed, a peer-reviewer of the Sharpe paper also said as much (see here). What I will comment on is how the Wilshire reanalysis paper and the more recent Sharpe reply to the reanalysis paper might further inform research more generally with CFS/ME in mind.

Oh, and it's probably just a coincidence that the Sharpe paper comes out only days after a news headline reads "Online activists are silencing us, scientists say" talking about a familiar topic.

So:

• Point 1: Design a good trial analysis plan and stick to it. From my 'outsider looking in' perspective, the changes made to "the scoring of the pre-specified outcomes" regarding fatigue and physical functioning in the PACE trial, however innocent they might have been, have created tension. Lots of tension. Such changes, whether agreed by "Trial Data Monitoring and Steering Committees" or not, can be construed in various different ways. It's better not to make such changes in the first place.
• Point 2: If you are going to study something like physical functioning in relation to CFS/ME, don't just rely on things like questionnaires and Likert scales; use actigraphy too. Self-report is always a good thing but I've never understood why, with the wide range of cost-effective technology out there (available I believe, even in the early 2000s), wearable trackers such as pedometers or similar were not also utilised during such studies (see here). If you're spending £5 million on a trial, a few quid for some pedometers is not exactly going to break the bank and will inevitably bring some further quality data to the table.
• Point 3: Recovery. As per other discussions (see here), most people would characterise recovery as a complete remission of symptoms and/or return to typical functioning. If you're not going to use this description, don't use the word recovery. Use something else instead. Indeed, use 'partial remission' or 'improvement' if you need to but don't call anything less than the complete remission of symptoms 'recovery'.
• Point 4: Long-term outcomes. It's probably best to avoid any sweeping statements after the arms of a trial - a "randomised trial" not necessarily a "randomised controlled trial" according to Wilshire et al - have been completed. More so when you're measuring such long-term outcomes via a postal question minus any objective measure(s) (see point 2). It's probably also a good idea to ask patients about their quality of life too and whether that has changed (see here).
• Point 5: Even if your paper states in no uncertain terms that: "The effectiveness of behavioural treatments does not imply that the condition is psychological in nature" the use of something like CBT for CFS/ME implies that you probably think there is a substantial psychological 'component' to the condition. This is compounded when you're for example, a Professor of Psychological Medicine. If you were pitting CBT in particular against a specific pharmacological or biological intervention 'for CFS/ME' (see here for example), I'd be more inclined to see your view in a more 'rounded sense'. Indeed, if you were to study one or two biological parameters as well as behavioural ones looking for any change following intervention, you might convince more people that psychology is not the primary line you take. And whilst on the topic of psychology and CFS/ME, it's probably also best not to use 'psychobabble' terms like 'deconditioning' in your research. Such terms are pretty much scientifically untestable and, given the recent discussions about the legacy of some adherents to something like psychosomatic research (see here), is likely to be consigned to the scientific dustbin as some later point.

I think I've covered the main points as I see them. Please feel free to agree/disagree as you wish.

End of Line.

Addition: 26 March 2019. Not quite 'End of Line' it seems, as a reply to a reply to a reply emerges [4]. Peer reviewed science is far from slow...

----------

[1] Sharpe M. et al. The PACE trial of treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome: a response to WILSHIRE et al. BMC Psychology. 2019; 7: 15.

[2] White PD. et al. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2011; 377(9768):823-36.

[3] Wilshire CE. et al. Rethinking the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome—a reanalysis and evaluation of findings from a recent major trial of graded exercise and CBT. BMC Psychology. 2018; 6: 6.

[4] Wilshire CE. & Kindlon T. Response: Sharpe, Goldsmith and Chalder fail to restore confidence in the PACE trial findings. BMC Psychology. 2019; 7: 19.

----------

"Having accessed treatment was associated with reporting lower levels of work/school attendance"

I have to admit that I did a bit of a double-take when I came across the quote titling this post - "Having accessed treatment was associated with reporting lower levels of work/school attendance" - in the paper published by Sheila Ali and colleagues [1] (open-access available here).

The findings came from a study that set out to investigate the "factors associated with fatigue, disability and school attendance in young people with severe CFS/ME [chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis]." Part of the study also looked (in a preliminary manner) at whether some of the therapeutic options offered 'for ME/CFS' were up to scratch based on participants' responses and views.

"Questionnaire data were collected in two waves: at baseline (T1), and at follow-up (T2), which was 3–9 months later" as such data were collected from 51 young people "required to have a self-reported diagnosis of CFS/ME." Researchers mention how they focused on participants with "severe CFS" as measured by a self-report 'functional ability scale'. That being said, recruitment phases for the Ali study were not uniform, as two different thresholds for severity were eventually used in different recruitment phases.

No mind, Ali et al asked participants to complete various questionnaires around things like mobility, meaningful education and/or work (including attendance), and level of fatigue. Bearing in mind the use of words like 'fear avoidance' in the Ali paper (possibly denoting the biopsychosocial (BPS) 'sway' of some of the authors), various 'psychological' concepts were also included for study. The data were collated and analysed.

Results: although data for 51 participants were eventually analysed, nearly 400 young people were sent a letter inviting them to participate in the Ali study. Only 56 responses (consent forms and questionnaires) were eventually received which, even taking into account the 'severe CFS' inclusion criteria, represents a pretty low study turnout. This seems to follow a trend among certain types of study of ME/CFS (see here) which is starting to become quite noticeable.

"Thirty-seven (72.5%) participants reported using assistive equipment such as crutches, walking frames, ramps, stair-lifts and shower chairs. Thirty-three participants (64.7%) reported that they used a wheelchair. Nine participants (17.6%) reported that they were bed-bound." Contained within those sentences is the real cost of ME/CFS to something like mobility. On top of all that, researchers also observed that approaching 90% of their cohort were also taking some form of medication (I assume pertinent to things like mobility issues and beyond). In terms of how things like mobility issues impacted on participation in 'meaningful' education and/or work, we are told that only a quarter of participants "had been able to attend school, college or work in the past year." That's 'in the past year'.

Then back to those 'treatments' and their effects. So: "Although this was a naturalistic study and not an evaluation of treatment, it is notable that the majority of participants reported that they had accessed some form of treatment, and yet the mean scores for fatigue and social functioning had not changed considerably by T2." What sorts of treatments had they tried I hear you ask? Well, table 1 (see here) provides some details. The most popular treatment 'accessed' was "CBT, GET or both with at least one other treatment" closely followed by "CBT, GET or both." Allied to other independent data suggesting that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) are failing many patients with ME/CFS (see here and see here and see here), and the case grows ever stronger for new treatment directions to be pursued. Such research directions should perhaps also be minus words like 'fear avoidance' or other psychobabble inclinations that have pervaded ME/CFS thought down the years. Indeed, one has to ask who would advocate for treatments that are seemingly at best ineffective and at worst downright detrimental to the patient group who are 'accessing' them?

There are some other points noted in the Ali paper including things like how "low mood is a consequence of having CFS/ME" and how "symptoms of CFS/ME and levels of functioning can fluctuate over time." These follow similar sentiments expressed in other research (see here and see here) along the lines of CFS/ME being very much a real physical illness with both physical and psychological effects.

There are some obvious caveats to mention about the Ali study, specifically around the sole use of questionnaires without any other 'actigraphic' form of inquiry (to measure something like activity levels), the representativeness of results, and the reliance on self-report when it came to diagnoses. Although I've also been pretty harsh on the effectiveness of the treatment options accessed, I will direct you to some author comments on this issue and how "the effects of treatment would not be seen within such a short period of time." I'm not too sure about such sentiments but, in the interests of balance, give them airtime in this study write-up.

Despite all that, the Ali findings add further to our knowledge about ME/CFS in young adults. They demonstrate how 'life-destroying' the illness is (are) and can be, and what that means to those who suffer with it (them). They also add to the multiple voices - research and patient voices - demanding a greater clinical focus on ME/CFS, and how objective, biological science in particular, needs to be front-and-centre of any new direction. But I'll also reiterate that any new focus and new direction needs to be minus the psychobabble; indeed it may be unethical not to [2]...

----------

[1] Ali S. et al. Psychological and demographic factors associated with fatigue and social adjustment in young people with severe chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: a preliminary mixed-methods study. J Behav Med. 2019 Jan 25.

[2] O'Leary D. et al. Ethical classification of ME/CFS in the United Kingdom. Bioethics. 2019 Feb 8.

----------

"A 4-Day Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Behavioral Intervention Program for CFS/ME" but...

I did um-and-ah about whether I should blog about the findings reported by Bjarte Stubhaug and colleagues [1] observing that "a brief, concentrated treatment program for CFS/ME might be highly beneficial."

The reasoning behind my reticence was primarily to do with the study design whereby "a 4-day group intervention program, comprised by education, cognitive group therapy sessions, mindfulness sessions, physical activity and writing sessions, within a context of cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness, acceptance and commitment model" was delivered to over 300 people diagnosed with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalopathy (CFS/ME) and self-report results plotted "1 week before and 1 week after the intervention program, and at 3 months and 1 year after the intervention" without any control group or any kind of blinding. Even the researchers themselves wrote that their study design make "conclusion of the actual effect of the treatment program [in part or whole] and its impact on the clinical course through the follow-up period difficult." But, here I am...

As you can see from the picture accompanying this post, others are also just a little bit critical of the Stubhaug paper and findings. Although I can't speak for anyone else, I imagine some of the 'criticism' of the study and results rightly follows on from the methodology employed by the authors. I did also wonder if some feeling might also be there because of the subject matter, and specifically, the continuing idea in some quarters that the application of the biopsychosocial (BPS) model to CFS/ME should carry weight. To quote from the authors: "The therapeutic rationale behind the program was to increase the medical knowledge and interpretation of bodily distress, challenge and modify dysfunctional illness perceptions as well as illness behavior, and through acceptance and commitment strategies contribute to behavioral change and clinical improvement." Sounds about as BPS as you can get I reckon.

Focusing for now on the methodological and related side of the Stubhaug paper, the starting point for the study was the authors' observation that: "The most promising treatment so far seem to be cognitive-behavioral treatment programs... and graded exercise." Just before anyone gets angry about this, authors do also highlight how "the effectiveness of interventions and robustness of findings are continuously being questioned" in this area. Yes, yes they are being questioned (see here and see here for examples) and by lots and lots of different people. Nonetheless, researchers decided to test whether their 4-day program, encompassing quite a few elements, might impact on some of the signs and symptoms of CFS/ME in their cohort. Said program included education: an "introduction to stress medicine with focus on physiological and psychological stress", cognitive group therapy, mindfulness and writing experience ("patients were instructed to write for 15 min about positive experiences and emotions"). They also talk about the use of "daily walking sessions of 60–90 min, in low to moderate pace" which, considering other research (see here), sounds pretty 'full on' to me, in light of some of principal issues that define CFS/ME (see here).

Relying on self-report measures such as the Chalder Fatigue Scale and the Short Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36), researchers reported their results as per the timescales already mentioned. The picture that emerged was a fairly positive one as various statistically significant group changes (improvements) were noted across the testing sessions, even when taking into account different ways of diagnosing CFS and across the various instruments used. Most participants also said that they were pretty satisfied with the intervention program and the service they received. In short, the study met it's aims quite successfully.

But... not to pour cold water on the findings, one cannot forget about the 'open study' shortcomings of the study design. So on top of what has already been mentioned: "Many patients with CFS/ME tend to be critical to biopsychosocial interventions, and possibly most of these patients did not accept referral to the clinic, contributing to the possible selection bias." I'd say that this was another quite important *issue* that faced the Stubhaug study. The authors go on to note that their results "clearly represent a CFS population, albeit not representing the total body of CFS/ME patients" so perhaps clarifying the caution needed in this area of science specifically around any sweeping generalisations. And as an example: "At 1 year follow-up, half of the patients completing assessments (56%) still report levels of fatigue representing substantial fatigue." Such an intervention is therefore no panacea for CFS/ME.

What else? Well, the continued focus on subjective questionnaires over and above more objective measures is also apparent in the Stubhaug findings (see here). As I've mentioned on more than one occasion, it's perfectly acceptable to ask patients how they are feeling and about related issues like quality of life for example (see here). But when it comes to a condition or set of conditions like ME/CFS defined by fatigue and other symptoms that very much impact on core issues such as activity, it strikes me that one should really include an objective measure of activity if one wants to study it in its entirety. So yes, actigraphy would have been a good feature to see in this study (with before and after results). Even a pedometer costing a few quid, used a few times a week over a number of different weeks would be something at least. And once again, how about also including some biological parameters into such studies too? Y'know, just on the off-chance that things like mindfulness, minus any grand sweeping claims, for example, could have possible biological effects too [2]?

----------

[1] Stubhaug B. et al. A 4-Day Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Behavioral Intervention Program for CFS/ME. An Open Study, With 1-Year Follow-Up. Front Psychiatry. 2018;9:720.

[2] Hoge EA. et al. The effect of mindfulness meditation training on biological acute stress responses in generalized anxiety disorder. Psychiatry Res. 2018 Apr;262:328-332.

----------

Pervasive refusal syndrome and autism: autistic traits 'speeding up the recovery process'?

Before reading the case report paper by Emily Bond & Rosalind Oliphant [1], I have to admit that I knew next to nothing about the label known as pervasive refusal syndrome (PRS). PRS, a condition manifesting as 'refusal to eat, weight loss, social withdrawal and school refusal', is not currently recognised in any of the major diagnostic manuals (DSM, ICD) but does seem to have a following in certain circles [2].

Bond & Oliphant detail a case report of a 9-year old boy who came to clinical attention "due to concerns regarding minimal dietary intake." He had previously been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as well as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) following a trend these days (see here). He was subsequently detained under the Mental Health Act as a consequence of "his resistance of treatment in the community" and also him "lacking Gillick competence." The authors detail his clinical journey, and how, with the right support and accommodations, he was eventually discharged from hospital care with the expectation for him to "make a full recovery to his premorbid functioning with support in the community."

Among the various issues raised in the Bond/Oliphant paper, one of the most striking points made by the authors was in the sentence: "It is possible that the ASD [autism spectrum disorder] symptoms such as literal thinking and concrete processing have actually aided in speeding up the recovery process." The idea that certain autistic traits might actually have had a positive benefit to getting someone through treatment for PRS...

I'm slightly careful here not to go off on the 'autism is a superpower' tangent that some people have previously spoken about (particularly on social media). For this young man, autism for him included communication issues ("His sole method of communication was typing on an iPad to his mother")  and various other traits (e.g. "struggling with understanding abstract questions, complex reasoning, and problem solving skills") which probably didn't impart any superpower for him. He did have an interest in superheros and dressing up in costumes however...

Authors mention how his recovery from PRS - he was discharged after 4 months - was significantly quicker than is typically expected (around 12 months "from previous literature"). They noted that: "The clinical team working with our case quickly found that he responded very well to rules, boundaries, and clear consequences of behaviour." This is perhaps even more notable in the context of his autism-ADHD diagnostic combination.

It did get me wondering whether further research might be revealing into how autism or specific autistic traits might positively impact on other treatment/management scenarios. I'm specifically thinking about more psychologically-inclined interventions, for example, dealing with something like anxiety (see here) where talking therapy is something that is being particularly pushed forward. Whether or not I agree that such therapy is going to be all that useful in the longer-term if for example, one considers that anxiety might be intricately related to some core functions in relation to autism (see here) is irrelevant. Whether certain autistic traits might be a critical variable in intervention success however requires much further study...

----------

[1] Bond EC. & Oliphant RYK. Pervasive Refusal Syndrome in Autistic Spectrum Disorder. Case Rep Psychiatry. 2018 Jun 7;2018:5049818.

[2] Nunn KP. et al. Pervasive refusal syndrome (PRS) 21 years on: a re-conceptualisation and a renaming. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014 Mar;23(3):163-72.

----------

On the question of suicide risk and chronic fatigue syndrome / myalgic encephalomyelitis continued

The paper by Andrew Devendorf and colleagues [1] brought me back to a complicated and sensitive topic previously discussed on this blog (see here) regarding the issue of suicide risk in the context of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Specifically, the Devendorf findings provide some potentially important information about the possible reasoning behind suicide risk in the context of ME/CFS: "(1) feeling trapped and (2) loss of self, loss of others, stigma and conflict."

Based on discussions with 29 people diagnosed with ME/CFS "who endorsed suicidal ideation but did not meet depression criteria" researchers, including one Leonard Jason (see here), discussed some of the hows-and-whys of such suicidal ideation. As per the 'did not meet depression criteria' sentiments of the research, this work was less about 'mental health diagnoses affecting suicide risk' and more about how thoughts, feelings and situational factors might play a role. And as per the two variables highlighted by the study - 'feeling trapped' and 'loss of self & others and the stigma and conflict' generated by this incapacitating condition(s), some clear areas for further research and clinical attention emerged.

I've covered the sensitive issue of suicide (risk, ideation, completion) quite a few times on this blog for all-manner of different reasons (see here and see here for examples). In the most part, my musings have been on research into suicide where a specific label/condition/disorder has been diagnosed, and how facets of such labels/conditions/disorders *might* at least partially, 'intrinsically' elevate the risk of suicide ideation or beyond. The Devendorf findings kinda deviate from such 'intrinsic' sentiments, insofar as examining the implications of an acquired physical disability (see here and see here) and the onward the physical (and mental) restrictions of a condition seemingly elevating the risk of suicidality. By saying all that, I'm not making any sweeping generalisations...

I don't think anyone should really be surprised by the Devendorf results. With ME/CFS you have a condition that literally steals life from people; for example, rendering previously fit and active people to sometimes being bed-bound for days and days (or even longer) at a time. Add in a 'boom-bust' pattern of symptoms (see here) and the various 'environmental' effects (to employment, finances, social life, etc) of the condition, and well, I'm often surprised how resilient people with ME/CFS are.

I noted also how the words 'stigma' and 'conflict' were also detailed in the Devendorf study, and what implications this might have for quite a few areas of current research and clinical practice in relation to ME/CFS. I'm thinking specifically about the whole 'biopsychosocial (BPS) thing' that seems to have pervaded ME/CFS thinking down the years (see here), and how psychology in particular, seems to have over-stepped it's usefulness in relation to ME/CFS. It's kind of a coincidence that as I write this post, another article including Keith Geraghty [2] on the authorship list, is published discussing how some ME/CFS patients and patient groups have been labelled as 'militant' (or similar words and phrases) on the basis of them pushing back against medical dogma as a function of their own experiences of BPS-backed 'intervention' for example (see here). Militant is one word that has been used, 'vexatious' is another (see here).

"Participants emphasized that they were not depressed, but felt trapped by the lack of treatments available." This sentence serves to reiterate that suicidality in the context of ME/CFS is perhaps not something that should necessarily be thought of as intrinsic to the condition(s). It emphasises how issues like 'hopelessness' at the state of medical knowledge about ME/CFS, about the lack of biological explanation for the condition, and the lack of intervention options (not BPS guided I might add) may play a role in thoughts and feelings related to suicidality. It also provides another rather pressing reason why less 'psychologising' and more biological science needs to be dedicated to the hows-and-whys of ME/CFS and the search for a cure...

----------

[1] Devendorf AR. et al. Suicidal ideation in non-depressed individuals: The effects of a chronic, misunderstood illness. J Health Psychol. 2018 Jul 1:1359105318785450.

----------

"Cognitive behavioral therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder"

I'll admit that I was the one with the furrowed brow when the paper by René Kurz and colleagues [1] cropped up on my research radar. Detailing results from a "prospective observational study", authors set out to examine "the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)." They concluded that: "CBT is an effective therapy for children with ASD." You'll note that I've underlined the word 'children' in those past sentences...

OK, CBT represents one of the talking therapies that seem so popular these days. The NHS Choices website describes it as being based on "the concept that your thoughts, feelings, physical sensations and actions are interconnected, and that negative thoughts and feelings can trap you in a vicious cycle." Kurz et al applied such principles to autism, and specifically what effect CBT had based on pre- and post-scores on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC) over 12 months. They observed significant changes to things like irritability, lethargy and hyperactivity, and called for further investigations.

Why my furrowed brow on this topic? Well, several reasons. Methodologically, the Kurz study was pretty weak. A participant group of 9 boys, including pre- and post observations over 12 months, no control group, no blinding, no comparison intervention... not exactly a stand-out study. It's not inconceivable that changes to behavioural presentation might have been due to lots of other reasons aside from the use of CBT (and that's before one considers how N=9 might impact on the statistical methods used by the authors).

Then there's the use of CBT. I know that CBT is finding some favour when it comes to 'managing' certain conditions/symptoms over-represented in relation to autism such as anxiety (see here for example). The purpose however of the Kurz study was slightly more specific: "To evaluate prospectively the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)." It strikes me that in much the same way that CBT is being utilised in relation to another set of conditions (see here), the focus on the 'biopsychosocial' angle in the context of autism harks back to a shady past. And yet again, I'm going to emphasise the word 'children' in the Kurz study group.

I don't want to totally poo-poo things like talking therapy in the context of 'some' autism. I don't doubt that for some on the autism spectrum, there could be some merit in 'breaking down' thoughts and feelings in order to try and help resolve some more problematic features. I don't doubt that just being able to talk to someone about things like feelings and the like is probably going to be useful for some people including young children aged 6 or 7 years old.

But the idea that children (with a mean age of about 6 years old) are somehow going to be responsive to CBT in the context of their autism seems to be based on something a little more 'old-fashioned' in the authors' thinking. Y'know, going back to those days when sweeping (and illogical) psychological theories had a stranglehold on the way that autism was viewed. I'm also minded to mention that CBT and related therapies are not somehow 'side-effect' free, even if science needs to do more to report on possible adverse effects (see here).

The evidence for using something like CBT in the general context of autism is not great (see here). Part of this is because methodologically vigorous trials are still few and far between [2] and with regards to using children as participants, even more few and far between. I know psychology and psychological theory upon which CBT is based, still wants to play a part when it comes to autism - one need only look at the continuing fixation on Theory of Mind (ToM) to see that. But there must come a time when one steps back and asks whether a talking therapy will significantly impact on the core features of a developmentally-defined condition with strong evidence for an organic basis? Would we for example, ever entertain the use of CBT 'for' a condition like phenylketonuria (PKU) for example, where autism can and does occur alongside? No, we wouldn't.

----------

[1] Kurz R. et al. Cognitive behavioral therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder: A prospective observational study. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2018 May 30. pii: S1090-3798(17)31856-1.

[2] Weston L. et al. Effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy with people who have autistic spectrum disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2016 Nov;49:41-54.

----------

Treating anxiety and depression in the context of autism: is 'talk therapy' cutting the mustard?

The findings reported by Brenna Maddox and colleagues [1] caught my eye recently, talking about "community treatment" patterns for co-occurring anxiety or depression in the context of autism.

Researchers concluded that talking therapy such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) typically indicated for such mental health issues, is utilised in the context of autism but perhaps not as frequently as experienced in a not-autistic group. That finding covered various types of talk therapy such as individual therapy for anxiety/depression and case management. Alongside: "Adults with ASD [autism spectrum disorder] are more likely to be prescribed multiple medications concurrently."

Drawing on "Pennsylvania Medicaid claims data", researchers were able to identify adults with ASD who also presented with defined depression and/or anxiety. They matched this group (numbering about 270) with other adults presenting with depression and/or anxiety but not diagnosed with autism (N=1072). They then compared psychiatric treatment experiences between the groups.

"Adults without ASD were more likely to receive talk therapy for anxiety/depression." I added the bolding to the text so that we are clear that the Maddox results suggested that talking therapies for co-occurring depression and/or anxiety were less likely to be used when autism was mentioned. The authors further explain that these results are consistent with the idea that "they [those diagnosed with autism] often experience difficulty accessing mental health services." That being said, when talk therapy was accessed by adults with autism, researchers reported that they "averaged more individual talk therapy visits per month than did adults without ASD." I'll come back to this point in a moment...

Going back to the experiences of pharmacotherapy for those with and without autism, Maddox et al observed that: "the ASD group had a significantly higher number of days per month prescribed for all medication classes" covering medicines such as antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines (anxiolytic) and CNS stimulant. Polypharmacy - where more than one medicine is dispensed - was also a more frequent occurrence for autistic adults too (nearly half were taking two or more psychotropic medicines).

What could all this mean? Well, going back to the observation that when they were able to access talk therapy, more visits per month were noted for the adults with autism, there is one possibility entertained by the authors to account for this: "talk therapy in the community is less effective with adults with ASD, who therefore stay in therapy for a longer period in pursuit of greater symptom relief." That possibility alongside the higher rates of 'multiple medicine use' noted in that group, adds weight to the idea that whilst talking therapy is useful for some cases of anxiety and depression, in the context of autism it might not necessarily be 'cutting the mustard'. The words "having more “treatment refractory” or complex constellations of symptoms" are also mentioned by Maddox and, well, have been discussed before (see here for example).

Further research is required on this issue before any sweeping generalisations are made by me or anyone else. For the record, I'm not adverse to the idea that talking therapy could be useful for depression/anxiety in the context of autism, but am open to the idea that the presentation of such mental health issues alongside autism might not be the same in form or for the same reason(s) as that in other non-autistic contexts. Indeed, in these days of ESSENCE and 'autism plus', I'm fast coming around to the idea that anxiety and depression could well be a core part of [some] autism (see here) as per what other - often forgotten names - had previously suggested (see here). Contrary then to the idea being promulgated among some (mainly psychological) quarters of the autism research and practice scene, that anxiety and depression develop in the most part as a consequence of external sources (see here for some chatter on 'social acceptance'), such mental health issues could be more fundamental characteristics of autism [2]. By saying that, I'm not discounting *some* influences like the contributions of loneliness and self-esteem (see here) but would also look to more intrinsic (biological and genetic) variables as also exerting something of a powerful effect. Similar sentiments have also been voiced when it comes to some other extremes of behaviour and their possible 'core' link to autism (see here).

"Our results suggest the need both for more granular and sophisticated assessment of community treatment for adults with ASD and anxiety/depression, and for better training for clinicians working with this population." I don't think many people would disagree with such conclusions. What I would like to see, under scientifically controlled circumstances, is some further comparisons of talking therapy for anxiety/depression in autism vs. not autism. I'm not talking about CBT vs no CBT with autism in mind [3] but rather research comparisons taking into account whether a diagnosis of autism might mean rethinking particularly talking therapy strategies for managing such quality-of-life-draining issues such as depression and anxiety.

The implication is also, yet again, that to really positively impact on the presentation of such issues, one needs to consider 'targeting' the core symptoms of autism themselves, as per what other research has similarly hinted at (see here). I can see conflicts arising following such sentiments...

----------

[1] Maddox BB. et al. Treatment utilization by adults with autism and co-occurring anxiety or depression. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2018; 51: 32-37.

[2] Spain D. et al. Social anxiety in autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2018; 52: 51-68.

[3] Kilburn TR. et al. Rationale and design for cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders in children with autism spectrum disorder: a study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2018 Apr 2;19(1):210.

----------

PACE trial for chronic fatigue syndrome (still) being put through its paces

'Chronic fatigue trial results 'not robust', new study says' went the BBC headline reporting on the findings published by Carolyn Wilshire and colleagues [1].

Authors report peer-reviewed results following their re-examining various aspects of the PACE trial - "pacing, graded activity, and cognitive behaviour therapy: a randomised evaluation" - with regards to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME).

This latest research and accompanying media attention continues a quite long-running saga (see here) known in some quarters as 'PACE-gate' (see here) where questions have been raised about a premier study that was "designed to examine the effectiveness of graded exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)" in relation to CFS/ME. Quite a few of those interventions are set within the still unfortunately believed idea that CFS/ME represents a 'biopsychosocial' illness (see here) and that 'changing mindsets and/or behaviour' will magically transform peoples lives. I say 'still unfortunately believed' because patient experiences do not seemingly match some of the peer-reviewed science in this area (see here).

The various twists-and-turns (see here and see here) around the PACE trial have involved bigger discussions about trial design, outcome threshold 'issues' and even the accessibility of research study data. Indeed, the Information Commissioner here in Blighty has even played a hand in the PACE saga (see here) leading to some rather messy and very public arguments.

The paper by Wilshire et al continues a theme from this research group re-examining the PACE trial protocols and findings. It encompasses various elements in terms of definitions of 'overall improvement' and even 'recovery' (see here) between 'specified in trial protocol' and 'used in published reports'. Wilshire and colleagues report: "Our findings suggest that, had the investigators stuck to their original primary outcome measure, the outcomes would have appeared much less impressive."

Insofar as recovery rates - other work [2] related to the original PACE trial paper had indicated some impressive recovery rates following CBT and/or GET - Wilshire has more things to say here too. So: "when recovery rates were calculated using the definition specified in the published protocol, these were extremely low across the board, and not significantly greater in the CBT or GET groups than in the Control group." It might seem like common-sense to know what recovery should look like when it comes to CFS/ME, but again, the waters have been continually muddied (see here).

"Some notable strengths of the PACE study included the large sample size..., the random allocation of patients to treatment arms, the use of a well-formulated protocol to minimise drop-outs, and the reporting of the full CONSORT trial profile (including detailed information about missing data)." Wilshire et al illustrate how the PACE trial was, initially, a good piece of science from a methodological point of view, but: "the design, analysis and reporting of the results introduced some significant biases."

And now it may be time to move on: "The time has come to look elsewhere for effective treatments." CBT and/or GET are still the topics of study when it comes to ME/CFS (see here and see here) but are seemingly finding it more and more difficult to find acceptance. The recent news that NICE are looking to update their guidance on CFS/ME in light of 'changes' made by other official bodies (see here) and some significant patient (and political) power, reflect an increasingly changing mood. An increasing realisation that talking and exercise therapies might not be the best treatment options for a somatic condition that has the propensity to *significantly* drain both health and other aspects of quality of life (see here).

----------

[1] Wilshire CE. et al. Rethinking the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome—a reanalysis and evaluation of findings from a recent major trial of graded exercise and CBT. BMC Psychology. 2018; 6: 6.

[2] White PD. et al. Recovery from chronic fatigue syndrome after treatments given in the PACE trial. Psychol Med. 2013 Oct;43(10):2227-35.

----------

FITNET-NHS (Fatigue In Teenagers on the interNET in the NHS) - a trial protocol and some questions...

FITNET-NHS (Fatigue In Teenagers on the interNET in the NHS) is an initiative discussed in a recent study protocol paper published by Sarah Baos and colleagues [1]. It continues a research interest based on previous published results from a trial undertaken in the Netherlands by Sanne Nijhof and colleagues [2] looking at a possible intervention option for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) (also referred to as myalgic encephalomyelitis, ME by some).

Said intervention option - Fatigue In Teenagers on the interNET (FITNET) - is "a web-based cognitive-behavioural treatment accessible to patients and both parents, based on the existing face-to-face CBT [cognitive behaviour therapy] protocol for adolescents developed by the ECCF [Expert Centre for Chronic Fatigue (Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, ECCF)]." The previous Nijhof findings concluded that: "FITNET offers a readily accessible and highly effective treatment for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome" on the basis of previous (registered) trial results.

The recent Baos paper detailing 'what researchers are going to do' is looking to build on the previous Nijhof findings to determine whether "it is effective in the National Health Service (NHS) or if it is cost-effective." Alongside the descriptions offered by Baos et al, trial authors have also prospectively registered their intention to undertake this study (see here).

I don't want to recite all the study details described by Baos et al (the paper is open-access) but I do think a few points are worth noting and a few questions perhaps need to be asked. I say this on the basis that mention of the letters/words CBT in the context of CFS/ME has some 'history' (see here and see here for a part of that history). Also, at the time of writing this post, some of the premises for implementing the FITNET-NHS trial are also subject to 're-inspection' (see here) in light of fairly recent changes to official CFS/ME management guidance in countries outside of the UK (see here)...

Anyhow, point 1: "This is an RCT comparing FITNET-NHS with Activity Management for paediatric CFS/ME." RCT means randomised-controlled trial and means participants (planned 700+ aged 11-17 years old) will be randomly placed in either the treatment arm of the study or the 'activity management' control group. Actually, the authors mention another important detail in respect of the study progression: "An internal pilot study will be conducted with continuation of the trial based on achieving defined criteria." What this means is that certain criteria need to be met before the trial progresses, following a sort of pseudo-adaptive design. The stop criteria we are told are: "(1) the recruitment rate is substantially below target during the last 6 months of the internal pilot study and if the qualitative data suggests that we cannot improve recruitment by changing recruitment methods or (2) the qualitative data suggests that the interventions are not acceptable to participants." I've talked about recruitment rates in relation to trials run by some of the Baos authors before on this blog (see here). In terms of 'acceptability' of the interventions, well, the findings from Geraghty and colleagues [3] perhaps need airing in line with some of the history around the use of CBT in the context of CFS/ME. Will all of this affect recruitment rates? We'll see.

Point 2: Activity management (the comparator). There are various elements - mandatory, flexible, prohibited - that such activity management will include. Prohibited elements, I think, mean that specialist therapists cannot discuss in detail things like "feelings, beliefs and how they change" nor "feelings and their relationship with behaviour." Mandatory elements by contrast include finding a baseline level of activity, "to record time spent each day doing high-energy cognitive activities" and importantly: "Increasing activity by 10–20% each week." Yes, this is an active comparator that looks like it is expecting quite an increase in activity over the duration of the study. I think they call this graded exercise therapy (GET). All of this will be delivered on-line and participants will "receive treatment for 3 to 6 months." As you can see, things like recording activity levels (the ActiveME app is mentioned) is going to be predominantly (exclusively?) done via "paper/electronic diaries." I'm a little cautious of this method, and once again (see here) need to question why more objective activity trackers such as the wonderful technologies headed under the title of actigraphy are not being fully utilised with CFS/ME research in mind (see here for another example). Given also that the primary outcome measure is: "Disability measured using the Physical Function Scale (SF-36-PFS) at 6 months after randomisation", surely such actigraphic data would provide a really sound comparator to such subjective scoring?

Point 3: There are a range of secondary outcomes listed by Boas and colleagues in relation to measuring any effects from intervention and/or comparator. I am happy to see that quality of life (QoL) will be measured via use of the EQ-5D-Y (EuroQoL health-related quality of life questionnaire, Youth version) given some chatter about this previously (see here and see here). But there are some things missing from such an outcome line-up; a primary one seems to be that although fatigue and physical function is kinda (see above) mentioned in an analysis sense, more specific facets of CFS/ME are not seemingly being addressed such as PEM (post-exertional malaise). I note from the study website for example, the authors talk about how "fatigue and other symptoms get worse after exertion" suggesting that they know all about PEM. The question then: why not try and test for it and importantly, assess it before and after intervention? OK, I know that measuring PEM is still more of an art rather than a science [4], but I wonder if it would have been helpful for researchers to also potentially think about examining biochemistry for example, as well as psychology and behaviour throughout their study to aid some further investigation in this important area. Y'know things like immune function for example [5] which seems to be an area of research rising (see here) and could add something extra when it comes to sub-grouping among the CFS/ME population? Oh, and just in case you were thinking 'eh?' when it comes to me talking about CBT potentially affecting immune function, have a look at another trial protocol from Schakel and colleagues [6] and the measures they want to use/are using as part of their study "to investigate the effects of a psychological intervention on self-reported and physiological health outcomes in response to immune and psychophysiological challenges."

Point 4: Safety. I am happy to see that safety of the intervention(s) is also discussed in the Boas paper. To quote for example: "We will define a serious deterioration in health as: (1) clinician-reported serious deterioration in health, (2) a decrease of ≥ 20 in SF-36-PFS between baseline and 3, 6 or 12 months or scores of ‘much’ or ‘very much’ worse on the Clinical Global Impression Scale or (3) withdrawal from treatment because of feeling worse." Good news indeed, and I assume this covers the comparator arm of the study too. What is perhaps missing from such study safety features however, is a little more detail on what screening will be carried out before participants are allowed on to the study in order to reduce/minimise any potential adverse events or even worse, include those who really shouldn't be included in such a study ('first, do no harm'). So: "Young people will be excluded if any of the following apply: (1) they are not disabled by fatigue (defined in eligibility screening), (2) their fatigue is due to another cause, (3) they are unable to complete video calls or FITNET-NHS online chapters or (4) they report pregnancy at assessment." Under 'their fatigue is due to another cause' I'm a little unsure about what this might mean. Does this for example, infer that all potential participants will be screened for mitochondrial disease in light of other data suggesting overlap with cases of CFS/ME (see here) and a possible/probably connection with some fatigue-related symptoms? How is one able to rule out so many potential causes of fatigue other than CFS? As to the idea that there may be those 'unable to complete video calls or FITNET-NHS chapters', well, I imagine that excludes those who might be at a more severe presentation stage of their illness? This then introduces the issue of representativeness of any trial results subsequently obtained...

I applaud the authors for communicating as much as they did about their intentions to conduct this trial. More research groups need to do this both inside and outside the realms of CFS/ME to make replication easier and allow old farts like me to scrutinise and comment from on high. Relying solely on the cold, objective science in this often contentious area, I can also see the rationale behind their running this trial and the urgent need to improve quality of life for many, many young (and older) people diagnosed with CFS/ME.

But... as things stand with the protocol, particularly the distinct lack of using widely available objective measures to provide data on activity levels, I can't also see how this study is going to significantly add to the existing research base nor wider discussions about the use of something like CBT in the context of CFS/ME. I say that also acknowledging that the original FITNET trial is not without criticism [7], including a section that was titled 'The Actometer Results' that perhaps should be renamed 'What happened to the Actometer Results' given "the results were not reported and the reason for this was not given." One also needs look at the masses of discussions on the PACE trial (see here for example) that included CBT as part of an intervention package, to see how the biopsychosocial (BPS) model on which such research rest is, at best, disliked by many suffering with CFS/ME (see here). Said discussions now even reaching the House of elected officials here in Blighty (see here). The glaring lack of any biochemical measures also accompanying this new study adds to the feeling that despite recognition from the authors that "common symptoms in children and young people are unrefreshing sleep, problems with memory and concentration, headaches, nausea (feeling sick), dizziness, muscle and joint pain, and sore throats" psychosomatic ideas still prevail regarding the nature of such symptoms and the continuing rationale for studying CBT in the context of CFS/ME.

I'll hopefully come back to this topic as and when any study results are forthcoming ("Overall trial end date 30/10/2021").

----------

[1] Baos S. et al. Investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FITNET-NHS (Fatigue In Teenagers on the interNET in the NHS) compared to Activity Management to treat paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME): protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2018; 19: 136.

[2] Nijhof SL. et al. Effectiveness of internet-based cognitive behavioural treatment for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome (FITNET): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012 Apr 14;379(9824):1412-8.

[3] Geraghty K. et al. Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome patients' reports of symptom changes following cognitive behavioural therapy, graded exercise therapy and pacing treatments: Analysis of a primary survey compared with secondary surveys. J Health Psychol. 2017 Aug 1:1359105317726152.

[4] McManimen SL. & Jason LA. Differences in ME and CFS Symptomology in Patients with Normal and Abnormal Exercise Test Results. International journal of neurology and neurotherapy. 2017; 4(1): 066.

[5] Nijs J. et al. Unravelling the nature of postexertional malaise in myalgic encephalomyelitis⁄chronic fatigue syndrome: the role of elastase, complement C4a and interleukin-1b. J Intern Med. 2010 Apr;267(4):418-35.

[6] Schakel L. et al. The effects of a psychological intervention directed at optimizing immune function: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2017 May 26;18(1):243.

[7] Ghatineh S. & Vink M. FITNET's Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Is Ineffective and May Impede Natural Recovery in Adolescents with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. A Review. Behav Sci (Basel). 2017 Aug 11;7(3). pii: E52.

----------

Insomnia having "a causal role in the occurrence of certain psychotic experiences"

The findings reported by Sarah Reeve and colleagues [1] (open-access available here) observing that: "Sleep loss resulted in moderate to large effect size increases in paranoia, hallucinations, and cognitive disorganization as compared to standard sleep" are not typical fodder for this blog. In the context however, that (a) sleep issues are something potentially important to some people on the autism spectrum (see here and see here) and that (b) at least some 'types' of autism might be more readily 'prone' to psychosis and/or psychotic experiences (see here), there is merit in me covering the Reeve findings. Even more so when one considers that some of the over-represented comorbidity potentially appearing alongside autism (see here) might also have some connection(s) to sleep (see here) and onward too, enhanced future risk of the presentation of psychosis (see here). Possibly...

Reeve et al specifically focused on how sleep loss may tie into the presentation of certain psychotic experiences based on clinical examination following a period of  'restricted sleep'. Participants with a previous history of 'good quality sleep', no history of psychiatric disorder and with no "requirement to drive, cycle, or operate heavy machinery during the study(!)" were randomly allocated to either a restricted sleep cycle (4 h sleep a night for 3 nights) or a control sleep cycle (standard sleep). Alongside the use of wrist actigraphy to provide an objective monitor of sleep-wake patterns (bravo!), researchers also describe how "automated hourly text (SMS) messages" were sent to would-be sleep deprived participants to ensure they were awake. Various measures relating to reported psychotic experiences and things like depression and anxiety levels were also delivered over the course of the study.

Results: well those 'are you awake?' text messages seemed to have done the trick as over 98% of them were answered within the required 15 minute window. Sleep times between the groups were also different as would be expected too. Then: "in comparison to the control condition, the sleep loss condition was associated with significant increases in hallucinations, paranoia, and cognitive disorganization." Also: "Highly significant and large effect size increases were found for depression, anxiety, and stress following the sleep loss condition, as compared with the control condition." Sleep loss, it appears, is not great for people even over a relatively short period of time.

Interestingly, following further 'mediation analysis' of their data, the authors reported some potentially important variables that might account for their findings. So: "negative affect is by far the most relevant factor in explaining the effect of sleep disruption on psychotic experiences." Negative affect covers things like depression, anxiety and stress. Paranoia in particular, seemed to be particularly tied into negative affect as a function of sleep deprivation. Going back to autism research, I note that paranoia is a feature for some people on the spectrum (see here) and minus any grand judgements, do wonder whether sleep issues could be a feature when presented in that context?

The authors do caution about certain elements of their study, specifically: "Psychotic experiences were generally endorsed at a low level in our sample, and all changes remained in the nonclinical range." They add also that this was research conducted with a "psychologically healthy" group with only mild and quite short-term sleep restriction used. But: "it could be hypothesized that the effect of sleep disruption on psychotic experiences in a more vulnerable group might be correspondingly more severe." Perhaps.

Then to possible intervention(s) and how about the findings reported by Freeman and colleagues [2] (and other authors on the Reeve paper) providing further evidence "that insomnia is a causal factor in the occurrence of psychotic experiences and other mental health problems" and how "digital cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for insomnia" seemed to do the trick in terms of levels of paranoia and hallucinations? Does this also open the door to other, more medication-type strategies, also positively impacting on sleep potentially having a possible 'anti-psychotic' effect too? And whilst we're on the topic of sleep deprivation and its effects, the recent paper from Deliens and colleagues [3] talking about visual perspective taking as being affected by sleep loss is something else important too and how "visual perspective taking should be viewed as partially state-dependent, rather than a wholly static trait-like characteristic"...

To close and related to today's chatter about psychosis and psychotic experiences, the British Psychological Society has recently released an updated version of its 'Understanding Psychosis' document. As expected, old 'psychological' habits on causation due to 'life events and trauma' continue to figure and continue to be put in their place by rightly sceptical minds...

----------

[1] Reeve S. et al. Disrupting Sleep: The Effects of Sleep Loss on Psychotic Experiences Tested in an Experimental Study With Mediation Analysis. Schizophr Bull. 2017 Aug 4.

[2] Freeman D. et al. The effects of improving sleep on mental health (OASIS): a randomised controlled trial with mediation analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Oct;4(10):749-758.

[3] Deliens G. et al. The impact of sleep deprivation on visual perspective taking. J Sleep Res. 2017 Oct 11.

----------

Anxiety prevention meta-analysed and some implications...

"Psychological and/or educational interventions had a small but statistically significant benefit for anxiety prevention in all populations evaluated. Although more studies with larger samples and active comparators are needed, these findings suggest that anxiety prevention programs should be further developed and implemented."

That was the research bottom-line published by Patricia Moreno-Peral and colleagues [1] assessing the collected peer-reviewed literature pertinent to the question: "Are psychological and/or educational preventive interventions for anxiety effective in varied populations?" An accompanying editorial on the Moreno-Peral findings is also worthwhile reading [2].

The methodological name of the game was systematic review and meta-analysis followed by "meta-regression" to boil down data from some 29 studies examining whether "psychological and/or educational interventions are effective in the prevention of anxiety." Said interventions covered some ground but in the most part relied on the use of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).

I'm not going to say too much more about the Moreno-Peral findings because I think they speak for themselves. I do however want to make comment on the authors' use of the term 'varied populations' to highlight potential implications for a couple of populations pertinent to this blog: (a) the autism spectrum and (b) those diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME).

Starting with autism, there are two salient points to make: (i) anxiety is pretty rife in relation to autism (see here and see here) and (ii) treating anxiety in relation to autism already has some peer-reviewed science efforts (see here) but little so far has seemingly been done on the point of potentially heading-off clinically relevant anxiety before it takes hold. I say this mindful of the idea that core symptoms linked to autism might be potential 'anxiety-provokers' (see here). Quite a bit more research is needed to ensure that psychological and/or educational interventions for anxiety currently available are specifically tailored to the wants and needs of those on the autism spectrum (including all of the spectrum!) but this area promises quite a bit. It's also worth appreciating that there may be a place for other types of prevention/intervention when it comes to anxiety (see here for example) in the context of autism (see here).

I also mentioned the [careful] application of the Moreno-Peral findings to CFS/ME. Coincidentally at the time of writing this post, I stumbled across the paper by Sarah Stoll and colleagues [3] asking: 'What treatments work for anxiety in children with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME)?' The answer, based on the available literature is 'we don't know yet' with the requirement for more investigations.

I tread very carefully in this area based on the fact that whilst anxiety does seem to be part and parcel of some CFS/ME (see here), suggestions about the possible usefulness of something like CBT to manage anxiety have to viewed in the context of CBT still courting controversy as part of the biopsychosocial 'view' of CFS/ME (see here) (something that is relevant to other recent discussions about CFS/ME). Indeed, one might see the Stoll findings in the context that the 'failure' of interventions like CBT in relation to treating core CFS/ME (see here for what I mean by 'failure') is moving some people along to still try and stick with CBT but re-do and re-apply it in the context of treating more peripheral signs and symptoms accompanying CFS/ME such as anxiety. I might be wrong but...

To close, but keeping the CFS/ME link in mind, I once again note a welcomed U-turn from NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) on the topic of CFS/ME: "The strong message from stakeholders was that the continuing debate about the causes of this condition and the best approach to treatment argued for a review of the current guideline." I've said it before and will say it again: patient-power has driven this reconsideration (see here)...

----------

[1] Moreno-Peral P. et al. Effectiveness of Psychological and/or Educational Interventions in the Prevention of Anxiety. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017. Sept 6.

[2] Hudson JL. Prevention of Anxiety Disorders Across the Lifespan. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017. Sept 6.

[3] Stoll SVE. et al. What treatments work for anxiety in children with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME)? Systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017; 7: e015481.

----------