• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Investigating using FITNET to treat paediatric CFS/ME in UK (FITNET-NHS)

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/14192109

Cost £ 994,430.00

HTA - 14/192/109: Investigating the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of using FITNET to treat paediatric CFS/ME in the UK

Project title Investigating the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of using FITNET to treat paediatric CFS/ME in the UK

Research type Primary Research

Status Research in progress

Start date May 2016

Publication date
May 2022
This is the estimated publication date for this report, but please note that delays in the editorial review process can cause the forecast publication date to be delayed.

Cost £ 994,430.00

Chief Investigator Dr Esther Crawley

Co-investigators Professor William Hollingworth (University of Bristol), Dr David Kessler (University of Bristol), Professor John Macleod (University of Bristol), Dr Chris Metcalfe (University of Bristol), Dr Nicola Mills (University of Bristol), Professor Paul Stallard (University of Bath), Mrs Harriet Downing (University of Bristol), Dr Elise Van de Putte (UMC Utrecht), Dr Sanne Nijhof (UMC Utrecht), Associate Professor Hans Knoop (Radboud University Medical Centre), Professor Gijs Bleijenberg (Radboud University Medical Centre), Mrs Mary-Jane Willows (The Association for Young people with ME), Dr Simon Price (University of Bristol)

Contractor University of Bristol

Plain English summary

AIMS:

This is a large trial to test whether FITNET-NHS, a treatment delivered via the internet, is effective and value for money for children with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME).

Children with CFS/ME have fatigue that stops them going to school or doing other activities for more than 3 months.

In England, up to 2 in a 100 children have CFS/ME and 1% of secondary school children miss a day a week or more because of it.

Most children with CFS/ME will recover if they receive specialist treatment.

Specialist treatment recommended by the National Institute of health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) includes Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT), Graded Exercise Therapy or Activity Management.

However, approximately 90% of children in the UK cannot have treatment because they live too far away from specialist services.

For these children, probably only 8% will recover at 6 months.

One solution is for these children to receive specialist CBT for CFS/ME using the internet at home.

FITNET-NHS provides internet based CBT for CFS/ME and has been shown to be effective in the Netherlands with 63% of children recovering at 6 months.

We cannot use this treatment in the NHS until we know if children find it acceptable, and we know if it is effective and good value for money.

We also need to know if FITNET-NHS will work in children with both CFS/ME and mood problems (one third of children with CFS/ME).

In this large trial, children will be randomised to receive either: Activity Management or FITNET-NHS.

Those who get Activity Management will receive information on managing activities and sleep.

They will have three Skype calls (one assessment and two follow up) with CFS specialist occupational therapist (OT)s to understand and provide advice on sleep and activity.

The specialist OT will hand over care to the local GP or paediatrician but will provide support to them with up to three phone calls.

Those who get FITNET-NHS (and their parents) will be given information and then work through 21 interactive CBT modules.

Children will be asked to do homework (answer questions and complete diaries).

CBT-trained therapists will make weekly appointments with children and their parents to review homework and support behaviour change.

We want to recruit 734 children over 42 months to have results on 660 (330 in each arm).

We will test whether it is possible to recruit this number in our internal pilot study (12 months).

We will interview children, their parents and clinicians and use the results to make changes to the trial.

The most important outcome to children is disability.

We will test whether FITNET-NHS is effective at reducing disability at 6 months.

We will also measure fatigue, pain, quality of life, anxiety and depression at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months as well as information on how much the NHS and families spend on treatment and whether parents return to work.

Both Patients and the Public (healthy teenagers) have helped us design this study.

Patient involvement is important to us and this trial will have a patient advisory group to help us run the trial. It will be important that patients, clinicians, those that fund health care and researchers know about the results of this study.

We will use the charities and the press (Science Media Centre) to help us inform patients.

We will make sure paediatricians and researchers know the results by writing papers and presenting at clinical and scientific meetings and conferences.

Scientific summary

EXPERT SUMMARY:

This large randomised trial will investigate the relative clinical- and cost-effectiveness of the FITNET-NHS (specialist CBT for paediatric CFS/ME delivered on-line) compared with Activity Management,

A Dutch study showed FITNET to be effective: 63% of children in the FITNET arm recovered at 6 months compared with 8% in the standard medical care arm.

Before implementation in the UK, we need to know if FITNET-NHS is effective and cost-effective compared with Activity Management.

An internal pilot study with integrated qualitative methods will test the feasibility of recruitment and acceptability of interventions.

DESIGN:

Randomised trial comparing FITNET-NHS with Activity Management.

SETTING:

Primary care in regions with no specialist paediatric CFS/ME service (90% of UK).

LITERATURE REVIEW:

We have conducted two published systematic reviews to investigate treatment outcomes, and have completed one unpublished systematic review investigating recovery in paediatric CFS/ME.

TARGET POPULATION: Children (age 11 to 17) with CFS/ME

HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES:
The FITNET-NHS intervention delivers specialist cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for CFS/ME via the internet.

Participants and their parents work through 21 interactive modules and have weekly e-consultations with therapists.

ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT:

Behavioural intervention delivered by specialist occupational therapists who provide 3 Skype calls for participants and then support local providers delivering care (maximum 3 phone calls)

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE:

SF-36-physical function subscale (PFS) at 6 months.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES:

Fatigue (Chalder scale & Check list Individual strength (CIS, fatigue severity subscale));

school attendance;

mood (Revised Children s Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS));

Pain visual analogue scale;

Clinical Global Impression Scale;

Quality adjusted life years (EQ-5D-5L) at 3, 6 and 12 months and SF36-PFS at 3 and 12 months.

All measures are used in UK services and tested in trials.

MEASUREMENT OF COSTS:

FITNET was effective in the Netherlands but we do not know if it is cost effective.

We will investigate societal cost effectiveness of FITNET compared to activity management.

Parent-completed questionnaires at baseline and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months will measure productivity (adapted 4 item Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire General Health V2.0 [WPAI:GH]), out of pocket expenses and child's health service use.

We will collect primary care data to determine primary care use and link to administrative data (HES and MHLDDS) for secondary care and longer term outcomes.

SAMPLE SIZE:

We will randomise 734 and analyse 660 children (attrition ~10%), giving 97% power to detect a 0.35SD difference on SF36-PFS.

A secondary analysis of effectiveness in children with co-morbid mood disorders will have 80% power to detect a 0.4SD difference.

PROJECT TIMETABLE:

Set up (M1-6): FITNET migration and adaptation to FITNET-NHS.

Internal pilot study (M7-18): recruit 286 participants. Integrated qualitative methods used to improve recruitment and assess acceptability.

Full trial recruitment (M 19-48): Recruit 1050 participants.

Follow up (M 49-60).

Analyses and write HTA report (M 61-66)

EXPERTISE: FITNET developers/investigators; experts in: paediatric CFS/ME; CBT; health economics; statistics and methodology, primary care, recruiting from primary care, linking to routine NHS data; patient expertise.
---

Comment:
No 6-minute walking test nor fitness test which gave null results for CBT in PACE trial.

No actometers/pedometers

Patient self-reports in nonblinded trials can be inaccurate/biased after therapy.
 
Last edited:

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
So much of this makes me sick I wouldn't know where to start. How about here:

However, approximately 90% of children in the UK cannot have treatment because they live too far away from specialist services.

What this should say is that 90% of children in the UK are currently fortunate enough to live too far away for Esther Crawley to get her hands on them, but she's out to fix that.

A Dutch study showed FITNET to be effective: 63% of children in the FITNET arm recovered at 6 months compared with 8% in the standard medical care arm.

Blimey it's a miracle. Reference?
 

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Children with CFS/ME have fatigue that stops them going to school or doing other activities for more than 3 months.
In England, up to 2 in a 100 children have CFS/ME and 1% of secondary school children miss a day a week or more because of it.

Oxford like criteria...
How on earth are we still stuck there?
 

Seven7

Seven
Messages
3,444
Location
USA
I wonder who is paying for this. And the poor parents probably will be "encorage" (so they are not accused of abuse or neglect).

I hope they put warnings that can be harmful.
The criteria should be brought to attention, so they do not call it CFS/ME.
 
Messages
1,446
.
AYME is up to their necks in this FITNET study - and Boy - is Bristol University Invested in this study, Knoop and Bleijenberg too...:
.
Professor William Hollingworth (University of Bristol), Dr David Kessler (University of Bristol), Professor John Macleod (University of Bristol), Dr Chris Metcalfe (University of Bristol), Dr Nicola Mills (University of Bristol), Professor Paul Stallard (University of Bath), Mrs Harriet Downing (University of Bristol), Dr Elise Van de Putte (UMC Utrecht), Dr Sanne Nijhof (UMC Utrecht), Associate Professor Hans Knoop (Radboud University Medical Centre), Professor Gijs Bleijenberg (Radboud University Medical Centre), Mrs Mary-Jane Willows (The Association for Young people with ME), Dr Simon Price (University of Bristol)
.
.

Crawley brings in Lotsa research funding to Bristol University - and thats what its all about in UK University Education these days, its cutthroat - the lecturers have to bring in the research funding or they are out.
.
 
Last edited:

Comet

I'm Not Imaginary
Messages
694
How are they able to keep getting away with this?

This is a fail on so many levels.

It shows that very few are interested in researching actual ME/CFS. And that very few understand why this is not a study on children with ME/CFS.

It's bad enough what we adults are subjected to, but to do this to children... I just don't have the words. Yet it keeps happening...
 

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
One thing that does encourage me about this stuff is that CBT is getting increasingly more computer based and less intrusive, clearly as part of cost cutting measures, which makes it easier to disregard and ignore if it goes wrong.

I imagine much of the damage done in ME type CBT is done because patients are made to feel guilty by practitioners. When they've been left to the mercy of a computer, people will feel more emboldened to walk away. And clearly it's already been decided that this is the future, otherwise it wouldn't be being pushed through like this.
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
Funny how they don't mention the recovery rates for FITNET at follow-up:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/05/08/peds.2012-2007
Nijhof et al. said:
RESULTS: At LTFU there was no difference between the recovery rates for the different treatment strategies (original randomization: FITNET [64%] versus any form of usual care [52.8%]).

CONCLUSIONS: The short-term effectiveness of Internet-based CBT on adolescent CFS is maintained at LTFU.
How does this contradictory spin get past peer review? Or is it an editorial decision because the results have to be spun as positive in order to get published?
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
Trial Registry said:
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE:

SF-36-physical function subscale (PFS) at 6 months.
Trial Registry said:
The most important outcome to children is disability. We will test whether FITNET-NHS is effective at reducing disability at 6 months.
Expect the primary outcome to be switched to fatigue by the time of publication!
 
Last edited:
Messages
63
Location
Oxfordshire, England
"Most children with CFS/ME will recover if they receive specialist treatment."

AYME have been saying this for some years, it used to be on the activity management page of their website, when I asked for the source, they (eventually) sent me a reference to a paper that only looked at recovery rates after some years, from clinics in the US in the 1990s, nothing to do with actual treatment. When I pointed this out they removed that sentence from the page and it hasn't reappeared last I checked. Recovery rates were not impressive, either in that paper or in Dr Bell's 13 yr follow up to the Lyndonville outbreak.

I'd love to know if there is now definitive research proving this? Unlikely!
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
How does this contradictory spin get past peer review? Or is it an editorial decision because the results have to be spun as positive in order to get published?
Its because it is only ever peer reviewed by other true believers.

But it is really bad editorial policy that allows this to happen and this should reflect badly on the publishers and the editors. I feel that things won't improve until publishers are held to account and can be sued for harm done in papers that they publish that are not adequately checked. Harm could also be money spent on worthless treatments rather than being put to a good use.