BackgroundThe PACE trial was a well-powered randomised trial designed to examine the efficacy of graded exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for chronic fatigue syndrome. Reports concluded that both treatments were moderately effective, each leading to recovery in over a fifth of patients. However, the reported analyses did not consistently follow the procedures set out in the published protocol, and it is unclear whether the conclusions are fully justified by the evidence.MethodsHere, we present results based on the original protocol-specified procedures. Data from a recent Freedom of Information request enabled us to closely approximate these procedures. We also evaluate the conclusions from the trial as a whole.ResultsOn the original protocol-specified primary outcome measure - overall improvement rates - there was a significant effect of treatment group. However, the groups receiving CBT or GET did not significantly outperform the Control group after correcting for the number of comparisons specified in the trial protocol. Also, rates of recovery were consistently low and not significantly different across treatment groups. Finally, on secondary measures, significant effects were almost entirely confined to self-report measures. These effects did not endure beyond two years.ConclusionsThese findings raise serious concerns about the robustness of the claims made about the efficacy of CBT and GET. The modest treatment effects obtained on self-report measures in the PACE trial do not exceed what could be reasonably accounted for by participant reporting biases.

BACKGROUND: Publications from the PACE trial reported that 22% of chronic fatigue syndrome patients recovered following graded exercise therapy (GET), and 22% following a specialised form of CBT. Only 7% recovered in a control, no-therapy group. These figures were based on a definition of recovery that differed markedly from that specified in the trial protocol. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether these recovery claims are justified by the evidence. METHODS: Drawing on relevant normative data and other research, we critically examine the researchers' definition of recovery, and whether the late changes they made to this definition were justified. Finally, we calculate recovery rates based on the original protocol-specified definition. RESULTS: None of the changes made to PACE recovery criteria were adequately justified. Further, the final definition was so lax that on some criteria, it was possible to score below the level required for trial entry, yet still be counted as 'recovered'. When recovery was defined according to the original protocol, recovery rates in the GET and CBT groups were low and not significantly higher than in the control group (4%, 7% and 3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The claim that patients can recover as a result of CBT and GET is not justified by the data, and is highly misleading to clinicians and patients considering these treatments.

Reporting of harms was much better in the PACE (Pacing, graded Activity, and Cognitive behavioural therapy: a randomised Evaluation) trial than earlier chronic fatigue syndrome trials of graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy. However, some issues remain. The trial's poor results on objective measures of fitness suggest a lack of adherence to the activity component of these therapies. Therefore, the safety findings may not apply in other clinical contexts. Outside of clinical trials, many patients report deterioration with cognitive behavioural therapy and particularly graded exercise therapy. Also, exercise physiology studies reveal abnormalities in chronic fatigue syndrome patients' responses to exertion. Given these considerations, one cannot conclude that these interventions are safe and risk-free.

Background: Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a disabling and complex chronic disease of unknown origin, whose symptoms, severity, and progression are extremely variable. Despite being relatively common, the condition is poorly understood and routine diagnostic tests and biomarkers are unavailable. There is no evidence on the economic impact of ME/CFS in Ireland. Methods: Adopting a patient and public involvement approach, we undertook three semi-structured focus groups, which together included 15 ME/CFS patients and 6 informal carers, to consider costs related to ME/CFS in Ireland, including how and why they arise. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and we employed thematic analysis following the approach set out in Braun and Clarke (2006).   Results: Themes from the data were: (1) Healthcare barriers and costs; (2) Socioeconomic costs; (3) Costs of disability; and, (4) Carer-related costs. Patient participants described a range of barriers to effective healthcare that led to extra costs, including delays getting a diagnosis, poor awareness/understanding of the condition by healthcare professionals, and a lack of effective treatments. These were linked to poor prognosis of the illness by participants who, as a result, faced a range of indirect costs, including poorer labour market and education outcomes, and lower economic well-being. Direct extra costs of disability were also described, often due to difficulties accessing appropriate services and supports. Informal carer participants described a range of impacts, including time costs, burnout, and impacts on work and study. Conclusions: The data suggests that ME/CFS patients face a wide range of costs, while there are also wider societal costs in the form of costs to the health service, lost productivity, and impacts on informal carers. These results will inform ongoing research that aims to quantify the economic burden of ME/CFS in Ireland and raise awareness of the illness amongst healthcare providers and policymakers.

The use of graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome has attracted considerable controversy. This controversy relates not only to the disputed evidence for treatment efficacy but also to widespread reports from patients that graded exercise therapy, in particular, has caused them harm. We surveyed the National Health Service–affiliated myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome specialist clinics in England to assess how harms following treatment are detected and to examine how patients are warned about the potential for harms. We sent 57 clinics standardised information requests under the United Kingdom’s Freedom of Information Act. Data were received from 38 clinics. Clinics were highly inconsistent in their approaches to the issue of treatment-related harm. They placed little or no focus on the potential for treatment-related harm in their written information for patients and for staff. Furthermore, no clinic reported any cases of treatment-related harm, despite acknowledging that many patients dropped out of treatment. In light of these findings, we recommend that clinics develop standardised protocols for anticipating, recording, and remedying harms, and that these protocols allow for therapies to be discontinued immediately whenever harm is identified.