Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:48:51.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Authors' reply to Cognitive–behavioural therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: neither efficacious nor safe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 November 2018

Anthonie Janse ,
Gijs Bleijenberg  and
Hans Knoop
Anthonie Janse
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Psychology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam and Academic Medical Center (AMC), University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Gijs Bleijenberg
Affiliation:
Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Hans Knoop
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Psychology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam and Academic Medical Center (AMC), University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Correspondence
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 213 , Issue 6 , December 2018 , pp. 724
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2018 

In their letter,Reference Twisk and Corsius1 Twisk & Corsius raise several issues with respect to our study testing the efficacy of internet-based cognitive–behavioural therapy (iCBT) for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).Reference Janse, Worm-Smeitink, Bleijenberg, Donders and Knoop2 We will respond point by point to the most important issues raised with respect to efficacy and safety of iCBT.

First, Twisk & Corsius suggest that many patients who improved following iCBT had depression. All patients met Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for CFS. Psychiatric comorbidity that could explain the presence of fatigue, including a depressive disorder, was ruled out using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). A subgroup reported clinically significant levels of depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care score of ≥4) but only about 10% met the criteria of any depressive disorder (MINI). Far more patients, about 40%, reported fatigue scores within the normal range following iCBT. Furthermore, 44% of patients without significant levels of depressive symptoms reported fatigue levels in the normal range. These data show that patients with CFS without depressive symptoms also improve following iCBT and that it is not true that many patients who improved had depression.

Second, Twisk & Corsius state that iCBT is insufficient to achieve normal levels of fatigue. We used a cut-off score of 35 or higher on the Checklist Individual Strength fatigue subscale for severe fatigue. A recent study showed that this score discerns between severe fatigue and ‘fatigue levels in the normal range’.Reference Worm-Smeitink, Gielissen, Bloot, van Laarhoven, van Engelen and van Riel3 A substantial subgroup of patients score below this cut-off after iCBT. For these patients iCBT is sufficient to achieve normal levels of fatigue.

Third, Twisk & Corsius state the effects of iCBT on objective measures are not reported.

CFS is diagnosed on the basis of symptoms and functional impairments reported by patients and the fact that there is no known medical condition that can explain the presence of symptoms. To determine if an intervention for CFS is effective one needs to determine if symptoms and functional impairments have decreased. For this, self-report measures were used. To assess symptoms one has to rely on self-report.

Finally, Twisk & Corsius state iCBT contains graded exercise and is unsafe. Graded activity is an element of CBTReference Knoop and Bleijenberg4 and is aimed at increasing levels of activity. Graded exercise is also aimed at increasing the fitness of a patient, this is not the case in graded activity. The safety of CBT for CFS has been studied, analysing data from seven randomised controlled trials.Reference Janse, Worm-Smeitink, Bleijenberg, Donders and Knoop2, Reference Heins, Knoop, Prins, Stulemeijer, van der Meer and Bleijenberg5–Reference Nijhof, Bleijenberg, Uiterwaal, Kimpen and van de Putte7 There was no evidence suggesting that CBT for CFS is unsafe.

We thank Twisk & Corsius for their feedback and for providing us with the opportunity to clarify our findings that show that iCBT for CFS is an efficacious and safe intervention.

References

1Twisk, F, Corsius, L. Cognitive–behavioural therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: neither efficacious nor safe. Br J Psychiatry 2018; 213: 500–1.Google Scholar
2Janse, A, Worm-Smeitink, M, Bleijenberg, G, Donders, R, Knoop, H. Efficacy of web-based cognitive–behavioural therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2018; 212: 112–8.Google Scholar
3Worm-Smeitink, M, Gielissen, M, Bloot, L, van Laarhoven, HWM, van Engelen, BGM, van Riel, P, et al. The assessment of fatigue: psychometric qualities and norms for the Checklist Individual Strength. J Psychosom Res 2017; 98: 40–6.Google Scholar
4Knoop, H, Bleijenberg, G. Het Chronisch Vermoeidheidssyndroom. Behandelprotocol Cognitieve Gedragstherapie voor CVS. [Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Treatment Protocol for Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with CFS Patients.] Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum, 2010.Google Scholar
5Heins, MJ, Knoop, H, Prins, JB, Stulemeijer, M, van der Meer, JW, Bleijenberg, G. Possible detrimental effects of cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychother Psychosom 2010; 79: 249–56.Google Scholar
6Dougall, D, Johnson, A, Goldsmith, K, Sharpe, M, Angus, B, Chalder, T, et al. Adverse events and deterioration reported by participants in the PACE trial of therapies for chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res 2014; 77: 20–6.Google Scholar
7Nijhof, SL, Bleijenberg, G, Uiterwaal, CS, Kimpen, JL, van de Putte, EM. Effectiveness of internet-based cognitive behavioural treatment for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome (FITNET): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012; 379: 1412–8.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.