Sharpe et al. suggest that “the available evidence from randomized trials supports the use of the rehabilitative therapies of CBT and GET for patients with CFS/ME”.1 However, the current NICE guideline on the diagnosis and management of ME/CFS (which replaced the out-of-date guideline CG53 cited by Sharpe et al.) recommends that CBT and GET should not be prescribed as treatments for ME/CFS, due to the lack of evidence of efficacy and concerns about safety.2 As part of the process of updating its guidance, NICE reviewed all the relevant evidence from trials of these therapies. It concluded that none was better than low quality and that most was very low quality.3
It is notable that such therapies were first promoted and prescribed for ME/CFS before any clinical trials had been conducted to assess their efficacy or safety. In 1989, Wessely et al. acknowledged that it “may be correct in some cases” that physical and mental exertion should be avoided by people with ME/CFS, but they went on to recommend behavioural and cognitive therapies which encouraged patients to ignore their symptoms and gradually increase exercise, as there was “as yet no way” to identify the cases where such approaches may be harmful. Furthermore, the authors suggested that “it is reasonable to expect a patient to cooperate with treatment before being labelled as chronically disabled” for the purposes of receiving sickness benefits.4
Sharpe et al. acknowledge that since then CBT and GET have been “the most researched approaches” to treating what they refer to as CFS/ME. However, despite this, they conclude that “more research is needed into these approaches” and that “it would be a disservice to our patients to tell them we have nothing to offer them”.
It is deeply regrettable that, as NICE has concluded, there are currently no proven effective treatments for ME/CFS. However, it would be a far greater disservice to patients to prescribe ineffective and potentially harmful therapies than to tell them the truth. Given the history of how these therapies have been promoted, prescribed and researched, it is perhaps not surprising if some are reluctant to accept the evidence that they do not work and may be harmful. However, as Wilshire et al. concluded in their 2018 reanalysis of the PACE trial data: “The time has come to look elsewhere for effective treatments.”5
References
Sharpe M, Chalder T, White PD. Evidence-based care for people with chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis. J Gen Intern Med. Published online November 17, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07188-4
NICE guideline NG206. Myalgic encephalomyelitis (or encephalopathy)/chronic fatigue syndrome: diagnosis and management. 29 October, 2021. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng206. Accessed date 22/11/2021
NICE guideline NG206, Appendix G. Evidence reviews for the non- pharmacological management of ME/CFS. 29 October 2021. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng...acological-management-of-mecfs-pdf-9265183028. Accessed date 22/11/2021
Wessely S, David A, Butler S, Chalder T. Management of chronic (post-viral) fatigue syndrome. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1989;39(318):26-29. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1711569. Accessed date 22/11/2021
Wilshire CE, Kindlon T, Courtney R 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 Psychol 6, 6 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-018-0218-3
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Saunders, R. Evidence-Based Care for People with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. J GEN INTERN MED 37, 3194 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-022-07715-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-022-07715-x