The effectiveness of activity pacing interventions for people with chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate whether activity pacing interventions (alone or in conjunction with other evidence-based interventions) improve fatigue, physical function, psychological distress, depression, and anxiety in people with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven databases were searched until 13 August 2022 for randomised controlled trials that included activity pacing interventions for CFS and a validated measure of fatigue. Secondary outcomes were physical function, psychological distress, depression, and anxiety. Two reviewers independently screened studies by title, abstract and full text. Methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed in R.

RESULTS

6390 articles were screened, with 14 included. Good overall study quality was supported by PEDro scale ratings. Activity pacing interventions were effective (Hedges' g (95% CI)) at reducing fatigue (-0.52 (-0.73 to -0.32)), psychological distress (-0.37 (-0.51 to -0.24)) and depression (-0.29 (-0.49 to -0.09)) and improving physical function (mean difference 7.18 (3.17-11.18)) when compared to no treatment/usual care. The extent of improvement was greater for interventions that encouraged graded escalation of physical activities and cognitive activities.

CONCLUSION

Activity pacing interventions are effective in reducing fatigue and psychological distress and improving physical function in CFS, particularly when people are encouraged to gradually increase activities.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016036087. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONA key feature of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a prolonged post-exertional exacerbation of symptoms following physical activities or cognitive activities.Activity pacing is a common strategy often embedded in multi-component management programs for CFS.Activity pacing interventions are effective in reducing fatigue and psychological distress and improving physical function in CFS, particularly when patients are encouraged to gradually increase their activities.Healthcare professionals embedding activity pacing as part of treatment should work collaboratively with patients to ensure successful, individualised self-management strategies.

A scoping review of 'Pacing' for management of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS): lessons learned for the long COVID pandemic

BACKGROUND

Controversy over treatment for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a barrier to appropriate treatment. Energy management or pacing is a prominent coping strategy for people with ME/CFS. Whilst a definitive definition of pacing is not unanimous within the literature or healthcare providers, it typically comprises regulating activity to avoid post exertional malaise (PEM), the worsening of symptoms after an activity. Until now, characteristics of pacing, and the effects on patients' symptoms had not been systematically reviewed. This is problematic as the most common approach to pacing, pacing prescription, and the pooled efficacy of pacing was unknown. Collating evidence may help advise those suffering with similar symptoms, including long COVID, as practitioners would be better informed on methodological approaches to adopt, pacing implementation, and expected outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

In this scoping review of the literature, we aggregated type of, and outcomes of, pacing in people with ME/CFS.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Original investigations concerning pacing were considered in participants with ME/CFS.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

Six electronic databases (PubMed, Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) were searched; and websites MEPedia, Action for ME, and ME Action were also searched for grey literature, to fully capture patient surveys not published in academic journals.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted. Review selection and characterisation was performed by two independent reviewers using pretested forms.

RESULTS

Authors reviewed 177 titles and abstracts, resulting in 17 included studies: three randomised control trials (RCTs); one uncontrolled trial; one interventional case series; one retrospective observational study; two prospective observational studies; four cross-sectional observational studies; and five cross-sectional analytical studies. Studies included variable designs, durations, and outcome measures. In terms of pacing administration, studies used educational sessions and diaries for activity monitoring. Eleven studies reported benefits of pacing, four studies reported no effect, and two studies reported a detrimental effect in comparison to the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Highly variable study designs and outcome measures, allied to poor to fair methodological quality resulted in heterogenous findings and highlights the requirement for more research examining pacing. Looking to the long COVID pandemic, our results suggest future studies should be RCTs utilising objectively quantified digitised pacing, over a longer duration of examination (i.e. longitudinal studies), using the core outcome set for patient reported outcome measures. Until these are completed, the literature base is insufficient to inform treatment practises for people with ME/CFS and long COVID.

Assessment of the scientific rigour of randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy for patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: A systematic review

Cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy have been promoted as effective treatments for patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. However, criticism on the scientific rigour of these studies has been raised. This review assessed the methodological quality of studies on the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy. The methodological quality of the 18 included studies was found to be relatively low, as bias was prominently found, affecting the main outcome measures of the studies (fatigue, physical functioning and functional impairment/status). Future research should focus on including more objective outcome measures in a well-defined patient population.

Are ME/CFS Patient Organizations "Militant"? : Patient Protest in a Medical Controversy

Myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a contested illness category. This paper investigates the common claim that patients with ME/CFS-and by extension, ME/CFS patient organizations (POs)-exhibit "militant" social and political tendencies. The paper opens with a history of the protracted scientific disagreement over ME/CFS. We observe that ME/CFS POs, medical doctors, and medical researchers exhibit clear differences in opinion over how to conceptualize this illness. However, we identify a common trope in the discourse over ME/CFS: the claim of "militant" patient activism. Scrutinizing this charge, we find no compelling evidence that the vast majority of patients with ME/CFS, or the POs representing them, have adopted any such militant political policies or behaviours. Instead, we observe key strategic similarities between ME/CFS POs in the United Kingdom and the AIDs activist organizations of the mid-1980s in the United States which sought to engage scientists using the platform of public activism and via scientific publications. Finally, we explore the contours of disagreement between POs and the medical community by drawing on the concept of epistemic injustice. We find that widespread negative stereotyping of patients and the marginalization and exclusion of patient voices by medical authorities provides a better explanation for expressions of frustration among patients with ME/CFS.

Special issue on the PACE Trial

We are proud that this issue marks a special contribution by the Journal of Health Psychology to the literature concerning interventions to manage adaptation to chronic health problems. The PACE Trial debate reveals deeply embedded differences between critics and investigators. It reveals an unwillingness of the co-principal investigators of the PACE trial to engage in authentic discussion and debate. It leads one to question the wisdom of such a large investment from the public purse (£5million) on what is a textbook example of a poorly done trial.

Further commentary on the PACE trial: Biased methods and unreliable outcomes

Geraghty in the year 2016, outlines a range of controversies surrounding publication of results from the PACE trial and discusses a freedom of information case brought by a patient refused access to data from the trial. The PACE authors offer a response, writing 'Dr Geraghty's views are based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the PACE trial'. This article draws on expert commentaries to further detail the critical methodological failures and biases identified in the PACE trial, which undermine the reliability and credibility of the major findings to emerge from this trial.