Barriers to recruitment in paediatric CFS research: "the focus of the study itself"

I want to mention the study results published by Maria Loades and colleagues [1] today. This piece of research focused on the issue of participant recruitment "in the context of an observational study of mental health problems in adolescents with paediatric Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS/ME) presenting to a specialist paediatric CFS team" and the barriers faced when trying to recruit for such a study. Various obstacles to participation were noted, including an important variable: "the focus of the study itself."

The Loades article is open-access so doesn't need any long post from me. The main points: researchers asked researchers about their research experience specifically focused on "exploring healthcare professionals’ views of recruiting to studies, including the facilitators and barriers to recruitment to this study." 'This study', by the way was an "observational study of co-morbid mental health problems in adolescents with confirmed CFS/ME."

Results: based on interviews with six researchers, various qualitative results were provided. Some interesting points were raised. The ones that stood out for me were related to how researchers themselves talked about the research focus on mental health in relation to ME/CFS. A few choice quotes exemplify this: "…because it’s got depression in the title and um I think um you it just seems a little bit more explanation um by inviting them to take part I’m not suggesting that they are depressed…" and "because it is more objectively more obviously about the mental health side of things I have found it to be a different experience recruiting to this."

I'm sure that for those with some knowledge about the debates on-going in the context of ME/CFS you can perhaps see where I'm going with this. I speak of course about the 'application' of things like the biospychosocial (BPS) model to ME/CFS which has, I'm afraid to say, caused some significant distress down the years to patients, their loved ones and many researchers alike (see here and see here). Indeed, one could argue that the application of the BPS model to ME/CFS, where 'unhelpful thoughts' for example are deemed part-and-parcel of some peoples view of ME/CFS, has been so damaging to the concept of ME/CFS, that any study looking at mental health in the realm of CFS/ME is likely to be seen as 'tainted' by association.

And, as I write, still the BPS beat continues [2] although with scrutiny continuing to follow [3]...

----------

[1] Loades ME. et al. Obstacles to recruitment in paediatric studies focusing on mental health in a physical health context: the experiences of clinical gatekeepers in an observational cohort study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Apr 27;19(1):89.

[2] Gregorowski A. et al. Child and adolescent chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: where are we now? Curr Opin Pediatr. 2019 Apr 30.

[3] Vink M. & Vink-Niese A. Cognitive behavioural therapy for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome is not effective. Re-analysis of a Cochrane review. Health Psychol Open. 2019;6(1):2055102919840614. 

----------

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.

----------

"by the time ongoing fatigue was established, the immune activation was no longer present"

The quote heading this post - "by the time ongoing fatigue was established, the immune activation was no longer present" - comes from some media coverage of the paper published by Alice Russell and colleagues [1]. Said paper observed some interesting results in relation to the use of interferon-alpha (IFN-α) "used in the treatment of chronic Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infection" and what this *could* mean in relation to a "proxy model of chronic fatigue syndrome."

The long-and-short of the Russell results and their possible application to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is that for quite a few years now there have been rumblings that at least some cases of CFS (also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis, ME) might be *associated* with a viral hit-and-run encounter. By saying 'hit-and'run' I mean that an initial viral or bacterial infection is experienced which induces the symptoms of CFS. Said infection then eventually disappears for whatever reason(s) but leaves persisting symptoms such as long-term fatigue and more. Further explanation of this hypothesis can be seen in another of my posts on CFS (see here).

So: "Fifty-five patients undergoing IFN-α treatment for chronic HCV were assessed at baseline, during the 6–12 months of IFN-α treatment, and at six-months post-treatment." The use of IFN-α is clinically indicated for HCV infection as part of an antiviral therapeutic regime ("IFN-α and ribavirin"). Various biological parameters were assessed in the 55 participants as well as in separate groups of those diagnosed with CFS and so-called "healthy volunteers."

Treatment with IFN-α induced fatigue in quite a few of those being treated for HCV infection. Most cases of fatigue resolved at 6-months post-treatment but for some, fatigue remained and for about 30%, levels of fatigue were "higher six-months post-treatment than at baseline." The authors looked at the biological results obtained for those with 'persistent fatigue' (PF) and compared them with those with 'resolved fatigue' (RF) to see if they could discern some differences.

They came up with a few important group observations: "Subjects who later develop PF have higher fatigue in response to IFN-α", "Subjects who later develop PF have higher IL-10 levels before treatment, and IL-6 and IL-10 levels in response to IFN-α", and "Psychosocial and clinical risk factors do not distinguish PF from RF subjects." What this all amounts to is that within quite a small participant group: "findings from this study support the hypothesis that abnormal immune mechanisms are important in CFS, but only early in the course of the illness, around the time of the trigger, rather than when the syndrome is established." Further the study: "confirms the importance of the acute fatigue response to the trigger, rather than of the recovery period preceding the illness."

There is more to do in this area bearing in mind that CFS is a pretty heterogeneous condition both in terms of symptom onset and the course of the illness. Researchers also admit that they "can only speculate at this stage on whether or not the mechanisms underlying the persistence of fatigue in CFS and IFN-α induced PF are related" and their suggestion of a proxy model. Others who have covered this study have said similar things (see here). This is also important given other results reported by the authors on those diagnosed with CFS compared with those 'healthy' controls/volunteers.

Still, there are some interesting observations made by Russell et al and once again, such results hopefully move CFS further away from the biopsychosocial (BPS) model of old that has seemingly done considerable damage to those diagnosed (see here and see here). Indeed, such post-infective thinking kinda brings CFS back full circle...

----------

[1] Russell A. et al. Persistent fatigue induced by interferon-alpha: a novel, inflammation-based, proxy model of chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2018 Dec 17.

----------

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.

----------

A short-term aquatic exercise intervention for (some) individuals with CFS/ME?

I have to say that I did um-and-ah about whether or not to make this blog entry on the results published by Suzanne Broadbent and colleagues [1]. In it, researchers talked about the use of "a short-term aquatic exercise programme" with a small group of women diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME).

My 'in two minds' state was because the words 'exercise as intervention' and 'CFS/ME' have a rather poor history both in research and clinical terms; as proposals like 'graded exercise therapy' (GET) have the ability to invoke some rather adverse memories and reports for some/many people (see here and see here). As you can see, I did in the end decide that science should be seen and heard, even if it might be a tad uncomfortable. As hopefully you'll see, the Broadbent results might even provide some much needed focus in the area of activity and exercise with CFS/ME in mind minus any sweeping generalisations and psychobabble explanations which have typically followed such research.

Before progressing through their paper, it is worth mentioning that some of the authors on this most recent paper have some 'research form' when it comes to looking at exercise in the context of CFS/ME. Yes, there is mention of the words 'graded exercise' [2] in previous publications, but interestingly this is wrapped in the context of "immune system dysfunction in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME)" and their looking at various biological aspects of exercise [3] with an immune system slant to it. This is not your regular 'de-conditioning' thinking...

Aquatic exercise was the name of the research game on this most recent occasion, and an open trial detailing various physiological and behavioural measures pre- and post-use of "an initial 20-min aquatic exercise session then two self-paced 20-min sessions per week for 4 weeks" with 11 women. As you can already see, this was not a controlled trial and there was no comparison group used; just an initial research foray looking at whether their fairly brief water-based exercise program might produce some meaningful results or not. I assume that the authors were conscious that water-based exercise has some advantages over er, not water-based activity, in relation to impact (aquatic exercise is typically termed 'low impact) and also strength-building (water resistance is much greater than air resistance). I might also add that others have been following the development of this trial with some interest (see here).

'First, do no harm' is a primary tenet in all of medicine, and on the basis of "no reports of symptom exacerbation" in their small participant cohort, the authors can tick an important item of their research checklist on this occasion. Alongside, authors detail results based on various physiological parameters: "6 min Walk Test (6MWT), perceived exertion (RPE), hand grip strength, Sit-to-Stand, Sit-Reach test, Apley's shoulder test" as well as monitoring heart rate after each session. There's even mention of "24- and 48-h post-session tiredness/pain scores" which, I assume, could be stretched to mean looking at aspects of an important symptom: post-extertional malaise (PEM). And on that basis the authors reported that many of those physiological parameters did show changes between pre- and post-intervention in relation to things like grip strength, the 6MWT and also pain ("24-h post-test tiredness and pain decreased"). Ergo, aquatic exercise was seemingly well-tolerated in their small participant group and further - more scientifically 'stronger' - investigations are perhaps indicated to substantiate this finding.

When I first tweeted about the Broadbent article, it did create some discussion (see here). I wasn't surprised by this given the nature of the trial and some of the references to other peer-reviewed research made by authors. It's not easy to put into words how much damage has been done by the widespread (universal?) advocacy of something like GET when it comes to ME/CFS. Suffice to say that for many people with CFS/ME, any study that mentions 'exercise' as an intervention is likely to be met with a degree of scepticism. Once bitten and all that. And I also note the words "raising the possibility that there could be future lawsuits from ME patients whose condition has worsened from the treatment" have recently been mentioned in relation to GET...

But I do think there is more research to be done in this area on the back of the Broadbent results. Minus hype, sweeping generalisation and again importantly without any 'psychological theory' input, further analysis of the physiological effects of exercise on those with ME/CFS is a must, particularly with something like PEM in mind. No, I'm not advocating research practices that unethically put people with CFS/ME onto exercise regimes, but rather smaller research steps starting, for example, with the greater use of actigraphy on a day-to-day basis. It's been a real point of contention that actigraphy - the (objective) study of rest and activity cycles - has not been more incorporated into CFS/ME research (see here). Particularly, when discussions about 'recovery' from ME/CFS have been prominent in many quarters (see here) seemingly without mention of objective ways and means of establishing parameters of such recovery. I'd also suggest that the authors' previous work on immune function following exercise could also be applied to further aquatic exercise research too...

----------

[1] Broadbent S. et al. Effects of a short-term aquatic exercise intervention on symptoms and exercise capacity in individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: a pilot study. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2018 Jun 19.

[2] Broadbent S. & Coutts R. Intermittent and graded exercise effects on NK cell degranulation markers LAMP-1/LAMP-2 and CD8+CD38+ in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Physiol Rep. 2017 Mar;5(5). pii: e13091.

[3] Broadbent S. & Coutts R. Graded versus Intermittent Exercise Effects on Lymphocytes in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016 Sep;48(9):1655-63.

----------

"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.

----------

Meta-analysing risk factors for schizophrenia spectrum disorders

"Despite identifying 98 associations, there is only robust evidence to suggest that cannabis use, exposure to stressful events during childhood and adulthood, history of obstetric complications, and low serum folate level confer a higher risk for developing schizophrenia spectrum disorders."

So said the 'umbrella review of meta-analyses' published by Lazaros Belbasis and colleagues [1] looking at the current collected scientific literature on "risk factors and peripheral biomarkers for schizophrenia spectrum disorders." Their settling on only five factors reliably linked to schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD) did not mean that other associations may not be important, particularly in the context of pluralisation of labels (see here); merely that the current weight of robust evidence 'prefers' the five factors highlighted.

Having quite recently talked about 'symptom clusters' around one possible clinical sign of SSD: psychosis (see here), I continue to appreciate just how complicated an area that this is. Added to other recent-ish research upsetting the apple cart that is inflammatory markers and schizophrenia (see here) and you might see how one has to be quite careful that dogma does not take over in this area.

The mix of biological and social factors identified by Belbasis et al is important to mention. The link for example, between cannabis use and SSD perhaps ties into other chatter about how serious delinquency may potentially be linked to onset of schizophrenia (see here) if one assumes that such illicit drug use might be heightened where delinquency is a feature. That also goes for the idea that childhood and adulthood adversity (particularly trauma?) can and does seemingly impact on risk of schizophrenia or SSD.

Likewise the chatter about low serum folate levels being potentially relevant to SSD is intriguing and not something entirely new to this blog (see here). I've been particularly interested in at least one of the reason(s) why folic acid levels might not be what they should be with some schizophrenia in mind: MTHFR (methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase) (see here) or rather a point mutation potentially over-represented when it comes to schizophrenia (and seemingly other labels too).

More investigation is indicated.

Totally unrelated to today's topic, a few decades back a show called the Day Today began and 'fake news' has never been the same since...

----------

[1] Belbasis L. et al. Risk factors and peripheral biomarkers for schizophrenia spectrum disorders: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 2018. Dec 30.

----------

'Childhood adversity' and chronic fatigue syndrome: comorbidity might count...

"The data suggests that previous studies showing a relationship between childhood adversity and CFS [chronic fatigue syndrome] may be attributable to the confounding effects of co-morbid or misdiagnosed depressive disorder."

So said the findings reported by James Clark and colleagues [1], inviting a 'rethink' about the suggested role of childhood adversity when it comes to CFS. Childhood adversity can cover quite a bit of clinical ground but typically includes things like interpersonal loss (death or separation from a loved one), parental maladjustment, maltreatment and other health or social 'mountains to climb' [2]. Clark et al relied on the use of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) for their study, which focuses more specifically on things like abuse and neglect in childhood over and above loss or those other social and health-related variables like poverty and ill-health.

Said questionnaire was delivered to over 50 people diagnosed with CFS who importantly had "depression comprehensively excluded" from their clinical picture. Compared with CTQ responses from a smaller - "did not meet criteria for a psychiatric disorder" - control group, authors found little to separate the CFS and control groups. They concluded that whilst there was a small increased risk of CTQ defined adversity being linked to CFS, "much of this risk is mediated by the concomitant development of major depression."

This is rather interesting work. Obviously, we need more independent research to see if such trends hold water following replication, but there may be some important implications.

First, is the whole idea that childhood trauma might be a risk factor for CFS [3]. For those who've followed the ups-and-downs of certain 'biopsychosocial' discussions with CFS in mind (see here), the Clark results represent a bit of a blow to the fluffy psychological thinking that CFS is somehow some kind of 'response' to such adverse events. I'm not saying that childhood adversity can't potentially manifest as a psychiatric disorder (whether contributory in whole or in part) but this latest data perhaps fits with other observations [4] where confounding by "comorbid psychopathology" is to be more typically assumed in the context of CFS. I might also add that CFS is NOT a psychiatric disorder just in case you didn't know...

A second point to make is in relation to how CFS and something like depression are probably linked but not necessarily 'centrally' linked. I've touched upon this before on this blog (see here), where depression can most definitely be part of the clinical picture with CFS in mind [5] but one should not assume that depression is either causative of, or specifically inter-related to the aetiology or pathology of CFS. If, for example, having been a previously active person you are struck down with a condition that blights your life for years and years and potentially leaves you bed bound for extended periods of time, one could argue that your risk of developing something like depression or depressive symptoms is probably going to be elevated. Add in other issues such as loneliness for example, and the risk becomes heightened. A case in point is this piece and the quote: "Every night I’d have these incredibly kinetic dreams. I was flying or running up mountains. I’d wake up in the morning and realise that I was still in the same bedroom, and many mornings felt really disappointed that I was still alive." The crux of the matter is that depression in such a case is a 'reactive' scenario and needs to be treated independently; also evidenced by the fact that not everyone with CFS will suffer with depression [6]...

Finally, I also want to mention the difference between CFS and 'chronic fatigue' as being something potentially important. As noted on other blogging occasions (see here) there has been a tendency among certain researchers to use the term 'chronic fatigue' and this has also extended to research looking at "childhood psychological factors" too [7]. I'm not here to question findings that suggest that "children whose mothers experience anxiety and/or depression between pregnancy and child's age 6 years have an increased risk of developing chronic disabling fatigue in early adolescence" (bearing in mind correlation is not the same as causation), just that 'chronic disabling fatigue' is not necessarily the same as CFS and hence one should not assume the same overlap might pertain. One of the key differences to consider is PEM - post-extertional malaise; an integral component of CFS and something that needs a lot more recognition in the research and clinical literature in general.

I'm going to reiterate the opening sentence to this post from the Clark paper to end things: "The data suggests that previous studies showing a relationship between childhood adversity and CFS may be attributable to the confounding effects of co-morbid or misdiagnosed depressive disorder." Just in case. And also that the continuing focus on potential psychological/psychiatric 'explanations' for CFS is too often at the expense of some rather more concrete science that is emerging (see here) at least for some (see here)...

----------

[1] Devendorf AR. et al. Defining and measuring recovery from myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome: the physician perspective. Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Oct 5:1-8.

[2] Kessler RC. et al. Childhood adversities and adult psychopathology in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. Br J Psychiatry. 2010 Nov;197(5):378-85.

[3] Heim C. et al. Early adverse experience and risk for chronic fatigue syndrome: results from a population-based study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006 Nov;63(11):1258-66.

[4] Clark C. et al. Premorbid risk markers for chronic fatigue syndrome in the 1958 British birth cohort. Br J Psychiatry. 2011 Oct;199(4):323-9.

[5] Loades ME. et al. The presence of co-morbid mental health problems in a cohort of adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2017 Oct 1:1359104517736357.

[6] Daniels J. et al. Anxiety and depression in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): Examining the incidence of health anxiety in CFS/ME. Psychol Psychother. 2017 Sep;90(3):502-509.

[7] Collin SM. et al. Maternal and childhood psychological factors predict chronic disabling fatigue at age 13 years. J Adolesc Health. 2015 Feb;56(2):181-7.

----------

SMILE: On the Lightning Process + specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)

Even before the publication of the results by Esther Crawley and colleagues [1] I had already seen quite a few discussions on the use of the Lightning Process being applied to the label chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) (see here for example).

A trial protocol [2] and some additional 'building work' [3] on this topic had already been published in the peer-reviewed domain, talking about how use of the "Phil Parker Lightning Process® (LP)" developed from "osteopathy, life coaching and neuro-linguistic programming" was already reported in the context of CFS (and CFS/ME - myalgic encephalomyelitis) and the requirement to study it given "no reported studies investigating the effectiveness or possible side effects (for example serious adverse events) of the LP."

The theory behind the LP is that of training individuals "to recognize when they are stimulating or triggering unhelpful physiological responses and to avoid these, using a set of standardized questions, new language patterns and physical movements with the aim of improving a more appropriate response to situations." In short, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the biopsychosocial (BPS) view forms part of the methodological basis for the intervention. Alarm bells were already starting to ring (see here).

The Crawley results have been posted across the lay media, with headlines such as 'Controversial Lightning Process helps children with chronic fatigue syndrome' and 'Chronic fatigue therapy 'could help teenagers', study says.' Interestingly however, various counter viewpoints about the trial have also been included in such reports, as per quotes such as "The over-simplistic and largely psychological model of ME/CFS causation that is being put forward to patients by Lightning Process practitioners is totally out of step with emerging scientific evidence as to its cause." Even expert opinion has it's own worries about the trial and it's subject matter. I'll come back to all that shortly.

So what did the study actually do and find? Well, teens with mild/moderate CFS/ME were the target study group (100 of them): "Children were diagnosed with CFS/ME after a thorough assessment which included screening for other disorders associated with fatigue." The authors noted that recruitment was 'problematic' when it came to this trial as per the note: "Fewer than 30% of eligible children were randomised. We do not know why the majority did not want to take part in the trial but it may be because they did not want to take part in groups or travel for three consecutive days." Diagnosis by the way, I assume followed the NICE guidance on the topic; the same NICE guidance that has seen a U-turn in recent days on the potential need for some reconsideration (see here). Real 'patient power' was behind this decision by the way.

Fifty-one of the 100 participants were allocated to receive specialist medical care (SMC) plus a few days LP training and the remaining 49 just received SMC. SMC by the way, again follows those NICE guidance "focused on improving sleep and using activity management to establish a baseline level of activity (school, exercise and social activity) which is then gradually increased." CBT - cognitive behaviour therapy - is also offered to those with "significant anxiety or low mood" and: "Participants could choose to use physiotherapist-delivered graded exercise therapy, which provides detailed advice about exercise and focuses on an exercise programme rather than other activities." The primary outcome of the trial was scores on the "the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Function Subscale (SF-36-PFS)" at baseline and again at 6 months. Various other measures were also included as secondary outcomes looking at "pain, anxiety, depression, school attendance and cost-effectiveness from a health service perspective at 3, 6 and 12 months."

Results: "It is the first trial that has demonstrated the effectiveness of an intervention other than CBT for paediatric CFS/ME." Although it is debatable whether CBT is as 'effective' an intervention for CFS/ME as many people might think (see here for a real world perspective on this from some of the authors on the current paper and see here for other findings), the results did seemingly show a difference between the groups when it came to mean SF-36 physical function scores in favour of the experimental group. The margin of the group difference was significant and authors noted that: "There was little evidence that the effect of LP+SMC compared with SMC on the primary outcome differed according to baseline age, anxiety or school attendance." The caveat to all this is the reliance on patient-reported outcomes and the unblinded nature on the trial that "may have been affected by participants’ knowledge of the group to which they were randomised." As other commentators have noted (see here again) 'positive expectations' seem to be part-and-parcel of the LP method and it's not inconceivable that these might have subsequently affected patient scores. Further comment from the authors that "it would be unethical to have a control group without treatment"as part of their study is to some extent justified but does not discount the idea that other, non-psychological interventions, could have been pitted against both SMC and the LP+SMC (see here for one double-blind, placebo-controlled example). Indeed, I'd like to see more of such comparisons in further study.

When it came to another important part of the study - adverse effects - authors specifically noted that: "Physical function at 6 months deteriorated in nine participants, of whom eight were in the SMC arm." They also reported on a few instances of adverse events but concluded that generally both study arms were considered safe over the course of study.

From a scientific point of view, the Crawley results provide some support for the use of the LP + SMC in the context of [some] teen CFS/ME. The authors noted that they don't know whether their results are likely to generalise to more severe cases of CFS/ME or indeed those younger than 12 years old, and offer little in the way of explanation as to why they got the results that they got (i.e. "Further research is needed to understand why LP improves outcomes at 6 and 12 months and which aspects of the LP contribute to its effectiveness.") I'm not however totally sold on the idea that the LP is "teaching people to use their brain to “stimulate health-promoting neural pathways”" as an explanation for the the findings, but would be willing to concede should the relevant (MRI?) scientific evidence ever emerge. As an aside, quite a lot of the research with a BPS slant to it with regards to CFS/ME could benefit from the odd physiological measures now and again just to see what may or may not be being affected...

Bearing in mind the [long] history of medical involvement in CFS/ME and the often detrimental focus on things like the BPS model [4] with regards to the condition, it's not a surprise that even despite 'positive' results, the SMILE trial has not been received with open arms by quite a few. Problems with trial recruitment? Well, one might opine that this could have had something to do with the subject matter and that BPS-type implication behind the trial potentially putting people off. Other more qualitative reports on the use of the LP in the context of CFS/ME [5] have hinted at issues with things like the "secrecy surrounding it, and feelings of being blamed if the treatment did not work" that hardly provide a great endorsement for getting involved. Yet again, the burden of CFS/ME is seemingly being placed on the person, with only little regard for the fact that there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that biology trumps psychology when it comes to the presentation and perpetuation of symptoms for many (see here). All the positive feelings, thinking and 'reprogramming' in the world are probably not going to fundamentally alter such biological (medical) issues as per other examples in the research literature (see here). Given also that science does not exist in a social or cultural vacuum, and past scientific experiences when it comes to treatment options for CFS/ME (see here) I wonder if perhaps a new direction needs to be taken - particularly here in Blighty - whereby as many resources and research interests are put into trying to understand the biology of the spectrum that is CFS/ME as are seemingly being dedicated to looking at and tackling the psychology of CFS/ME.

Parity in biological and psychological research is the real 'mind-body' stuff when it comes to CFS/ME...

----------

[1] Crawley EM. et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Lightning Process in addition to specialist medical care for paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2017. 20 Sept.

[2] Crawley E. et al. 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.

[3] Crawley E. et al. 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.

[4] Geraghty KJ. & Esmail A. Chronic fatigue syndrome: is the biopsychosocial model responsible for patient dissatisfaction and harm? Br J Gen Pract. 2016 Aug;66(649):437-8.

[5] Reme SE. et al. Experiences of young people who have undergone the Lightning Process to treat chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis – a qualitative study. Br J Health Psychology. 2012; 18: 508-525.

----------

Autistic adults as critical autism experts (with research caveats)

"Findings suggest that autistic adults should be considered autism experts and involved as partners in autism research."

That was the conclusion reached in the paper by Kristen Gillespie-Lynch and colleagues [1] (open-access) reporting on the results of an online survey assessing "autism knowledge and stigma among 636 adults with varied relationships to autism, including autistic people and nuclear family members." Among the various groups of people who contributed to the survey, several viewpoints emerged. The message primarily however was that: "autistic people are autism experts through their lived experiences." I don't think many people would quibble with such findings.

A few other details emerged from the Gillespie-Lynch study that merit discussion. Many participants showed a "reduced tendency to view autism through a deficit-defined medical model compared with non-autistic people." This is perhaps not an unexpected finding given the history of applying the medical model to autism and the rise and rise of the neurodiversity movement that "challenges the medical model" in particular respect over the question of deficit vs. difference and implications thereof. Although the medical model provides the means to identify and diagnose autism or autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (on the basis of deficits), it's not unexpected that for some, once those tasks have been completed, the 'treatment' side of the model is not necessarily a top priority; or at least not as important as addressing the various inequalities that seem to stem from a diagnosis. That being said, I do agree with the authors sentiments that: "the neurodiversity movement and the medical model overlap in recognizing that supports are needed to ameliorate challenges associated with autism." Those challenges are variable and person-dependent but include the effects of both core and peripheral signs and symptoms and the various over-represented comorbidities that seem to follow a diagnosis of autism (see here). I would, at this point, also caution on using the words 'biopsychosocial model' in the context of autism as the authors have included in their discussions, given what it has meant for other labels (see here) and the potential 'psychologising' of some important medical symptoms.

I added the words 'with research caveats' to the title of this post to ensure that such a positive message about autism and the autism spectrum is not just given a 'free pass' when it comes to scrutiny of the scientific method, the way the study was carried out and the applicability of the results to the entire autism spectrum. This was an online survey not a face-to-face piece of research (other related research has similarly used such a method and on more than one occasion) and the authors acknowledge that they: "did not verify diagnosis of participants who self-identified as autistic" for example. Given what we are beginning to see when it comes to some of the 'self-screening' instruments out there regarding possible autism or not (see here), I'm always a little cautious that self-diagnosis / self-identification does not necessarily mean [eventual] clinician-diagnosed autism and how important this is when it comes to correctly ascertaining the wants and wishes of those diagnosed as being on the spectrum.

On the point about the representativeness of this research, the authors also note: "Findings may not generalize to autistic participants who lack the verbal and computer skills needed to complete the survey." Yet another example it seems of this important issue.

I have to say that I'm also a little disheartened that yet again an important group that was once very firmly on the autism spectrum aren't really given the credit they deserve according to the Gillespie-Lynch findings: "Autistic participants were more likely to recognize that most children cannot outgrow autism." The 'optimal outcome' children and adults it seems, still represent one of the most maligned groups associated with the autism spectrum (assuming that optimal outcome occurring in up to 9% of the autism population is not an insignificant figure). This despite the fact that even the diagnostic stability of the most 'high-functioning' cases of autism can wobble it seems (see here) even into adulthood. One of the premier experts on autism also seems to agree according to some recent media (see here). I often wonder if the seeming lack of acceptance of this group/feature might have something to do with the 'identity' side of autism and the idea that within the vast heterogeneity of autism (or the plural autisms if you prefer) the use of 'them and us descriptions' like 'neurotypical' are perhaps not as binary or long-lasting as many would believe or want to believe?

Within the context of [approximate] phrases such as 'if you've met one person with autism, you've met one autistic person' there is caution in over-generalising these latest results but they are nonetheless important. I think it would be rather fitting to end with a few choice phrases from the Gillespe-Lynch paper: "As many of our survey respondents indicated, each person, regardless of whether or not they are autistic, is unique" and: "Some autistic people seek out factual knowledge about autism while others believe that they can only be experts in their own particular form of autism." Either way, the insights provided by people on the autism spectrum (all parts of the autism spectrum and indeed, across the age ranges) should be valued, and where possible, incorporated into research and practice.

And one voice from the autism spectrum carries some rather sensible messages...

----------

[1] Gillespie-Lynch K. et al. Whose Expertise Is It? Evidence for Autistic Adults as Critical Autism Experts. Front. Psychol. 2017. March 28.

----------

Gillespie-Lynch, K., Kapp, S., Brooks, P., Pickens, J., & Schwartzman, B. (2017). Whose Expertise Is It? Evidence for Autistic Adults as Critical Autism Experts Frontiers in Psychology, 8 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00438

PACE trial recovery data and chronic fatigue syndrome - a reply

I'd encourage readers interested in the background to the response paper by Michael Sharpe and colleagues [1] to have a look at a previous blogging occasion when the topic of the PACE trial, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and 'recovery' were discussed (see here).

Suffice to say that this latest paper is a reply to one published by Carolyn Wilshire and colleagues [2] who concluded that: "The claim that patients [with CFS] can recover as a result of CBT [cognitive behaviour therapy] and GET [graded exercise therapy] is not justified by the data, and is highly misleading to clinicians and patients considering these treatments." Said discussions linking back to some quite extensive debates on how one should (and shouldn't) treat/manage conditions like CFS (see here).

I wanted to highlight the latest Sharpe paper because (a) I anticipated a reply from these authors following the Wilshire paper criticism of their recovery paper [3], and (b) although the debates in this area have been quite extensive already, the use of the scientific peer-reviewed medium to discuss and even argue is an important avenue. The authors have a right to scientific reply.

So how did Sharpe et al respond? Well the words 'recovery', 'threshold' and ''no generally agreed measure of recovery" when it comes to CFS form the crux of the response to the Wilshire paper. They address the issue of recovery thresholds that have been a real source of discussion in relation to the PACE trial secondary analysis concluding that: "No participant met our full criteria for recovery at baseline." They point out that whilst "13% of participants met the recovery criterion of being within the normal range... for physical functioning when entering the trial" physical functioning was but one measure they used to determine recovery.

They also approach the topic of 'changing thresholds' when it came to the definition of recovery in the PACE trial. To quote: "We changed these thresholds for our detailed analysis plan because after careful consideration and consultation, we concluded that they were simply too stringent to capture clinically meaningful recovery." They also report that elements of their assessment - the PACE walking test - are "not comparable with data collected in other studies" as a function of their reliance on personal motivation/ability over and above the use of encouragement as in other studies.

Finally, authors also talk about 'what other studies have found regarding recovery' when it comes to CFS. They note that their findings in relation to the use of standard medical care (SMC) for CFS in the PACE trial were similar to other reports [4]. They also point to research suggesting that the use of CBT in independent study for CFS show similar rates of recovery [5] to theirs originally reported. In other words, they make a case for their findings fitting in with some of the other literature on this topic.

A quick trawl of PubMed with the terms 'chronic fatigue syndrome' and 'recovery' reveals that there is indeed quite a bit more to do in this area of science. To quote from one paper (a critical review) [4]: "Estimates of recovery ranged from 0 to 66 % in intervention studies and 2.6 to 62 % in naturalistic studies." What this tells us is that (a) how recovery is reported in relation to CFS is still in need of some clarification [6] and perhaps more importantly, agreed uniformity is still required in its assessment; (b) some of the measures used to form judgements of recovery when it comes to CFS are not necessarily fit for purpose [7] (bearing in mind not everyone agrees with this); and (c) further efforts need to go into looking at many more aspects of CFS recovery outside of just a reliance on the fatigue parameter (see here and see here for examples). In short, science does not really know what recovery looks like in relation to CFS [8] despite it seemingly happening for all manner of reasons...

Where do we go from here? This is a difficult question to answer. It is doubtful that the response from Sharpe and colleagues is going to change too many opinions about PACE given the strength of feeling on the topic and the various goings-on that have occurred around debate in this area (see here). Still today, other comments on the PACE trial continue to emerge in the peer-reviewed domain [9] from notable CFS researchers and there are even calls to retract the original recovery paper (see here). Yes, there are lessons to be learned from the PACE trial (e.g. stick to your "original protocol thresholds", make your data 'open-access' and think about how to do this in the planning/recruitment stages of your trial, be mindful that short-term gains don't necessarily translate into long-term ones, work with the ME/CFS community (rather than labelling elements of them 'vexatious' or worse when they ask questions or request data) but I can't see how these factors will immediately and positively affect the lives of people living with CFS/ME here and now. That recommendations on the use of CBT for CFS have already altered in some parts of the world (see here) - "The strength of evidence on global improvement is downgraded from moderate to low when considering CBT separately from other counseling and behavioral interventions" - and are potentially likely to change here in Blighty perhaps signifies that science and medicine is moving on when it comes to this topic. Science should be doubling its efforts to expand its research boundaries when it comes to managing CFS outside of just a reliance on the [outdated?] psychosomatic model and indeed, it is...

And on the topic of other CFS research avenues, I've already talked about a few interesting avenues on this blog (see here and see here and see here) mindful that when we talk about CFS/ME, we're probably not talking about just one entity (see here). Also alongside, that there seems to be an awful lot of 'over-represented' comorbidity accompanying quite a lot of CFS/ME (see here for example) to also contend with...

Music: Lush Life (even if you don't know the song title, you might recognise the tune).

----------

[1] Sharpe M. et al. Do more people recover from chronic fatigue syndrome with cognitive behaviour therapy or graded exercise therapy than with other treatments? Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior. 2017. Feb 15.

[2] Wilshire C. et al. Can patients with chronic fatigue syndrome really recover after graded exercise or cognitive behavioural therapy? A critical commentary and preliminary re-analysis of the PACE trial. Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior. 2016. Dec 14.

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

[4] Cairns R. & Hotopf M. A systematic review describing the prognosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. Occup Med (Lond). 2005 Jan;55(1):20-31.

[5] Flo E. & Chalder T. Prevalence and predictors of recovery from chronic fatigue syndrome in a routine clinical practice. Behav Res Ther. 2014 Dec;63:1-8.

[6] Twisk FN. A definition of recovery in myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome should be based upon objective measures. Qual Life Res. 2014 Nov;23(9):2417-8.

[7] Matthees A. Assessment of recovery status in chronic fatigue syndrome using normative data. Qual Life Res. 2015 Apr;24(4):905-7.

[8] Brown B. et al. 'Betwixt and between'; liminality in recovery stories from people with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) or chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Sociol Health Illn. 2017 Feb 27.

[9] Jason LA. The PACE trial missteps on pacing and patient selection. Journal of Health Psychology. 2017. Feb 1.

----------

M Sharpe, T Chalder, AL Johnson, KA Goldsmith, & PD White (2017). Do more people recover from chronic fatigue syndrome with cognitive behaviour therapy or graded exercise therapy than with other treatments? Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior, 1-5 : 10.1080/21641846.2017.1288629