Rehabilitative treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome: long term follow up from PACE trial

charles shepherd

Senior Member
Rehabilitative treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome: long-term follow-up from the PACE trial
Prof Michael Sharpe, MD†
Kimberley A Goldsmith, PhD†
Prof Anthony L Johnson, PhD
Prof Trudie Chalder, PhD
Jane Walker, PhD
Prof Peter D White, MD
†Joint first authors
Published Online: 27 October 2015
Share on mendeleyShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services

Article Info
The PACE trial found that, when added to specialist medical care (SMC), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), or graded exercise therapy (GET) were superior to adaptive pacing therapy (APT) or SMC alone in improving fatigue and physical functioning in people with chronic fatigue syndrome 1 year after randomisation. In this pre-specified follow-up study, we aimed to assess additional treatments received after the trial and investigate long-term outcomes (at least 2 years after randomisation) within and between original treatment groups in those originally included in the PACE trial.

The PACE trial was a parallel-group randomised controlled trial of patients meeting Oxford criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome who were recruited from six secondary care clinics in the UK between March 18, 2005, and Nov 28, 2008. Participants were randomly allocated to receive SMC alone or plus APT, CBT, or GET. Primary outcomes (were fatigue measured with Chalder fatigue questionnaire score and physical functioning with short form-36 subscale score, assessed 1 year after randomisation. In this long-term follow-up, we sent postal questionnaires to assess treatment received after the trial and outcomes a minimum of 2 years after randomisation. We assessed long-term differences in outcomes within and between originally randomised groups. The PACE trial is registered at, number ISRCTN54285094.

Between May 8, 2008, and April 26, 2011, 481 (75%) participants from the PACE trial returned questionnaires. Median time from randomisation to return of long-term follow-up assessment was 31 months (IQR 30–32; range 24–53). 210 (44%) participants received additional treatment (mostly CBT or GET) after the trial; with participants originally assigned to SMC alone (73 [63%] of 115) or APT (60 [50%] of 119) more likely to seek treatment than those originally assigned to GET (41 [32%] of 127) or CBT (36 [31%] of 118; p<0·0001). Improvements in fatigue and physical functioning reported by participants originally assigned to CBT and GET were maintained (within-group comparison of fatigue and physical functioning, respectively, at long-term follow-up as compared with 1 year: CBT −2·2 [95% CI −3·7 to −0·6], 3·3 [0·02 to 6·7]; GET −1·3 [–2·7 to 0·1], 0·5 [–2·7 to 3·6]). Participants allocated to APT and to SMC alone in the trial improved over the follow-up period compared with 1 year (fatigue and physical functioning, respectively: APT −3·0 [–4·4 to −1·6], 8·5 [4·5 to 12·5]; SMC −3·9 [–5·3 to −2·6], 7·1 [4·0 to 10·3]). There was little evidence of differences in outcomes between the randomised treatment groups at long-term follow-up.

The beneficial effects of CBT and GET seen at 1 year were maintained at long-term follow-up a median of 2·5 years after randomisation. Outcomes with SMC alone or APT improved from the 1 year outcome and were similar to CBT and GET at long-term follow-up, but these data should be interpreted in the context of additional therapies having being given according to physician choice and patient preference after the 1 year trial final assessment. Future research should identify predictors of response to CBT and GET and also develop better treatments for those who respond to neither.

UK Medical Research Council, Department of Health for England, Scottish Chief Scientist Office, Department for Work and Pensions, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London.

charles shepherd

Senior Member
Followed by an editorial:

Chronic fatigue syndrome: what is it and how to treat?


Share on mendeleyShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services

Article Info
Ever since neurologist George Miller Beard coined the term neurasthenia in the 19th century,1dozens of names have been used to describe illnesses resembling chronic fatigue syndrome. The diverse nomenclature reflects heterogeneity in the disorder's conceptualisation, spawning terms as divergent as chronic Epstein–Barr virus, epidemic neuromyasthenia, systemic exertion intolerance disease, post-viral fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalomyelitis, and chronic fatigue immune dysfunction syndrome. The diversity in nomenclature parallels the diversity in therapies assessed for this frequently refractory cluster of symptoms, which include pharmacological (eg, fluoxetine, rintatolimod, galantamine), psychological (eg, cognitive therapy, adaptive pacing therapy), and lifestyle interventions (eg, exercise).

charles shepherd

Senior Member
University of Oxford news release

CS comment - worth noting the observation from Dr Kimberley Goldsmith: We found that participants who had originally been given SMC or APT appeared to be doing as well as those who had CBT or GET in the longer term

EMBARGO: Wednesday 28 October 2015, 0001 UK time (US Eastern time: 8pm on 27 Oct 15)

Treatments offer hope for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS/ME)

Researchers have found that two treatments for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome have long term benefits for people affected by the condition.

The team from Oxford University, King’s College London and Queen Mary University of London were following up patients who took part in a study published in 2011, funded by the Medical Research Council. In that study they looked at four potential treatments for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and found that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) achieved better outcomes than standard medical care (SMC) and adaptive pacing therapy (APT) at one year.

In this study they contacted the people who took part in the original study to find out how they were fairing two and a half years after starting the treatments.

Three quarters of the original trial participants took part in the follow up. It showed that the improvements in fatigue and physical functioning seen at one year in the trial with CBT and GET were maintained in the long-term.

Professor Michael Sharpe from the University of Oxford said: ‘The finding that participants who had cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy had maintained their improvement over 2 years after entering the trial, tells us that these treatment can improve the long-term health of people with CFS.’
The team also found that participants who originally had CBT or GET were less likely to have sought additional therapy after the trial than those who originally had standard medical care alone or APT.

Dr Kimberley Goldsmith from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King’s College London said: We found that participants who had originally been given SMC or APT appeared to be doing as well as those who had CBT or GET in the longer term. However as many had received CBT or GET after the trial, it does not tell us that these treatments have as good a long term outcome as CBT and GET.’
There were no significant differences between the four original treatment groups in the number reporting a long-term deterioration in their general health (around 1 in 10 of each group). This showed that there was no evidence that those who received CBT and GET were more likely to worsen in the long term.

Professor Peter White from Queen Mary University of London said: ‘Finding no significant differences in the proportions getting worse over time is a reassurance for those who worry that some of these treatments might make things worse. But it is also a reminder that these treatments do not help everybody, and more research is needed into finding other treatments that help.’

Notes to editors
For more information, or to request an interview, please contact the Oxford press office on 01865 270046 or
Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is characterized by a report of fatigue and impaired functioning of at least 6 months duration with no identifiable alternative diagnosis.
Myalgic encephalomyelitis is thought by some to be the same illness, and by others to be a separate disease.
Cognitive behaviour therapy: Help with understanding the illness and coping actively
Graded exercise therapy: Help to gradually increase activity with monitoring

charles shepherd

Senior Member


Comments from Dr Charles Shepherd, Medical Adviser, ME Association

The ME Association stands by its continuing criticism of the use of graded exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) as primary interventions in ME/CFS.

We also stand by our criticisms on the design, the lack of objective measures of outcome, and the way in which the results of the PACE trial have been reported to mean that the people with ME/CFS will recover if only they start exercising and develop a positive mental attitude.

Our position is based on consistent and robust evidence on activity management collected from large numbers of people with ME/CFS - with our latest report indicating that over 70% found that GET made their symptoms worse.

As a result, we have called on NICE to withdraw their recommendation that GET should be a primary intervention for everyone with mild to moderate ME/CFS.

In addition, the conclusion that people with ME/CFS will respond to GET because they are simply inactive and deconditioned is no longer tenable.

Reputable research has demonstrated that there are significant abnormalities in the muscle, brain and immune system - all of which are almost certainly involved in the production of ME/CFS symptoms, including exercise induced fatigue.

The MEA report also finds that the majority of people with ME/CFS (= 73%) do not gain any benefit in symptom relief when CBT is used as a primary intervention.

So we have a second form of treatment based on a seriously flawed hypothesis - in this case the idea that ME/CFS is a psychological problem that is maintained by abnormal illness beliefs and behaviours.

At a time when international medical opinion is at long last accepting that ME/CFS is a serious neurological and immunological condition, it is deeply depressing to find that NICE is continuing to recommend two forms of treatment that are often ineffective, and in the case of GET potentially harmful.

Dr Charles Shepherd
Hon Medical Adviser, MEA
October 28th 2015

Further Information
MEA report on patient evidence relating to acceptability, safety and efficacy of CBT, GET and Pacing:

Minutes of meeting with Professor Mark Baker to discuss revision of the NICE guideline on ME/CFS:

Detailed critique of the PACE trial from David Tuller, University of California:

Recommendations from the MEA report relating to CBT, GET and Pacing:
Our part 1 recommendations are based on the full results from our survey in respect of the three main therapeutic approaches to illness management, and are as follows:

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT)

We conclude that CBT in its current delivered form should not be recommended as a primary intervention for people with ME/CFS.

CBT courses, based on the model that abnormal beliefs and behaviours are responsible for maintaining the illness, have no role to play in the management of ME/CFS and increase the risk of symptoms becoming worse.

The belief of some CBT practitioners that ME/CFS is a psychological illness was the main factor which led to less symptoms improving, less courses being appropriate to needs, more symptoms becoming worse and more courses being seen as inappropriate.

Our results indicate that graded exercise therapy should form no part of any activity management advice employed in the delivery of CBT, as this also led to a negative impact on outcomes.

There is a clear need for better training among practitioners. The data indicates that deemed lack of knowledge and experience had a direct effect on outcomes and remained a key factor even where courses were held in specialist clinics or otherwise given by therapists with an ME/CFS specialism.

However, our results did indicate that when used appropriately the practical coping component of CBT can have a positive effect in helping some patients come to terms with their diagnosis and adapt their lives to best accommodate it.

CBT was also seen to have a positive effect in helping some patients deal with comorbid issues – anxiety, depression, stress – which may occur at any time for someone with a long-term disabling illness.

An appropriate model of CBT – one that helps patients learn practical coping skills and/or manage co-morbid issues such as those listed above – could be employed, where appropriate, for ME/CFS as it is for other chronic physical illnesses such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, cancer, heart disease, and arthritis etc.; and we recommend all patients should have access to such courses as well as access to follow-up courses and/or consultations as and when required.

Graded Exercise Therapy (GET)

We conclude that GET should be withdrawn with immediate effect as a primary intervention for everyone with ME/CFS.

One of the main factors that led to patients reporting that GET was inappropriate was the very nature of GET itself, especially when it was used on the basis that there is no underlying physical cause for their symptoms, and that patients are basically ill because of inactivity and deconditioning.

A significant number of patients had been given advice on exercise and activity management that was judged harmful with symptoms having become worse or much worse and leading to relapse.

And it is worth noting that, despite current NICE recommendations, a significant number of severe-to-very severe patients were recommended GET by practitioners and/or had taken part in GET courses.

The other major factor contributing to poor outcomes was the incorrect belief held by some practitioners that ME/CFS is a psychological condition leading to erroneous advice that exercise could overcome the illness if only patients would ‘push through’ worsening symptoms.

We recognise that it is impossible for all treatments for a disease to be free from side-effects but, if GET was a licensed medication, we believe the number of people reporting significant adverse effects would lead to a review of its use by regulatory authorities.

As a physical exercise-based therapy, GET may be of benefit to a sub-group who come under the ME/CFS umbrella and are able to tolerate regular and progressive increases in some form of aerobic activity, irrespective of their symptoms. However, identifying a patient who could come within that sub-group is problematic and is not possible at present.

Some patients indicated that they had been on a course which had a gentle approach of graded activity rather than a more robust and structured approach of graded physical exercise. There were some reports that patients were told they should not exercise when they felt too unwell to do so. These led, for some, to an improvement in symptoms or to symptoms remaining unaffected.

However, we conclude that GET, as it is currently being delivered, cannot be regarded as a safe and effective form of treatment for the majority of people with ME/CFS. The fact that many people, including those who consider themselves severely affected, are being referred to specialist services for an intervention that makes them either worse or much worse is clearly unacceptable and in many cases dangerous.

GET should therefore be withdrawn by NICE and from NHS specialist services as a ‘one size fits all’ recommended treatment with immediate effect for everyone who has a diagnosis of ME/CFS. This advice should remain until there are reliable methods for determining which people who come under the ME/CFS umbrella are likely to find that GET is a safe and effective form of management.


Pacing was consistently shown to be the most effective, safe, acceptable and preferred form of activity management for people with ME/CFS and should therefore be a key component of any illness management programme.

The benefit of Pacing may relate to helping people cope and adapt to their illness rather than contributing to a significant improvement in functional status. Learning coping strategies can help make courses more appropriate to needs even if they do not lead to immediate or even longer term improvement in symptoms.

For some, improvement may be a slow process so, whilst they may be somewhat better by the end of the course, the improvement is not enough to take them into a better category of severity for some time, perhaps not until they have self-managed their illness for a few years.

Pacing can be just as applicable to someone who is severely affected, as to someone who is mildly or moderately affected, although additional measures need to be taken to ensure that a person who is severely affected has equal access to services.

However, proposed increases in activity, both mental and physical, must be gradual, flexible and individually tailored to a patient’s ability and circumstance, and not progressively increased regardless of how the patient is responding.

There must be better training for practitioners who are to deliver such management courses and all patients should have access to suitable courses, follow-up courses and/or consultations as and when required.


Senior Member
Interestingly, individuals who originally received CBT and GET maintained improvement in fatigue and physical functioning at follow-up (median 31 months after randomisation; range 24–53), irrespective of whether they received any further treatment. Individuals who received APT or SMC alone displayed improvement in fatigue and physical functioning irrespective of receiving further treatment, such that no difference in outcomes was evident between any of the original treatment groups at long-term follow-up.

In other words, CBT/GET don't work.


Senior Member
The authors hypothesise that the improvement in the APT and SMC only groups might be attributed to the eff ects of post-trial CBT or GET, because more people from these groups accessed these therapies during follow-up. However, improvement was observed in these groups irrespective of whether these treatments were received, and thus this hypothesis remains unproven.

LOL this is surreal. I have no words. "Hypothesis remains unproven". Er, no, it's disproven given that the people who didn't get CBT/GET reported the same amount of improvement as those who got CBT/GET. Therefore these improvements in scores simply reflect natural progression of disease / regression to the mean. Morons ugh.


Senior Member
At the press conference, Sharpe said he doesn’t think there’s “a growing army of people upset about this,” and he stressed that their findings are not suggesting that CFS/ME is a mental illness. “It’s sometimes quite hard to understand what motivates the very vocal minority that gets so upset about this apparently benign bit of moderately helpful treatment,” he said
Nice to see Sharpe's just trolling us now.


Senior Member
Nowhere in this whole crapola of a paper is it mentioned that people in all 4 trial arms were still grossly disabled at 134-week follow-up. Look at the SF-36 physical function scores:

Screen Shot 2015-10-28 at 12.58.18 a.m..png

They had the audacity to conclude the paper by saying

We note however that in all of the originally randomised treatment groups some patients remained unwell at long-term follow-up, an observation that reminds us that better treatments are still needed for patients with this chronically disabling disorder.

"Some patients remained unwell"??? Scores at long-term follow-up were between 50 and 60. A score of 57 is the average score for patients with Class II congestive heart failure.


Senior Member
What a load of spin. I don't understand why the Telegraph made this into the front cover. It is just there to deflect attention from the real story and to show everyone they are in control. It is just becoming desperate.

I note that no conflicts of interest are referred to in the Telegraph.

Did Michael Sharpe and Peter White disclose their conflicts of interest in the full Lancet Psychiatry article or they not bothering with that inconvenience??
Did Michael Sharpe and Peter White disclose their conflicts of interest in the full Lancet Psychiatry article or they not bothering with that inconvenience??

PDW has done paid consultancy word for the UK Government and the Swiss Re insurance company. TC has received royalties from Sheldon Press and Constable and Robinson. MS has received royalties from Oxford University Press. KAG, ALJ, and JW declare no competing interests.

Only PDW now.


Senior Member
The authors suggest that this is because the people in the ineffective groups later decided to seek out graded exercise and cognitive behavior therapy.
Did the authors have evidence of this claim that the patients later sought out GET and CBT, or is this just supreme arrogance? "Our treatment is the only one that works because we say so, so patients who did not get our treatment during the study must have gotten it later if they improved. I mean, how else could they have improved if they didn't get GET and CBT?"