BACKGROUND:Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) seems a promising treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but the applicability of this treatment outside specialised settings has been questioned. We compared CBT with guided support groups and the natural course in a randomised trial at three centres. METHODS: Of 476 patients diagnosed with CFS, 278 were eligible and willing to take part. 93 were randomly assigned CBT (administered by 13 therapists recently trained in this technique for CFS), 94 were assigned the support-group approach, and 91 the control natural course. Multidimensional assessments were done at baseline, 8 months, and 14 months. The primary outcome variables were fatigue severity (on the checklist individual strength) and functional impairment (on the sickness impact profile) at 8 and 14 months. Data were analysed by intention to treat. FINDINGS:241 patients had complete data (83 CBT, 80 support groups, 78 natural course) at 8 months. At 14 months CBT was significantly more effective than both control conditions for fatigue severity (CBT vs support groups 5.8 [2.2-9.4]; CBT vs natural course 5.6 [2.1-9.0]) and for functional impairment (CBT vs support groups 263 [38-488]; CBT vs natural course 222 [3-441]). Support groups were not more effective for CFS patients than the natural course. Among the CBT group, clinically significant improvement was seen in fatigue severity for 20 of 58 (35%), in Karnofsky performance status for 28 of 57 (49%), and self-rated improvement for 29 of 58 (50%). Prognostic factors for outcome after CBT were a higher sense of control predicting more improvement, and a passive activity pattern and focusing on bodily symptoms predicting less improvement. INTERPRETATION:CBT was more effective than guided support groups and the natural course in a multicentre trial with many therapists. Our study showed a lower proportion of patients with improvement than CBT trials with a few highly skilled therapists.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) seems a promising treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but the applicability of this treatment outside specialised settings has been questioned. We compared CBT with guided support groups and the natural course in a randomised trial at three centres. METHODS: Of 476 patients diagnosed with CFS, 278 were eligible and willing to take part. 93 were randomly assigned CBT (administered by 13 therapists recently trained in this technique for CFS), 94 were assigned the support-group approach, and 91 the control natural course. Multidimensional assessments were done at baseline, 8 months, and 14 months. The primary outcome variables were fatigue severity (on the checklist individual strength) and functional impairment (on the sickness impact profile) at 8 and 14 months. Data were analysed by intention to treat. FINDINGS: 241 patients had complete data (83 CBT, 80 support groups, 78 natural course) at 8 months. At 14 months CBT was significantly more effective than both control conditions for fatigue severity (CBT vs support groups 5.8 [2.2-9.4]; CBT vs natural course 5.6 [2.1-9.0]) and for functional impairment (CBT vs support groups 263 [38-488]; CBT vs natural course 222 [3-441]). Support groups were not more effective for CFS patients than the natural course. Among the CBT group, clinically significant improvement was seen in fatigue severity for 20 of 58 (35%), in Karnofsky performance status for 28 of 57 (49%), and self-rated improvement for 29 of 58 (50%). Prognostic factors for outcome after CBT were a higher sense of control predicting more improvement, and a passive activity pattern and focusing on bodily symptoms predicting less improvement. INTERPRETATION: CBT was more effective than guided support groups and the natural course in a multicentre trial with many therapists. Our study showed a lower proportion of patients with improvement than CBT trials with a few highly skilled therapists.
Authors: Marcus J H Huibers; I Jmert Kant; J André Knottnerus; Gijs Bleijenberg; Gerard M H Swaen; Stanislav V Kasl Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Leonard A Jason; Karina Corradi; Susan Torres-Harding; Renee R Taylor; Caroline King Journal: Neuropsychol Rev Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 7.444