Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, UK.
Psychol Med. 2013 Oct;43(10):2227-35. doi: 10.1017/S0033291713000020.
A multi-centre, four-arm trial (the PACE trial) found that rehabilitative cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) were more effective treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) than specialist medical care (SMC) alone, when each was added to SMC, and more effective than adaptive pacing therapy (APT) when added to SMC. In this study we compared how many participants recovered after each treatment.
We defined recovery operationally using multiple criteria, and compared the proportions of participants meeting each individual criterion along with two composite criteria, defined as (a) recovery in the context of the trial and (b) clinical recovery from the current episode of the illness, however defined, 52 weeks after randomization. We used logistic regression modelling to compare treatments.
The percentages (number/total) meeting trial criteria for recovery were 22% (32/143) after CBT, 22% (32/143) after GET, 8% (12/149) after APT and 7% (11/150) after SMC. Similar proportions met criteria for clinical recovery. The odds ratio (OR) for trial recovery after CBT was 3.36 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64–6.88] and for GET 3.38 (95% CI 1.65–6.93), when compared to APT, and after CBT 3.69 (95% CI 1.77–7.69) and GET 3.71 (95% CI 1.78–7.74), when compared to SMC (p values < or =0.001 for all comparisons). There was no significant difference between APT and SMC. Similar proportions recovered in trial subgroups meeting different definitions of the illness.
This study confirms that recovery from CFS is possible, and that CBT and GET are the therapies most likely to lead to recovery.
一项多中心、四臂试验(PACE 试验)发现,康复认知行为疗法(CBT)和分级运动疗法(GET)在添加到专家医疗保健(SMC)中时,比单独的 SMC 更能有效治疗慢性疲劳综合征(CFS),而在添加到 SMC 中时,比适应性 pacing 疗法(APT)更有效。在这项研究中,我们比较了每种治疗后有多少参与者康复。
我们使用多种标准来操作定义康复,并比较了参与者符合每个单独标准以及两个综合标准的比例,这些标准定义为:(a)在试验背景下的康复,以及(b)无论如何定义,随机分组后 52 周时从当前疾病发作中恢复的临床康复。我们使用逻辑回归模型来比较治疗方法。
CBT 后符合试验标准的康复比例为 22%(32/143),GET 后为 22%(32/143),APT 后为 8%(12/149),SMC 后为 7%(11/150)。类似的比例符合临床康复标准。与 APT 相比,CBT 后试验康复的优势比(OR)为 3.36(95%置信区间[CI]1.64-6.88),GET 后为 3.38(95%CI1.65-6.93),与 SMC 相比,CBT 后为 3.69(95%CI1.77-7.69),GET 后为 3.71(95%CI1.78-7.74)(所有比较的 p 值均小于或等于 0.001)。APT 和 SMC 之间没有显著差异。在符合不同疾病定义的试验亚组中,有类似比例的人康复。
这项研究证实,CFS 的康复是可能的,CBT 和 GET 是最有可能导致康复的治疗方法。