From the Journal of Health Psychology
As others have pointed out a variety of complicating factors with the PACE trial (e.g. changing outcome criteria), I will limit my remarks to issues that involve the composition of adaptive pacing therapy and issues involving patient selection. My key points are that the PACE trial investigators were not successful in designing and implementing a valid pacing intervention and patient selection ambiguity further compromised the study’s outcomes.
From ME Association round up:
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether CFS patients without comorbid psychiatric diagnoses differ from CFS patients with comorbid psychiatric diagnoses and healthy control subjects in neuropsychological performance, the proportion with elevated spinal fluid protein or white cell counts, cerebral blood flow (CBF), brain ventricular lactate and cortical glutathione (GSH). The results of the study did not show any differences in any of the outcome measures between CFS patients with and without psychiatric comorbidity, thus indicating that psychiatric status may not be an exacerbating factor in CFS. Importantly, significant differences were found between the pooled samples of CFS compared to controls. These included lower GSH and CBF and higher ventricular lactate and rates of spinal fluid abnormalities in CFS patients compared to healthy controls. Thirteen of 26 patients had abnormal values on two or more of these 4 brain-related variables. These findings, which replicate the results of several of our prior studies, support the presence of a number of neurobiological and spinal fluid abnormalities in CFS. These results will lead to further investigation into objective biomarkers of the disorder to advance the understanding of CFS.
Wish there was more than the abstract available.
Open access of the reanalysis report meassociation.org.uk/2017/0...
