Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

Elsevier Science full text link Elsevier Science Free PMC article
Full text links

Actions

Share

Randomized Controlled Trial
.2011 Mar 5;377(9768):823-36.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60096-2. Epub 2011 Feb 18.

Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial

Collaborators, Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial

P D White et al. Lancet..

Abstract

Background: Trial findings show cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) can be effective treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome, but patients' organisations have reported that these treatments can be harmful and favour pacing and specialist health care. We aimed to assess effectiveness and safety of all four treatments.

Methods: In our parallel-group randomised trial, patients meeting Oxford criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome were recruited from six secondary-care clinics in the UK and randomly allocated by computer-generated sequence to receive specialist medical care (SMC) alone or with adaptive pacing therapy (APT), CBT, or GET. Primary outcomes were fatigue (measured by Chalder fatigue questionnaire score) and physical function (measured by short form-36 subscale score) up to 52 weeks after randomisation, and safety was assessed primarily by recording all serious adverse events, including serious adverse reactions to trial treatments. Primary outcomes were rated by participants, who were necessarily unmasked to treatment assignment; the statistician was masked to treatment assignment for the analysis of primary outcomes. We used longitudinal regression models to compare SMC alone with other treatments, APT with CBT, and APT with GET. The final analysis included all participants for whom we had data for primary outcomes. This trial is registered at http://isrctn.org, number ISRCTN54285094.

Findings: We recruited 641 eligible patients, of whom 160 were assigned to the APT group, 161 to the CBT group, 160 to the GET group, and 160 to the SMC-alone group. Compared with SMC alone, mean fatigue scores at 52 weeks were 3·4 (95% CI 1·8 to 5·0) points lower for CBT (p = 0·0001) and 3·2 (1·7 to 4·8) points lower for GET (p = 0·0003), but did not differ for APT (0·7 [-0·9 to 2·3] points lower; p = 0·38). Compared with SMC alone, mean physical function scores were 7·1 (2·0 to 12·1) points higher for CBT (p = 0·0068) and 9·4 (4·4 to 14·4) points higher for GET (p = 0·0005), but did not differ for APT (3·4 [-1·6 to 8·4] points lower; p=0·18). Compared with APT, CBT and GET were associated with less fatigue (CBT p = 0·0027; GET p = 0·0059) and better physical function (CBT p=0·0002; GET p<0·0001). Subgroup analysis of 427 participants meeting international criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome and 329 participants meeting London criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis yielded equivalent results. Serious adverse reactions were recorded in two (1%) of 159 participants in the APT group, three (2%) of 161 in the CBT group, two (1%) of 160 in the GET group, and two (1%) of 160 in the SMC-alone group.

Interpretation: CBT and GET can safely be added to SMC to moderately improve outcomes for chronic fatigue syndrome, but APT is not an effective addition.

Funding: UK Medical Research Council, Department of Health for England, Scottish Chief Scientist Office, Department for Work and Pensions.

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT trial profile CFS=chronic fatigue syndrome. APT=adaptive pacing therapy. CBT=cognitive behaviour therapy. GET=graded exercise therapy. SMC=specialist medical care alone. The numbers of participants per centre ranged from 63 to 135.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Physical function subscale and fatigue questionnaire scores by treatment group Data are unadjusted means (95% CI). pinteraction is the p-value of the interaction between treatment and criteria or disorder from the adjusted model. CFS=chronic fatigue syndrome. ME=myalgic encephalomyelitis. (A–D) Lowest fatigue score is best. (E–H) Highest physical function score is best.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Primary outcome treatment differences for fatigue (A) and physical function (B) at 52 weeks (A) Negative values for fatigue favour the first treatment group in each pair of comparisons. (B) Positive values for physical function favour the first treatment group in each pair of comparisons. APT=adaptive pacing therapy. SMC=specialist medical care. CBT=cognitive behaviour therapy. GET=graded exercise therapy.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

  • Chronic fatigue syndrome: where to PACE from here?
    Bleijenberg G, Knoop H.Bleijenberg G, et al.Lancet. 2011 Mar 5;377(9768):786-8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60172-4. Epub 2011 Feb 18.Lancet. 2011.PMID:21334060No abstract available.
  • The PACE trial in chronic fatigue syndrome.
    Kewley AJ.Kewley AJ.Lancet. 2011 May 28;377(9780):1832; author reply 1834-5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60681-8. Epub 2011 May 16.Lancet. 2011.PMID:21592552No abstract available.
  • Patients' power and PACE.
    [No authors listed][No authors listed]Lancet. 2011 May 28;377(9780):1808. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60696-X. Epub 2011 May 16.Lancet. 2011.PMID:21592553No abstract available.
  • The PACE trial in chronic fatigue syndrome.
    Giakoumakis J.Giakoumakis J.Lancet. 2011 May 28;377(9780):1831; author reply 1834-5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60689-2. Epub 2011 May 16.Lancet. 2011.PMID:21592554No abstract available.
  • The PACE trial in chronic fatigue syndrome.
    Mitchell JT Jr.Mitchell JT Jr.Lancet. 2011 May 28;377(9780):1831; author reply 1834-5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60683-1. Epub 2011 May 16.Lancet. 2011.PMID:21592555No abstract available.
  • The PACE trial in chronic fatigue syndrome.
    Feehan SM; Liverpool ME Support Group.Feehan SM, et al.Lancet. 2011 May 28;377(9780):1831-2. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60688-0. Epub 2011 May 16.Lancet. 2011.PMID:21592556No abstract available.
  • The PACE trial in chronic fatigue syndrome.
    Stouten B, Goudsmit EM, Riley N.Stouten B, et al.Lancet. 2011 May 28;377(9780):1832-3; author reply 1834-5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60685-5. Epub 2011 May 16.Lancet. 2011.PMID:21592558No abstract available.
  • The PACE trial in chronic fatigue syndrome.
    Vlaeyen JW, Karsdorp P, Gatzounis R, Ranson S, Schrooten M.Vlaeyen JW, et al.Lancet. 2011 May 28;377(9780):1834; author reply 1834-5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60682-X. Epub 2011 May 16.Lancet. 2011.PMID:21592559No abstract available.
  • The PACE trial in chronic fatigue syndrome.
    Kindlon T.Kindlon T.Lancet. 2011 May 28;377(9780):1833; author reply 1834-5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60684-3. Epub 2011 May 16.Lancet. 2011.PMID:21592560No abstract available.
  • The PACE trial in chronic fatigue syndrome.
    Shinohara M.Shinohara M.Lancet. 2011 May 28;377(9780):1833-4; author reply 1834-5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60686-7. Epub 2011 May 16.Lancet. 2011.PMID:21592561No abstract available.
  • PACE trial clarification.
    Chalder T, Sharpe M, White PD.Chalder T, et al.Lancet. 2012 Feb 18;379(9816):616. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60267-0.Lancet. 2012.PMID:22340300No abstract available.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Prins JB, van der Meer JW, Bleijenberg G. Chronic fatigue syndrome. Lancet. 2006;367:346–355. - PubMed
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Clinical guideline CG53. Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (or encephalopathy): diagnosis and management.http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG53 (accessed Nov 6, 2010).
    1. Cairns R, Hotopf M. A systematic review describing the prognosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. Occup Med. 2005;55:20–31. - PubMed
    1. Edmonds M, McGuire H, Price JR. Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;3 CD003200. - PubMed
    1. Bagnall A-M, Hempel S, Chambers D, Orton V, Forbes C. The treatment and management of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) in adults and children: update of CRD Report 22.http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/CRD_Reports/crdreport35.pdf (accessed Nov 6, 2010).

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data

Related information

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Elsevier Science full text link Elsevier Science Free PMC article
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp