Snow Leopard
Hibernating
- Messages
- 5,902
- Location
- South Australia
I'm not sure if this is simply an updated chapter for the 4th edition, which is officially released in 2017.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780702062858000708
Those of you who are familiar with van der Meer and Bleijenberg don't need to read it, you already know what it says. I'll save you the trouble by listing key points below.
Notable omissions are any discussion of post-maximal-exercise testing or the 2-day CPET. Likewise, almost nothing about POTS or autonomic dysfunction.
Oh and this very strange mistake:
Reference 84 is of course: Fluge Ø., Bruland O., Risa K., et al.: Benefit from B-lymphocyte depletion using the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab in chronic fatigue syndrome: a double-blind and placebo-controlled study. PLoS ONE 2011; 6(10):e26358.
Now how they confused anti-CD23 (lumiliximab) with anti-CD20 (rituximab) and the mention of T helper 17 pathway shows you how little thought they put into trying to understand this therapy.
Oh and:
Yeah, you knew they would say that didn't you!
The wonders of avoiding pre and post-peer review (book chapters)!
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780702062858000708
Those of you who are familiar with van der Meer and Bleijenberg don't need to read it, you already know what it says. I'll save you the trouble by listing key points below.
Notable omissions are any discussion of post-maximal-exercise testing or the 2-day CPET. Likewise, almost nothing about POTS or autonomic dysfunction.
Oh and this very strange mistake:
There is no evidence-based drug treatment (hormones, immunomodulatory drugs, antimicrobials, psychotropic drugs) for CFS.4,78,79 In a small recent trial, a rather late beneficial effect of the anti-CD23 monoclonal antibody rituximab has been found.84 If this effect is real, it would imply an immunologic pathogenesis of CFS, possibly involving the T helper-17 pathway. However, given the serious potential side effects (e.g., progressive multifocal leukencephalopathy) and the costs of this treatment, further well-controlled trials are mandatory.
Reference 84 is of course: Fluge Ø., Bruland O., Risa K., et al.: Benefit from B-lymphocyte depletion using the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab in chronic fatigue syndrome: a double-blind and placebo-controlled study. PLoS ONE 2011; 6(10):e26358.
Now how they confused anti-CD23 (lumiliximab) with anti-CD20 (rituximab) and the mention of T helper 17 pathway shows you how little thought they put into trying to understand this therapy.
Oh and:
citing themselves: Knoop H., Bleijenberg G., Gielissen M.F.M., et al.: Is a full recovery possible after cognitive behavioural therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome? Psychother Psychosom 2007; 76:171-176.The recovery rates for CBT can go up to 70%, depending on the definition of recovery
An important issue with regard to efficacy is the aim of CBT. In many studies improvement and rehabilitation is the treatment goal. Our CBT studies86,88–92 aimed to cure (i.e. disappearance of symptoms and functional impairment as its defined goal, ability to return to work and other activities and no longer considering oneself as a patient).1 It should be realized that if cure is not the goal of treatment, it will never be attained. Of great interest is our observation that – as mentioned above – there is a regain of gray matter with successful CBT, underscoring that the loss of gray matter in CFS is neurobiologically important, that CBT induces morphologic changes that point to plasticity of the brain.68
Another important question is whether the effect of CBT is lasting; a number of follow-up studies have shown that there is a sustained effect.93,94 However, there are a couple of problems with CBT. The first is availability: although the term cognitive behavioral therapy is widely used, specific CBT, tailor-made for CFS, is hard to get. A second major problem – fed by some patient organizations – is that many CFS patients have strong somatic attributions and reject the idea that a psychologic intervention may help them.
Conclusion
Over recent years, although our insight into the pathogenesis of CFS has increased and we have made progress with regard to our abilities to manage and treat the disorder, our knowledge of the syndrome is still too limited. Controversies about CFS between doctors, researchers and patients have not been particularly helpful in facilitating solid research and further solving the enigmas of the syndrome. In addition, such controversies are harmful to patients; healthcare workers should do their utmost to facilitate effective management of the condition, as proposed in the NICE guidelines
Yeah, you knew they would say that didn't you!
The wonders of avoiding pre and post-peer review (book chapters)!
Last edited: