Change in grey matter volume cannot be assumed to be due to cognitive
behavioural therapy
Journal: Brain, Advance Access published online on January 29, 2009
Brain, doi:10.1093/brain/awn358
Author: Tom Kindlon
Affiliation: Irish ME/CFS Association, PO Box 3075 Dublin 2, Ireland
E-mail: tomkindlon@oceanfree.net; tkindlon@maths.tcd.ie
Received November 19, 2008. Accepted December 14, 2008.
Sir, In their reply to Dr Bramsen, De Lange et al. (2008Go) use a
type of circular reasoning: cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), they
say, has previously been shown to be 'effective' for chronic fatigue
syndrome (CFS) so the change they measured must be due to CBT.
First, it needs to be pointed out that CBT is far from a panacea for
CFS. A recent meta-analysis (Malouff et al., 2008Go) of the efficacy
of CBT in treating CFS found an effect size of d = 0.48 (95% CI 0.27–0.69).
In their letter, De Lange et al. (2008Go) refer to a review by
Whiting et al. (2001Go) as part-evidence for their claim that CBT is
effective for CFS. However, this review recommended the use of
objective outcome measures e.g.
Outcomes such as 'improvement,' in which participants were asked
to rate themselves as better or worse than they were before the
intervention began, were frequently reported. However, the person may
feel better able to cope with daily activities because they have
reduced their expectations of what they should achieve, rather than
because they have made any recovery as a result of the intervention.
A more objective measure of the effect of any intervention would be
whether participants have increased their working hours, returned to
work or school, or increased their physical activities'.
Given one of the aims of CBT (for CFS) has been said to be 'increased
confidence in exercise and physical activity' (O'Dowd et al.), we
cannot have complete confidence that the improvements recorded in CBT
trials thus far represent objective improvements [such as
improvements in grey matter volume (GMV)], rather than simply being
due to altering how patients answer questionnaires. An INAMI report
(2006) on the use of CBT (combined with GET) in over 600 CFS patients
in Belgium found that while patients reported improvements on their
fatigue scores, there was negligible change on the tests of exercise
capacity and there was actually a worsening of their employment
status (as measured by the amount of hours worked per week), both at
the end of the intervention and at follow-up.
CFS is not generally a progressive condition—improvement often occurs
(Nisenbaum et al., 2003Go; Cairns et al., 2005). Indeed, in a recent
uncontrolled study of CBT (Scheeres et al., 2008Go), co-written by
one of the authors (Bleijenberg), a spontaneous recovery rate of 5%
was assumed over a similar period as this study. Thus the authors
have not proven that the 12% improvement in GMV in CFS was due to
CBT. If their logic was applied throughout medicine, control groups
would only be required to test if an intervention was effective as
measured by one or a limited number of outcome measures. After that,
if a positive change in any other outcome measure was recorded in any
uncontrolled study, it would be acceptable for pharmaceutical
companies and others to claim that this must be due to their
'effective' intervention!
References
Cairns R, Hotopf M. A systematic review describing the prognosis of
chronic fatigue syndrome. Occup Med (Lond) (2005) 55:20–31.[CrossRef][Medline]
de Lange FP, Koers A, Kalkman JS, Bleijenberg G, Hagoort P, Meer JW,
et al. Reply to: can CBT substantially change grey matter volume in
chronic fatigue syndrome? Brain (2008) doi: 10.1093/brain/awn208
[Epub ahead of print 30 August 2008].
Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB, Rooke SE, Bhullar N, Schutte NS.
Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic fatigue
syndrome: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev (2008) 28:736–45.[Medline]
Nisenbaum R, Jones JF, Unger ER, Reyes M, Reeves WC. A
population-based study of the clinical course of chronic fatigue
syndrome. Health Qual Life Outcomes (2003) 1:49.[CrossRef][Medline]
O'D;owd H, Gladwell P, Rogers CA, Hollinghurst S, Gregory A.
Cognitive behavioural therapy in chronic fatigue syndrome: a
randomised controlled trial of an outpatient group programme. Health
Technol Assess (2006) 10:1–121. iii-iv, ix-x.[ISI][Medline]
Rapport d'évaluation (2002–2004) portant sur l'exécution des
conventions de rééducation entre le Comité de l'assurance soins de
santé (INAMI) et les Centres de référence pour le Syndrome de fatigue
chronique (SFC) (2006)
http://www.inami.fgov.be/care/fr/doctors/specific-information/sfc-cvs/sfc-cvs04.htm
(10 September 2008, date last accessed).
Scheeres K, Wensing M, Bleijenberg G, Severens JL. Implementing
cognitive behavior therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome in mental
health care: a costs and outcomes analysis. BMC Health Serv Res
(2008) 8:175.[Medline]
Whiting P, Bagnall AM, Sowden AJ, Cornell JE, Mulrow CD, Ramirez G.
Interventions for the treatment and management of chronic fatigue
syndrome: a systematic review. JAMA (2001) 286:1360–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
_______________________________________
Reply: Change in grey matter volume cannot be assumed to be due to
cognitive behavioural therapy
Journal: Brain, Advance Access published online on January 29, 2009
Brain, doi:10.1093/brain/awn359
Authors:
Floris P. de Lange1,2, Gijs Bleijenberg3, Jos W. M. van der Meer4,
Peter Hagoort1 and Ivan Toni1
Affiliations:
1 Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud
University Nijmegen, The Netherlands 2 Inserm-CEA Cognitive
Neuroimaging Unit, CEA/SAC/DSV/DRM/NeuroSpin, Gif sur Yvette, France
3 Expert Center Chronic Fatigue, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical
Center, The Netherlands 4 Department of General Internal Medicine,
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, The Netherlands
Correspondence to: Dr Floris de Lange, Donders Institute for Brain,
Cognition and Behaviour, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, NL-6500 HB, The
Netherlands E-mail: florisdelange@gmail.com
Received December 17, 2008. Accepted December 17, 2008.
Sir, We thank Tom Kindlon for his letter, in which he raises several
important issues. We will respond to all the issues in the same order
as they appear in his letter.
First, Tom Kindlon points out that cognitive behavioural therapy
(CBT) is not a panacea for the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). It
should be obvious from all previous meta-analyses that CBT does not
lead to a full recovery in all CFS patients (while the exact numbers
on improvement rates depend on a host of experimental factors like
the exact type of therapy given, inclusion criteria of the study, as
well as other factors such as the patient's self efficacy, social
support and physical activity pattern). Nevertheless, it should also
be obvious from these meta-studies that psychotherapeutic
interventions like graded exercise therapy and CBT interventions are
the only interventions that have shown reliable, replicable and
relatively robust improvements in health status in CFS, compared wtih
all other interventions that have been investigated to date.
The second point of Tom Kindlon is that we should have used objective
measures to quantify improvement in health status rather than
questionnaires as the latter may simply reflect changes in response
tendency of the CFS patients. We share the author's preference for
objective measures, which is why all the reported significant
brain–behaviour relations in our manuscript in fact pertain to
objective, quantitative measures [see e.g. Fig. 4 of de Lange et al.
(2008Go)]. The significant relationship between behavioural
improvements and increase in grey matter volume (GMV) was constituted
by the choice reaction time task (Vercoulen et al., 1998Go) and the
digit symbol substitution test of the Wechsler adult intelligence
scale (WAIS-dst) (Wechsler, 1981Go), two objective psychophysical
tasks that are often used as measures of information processing speed
(Chiaravalloti et al., 2003Go). Moreover, improvements in general
physical activity, quantified by objective actigraphic measurements
(Vercoulen et al., 1997Go; van der Werf et al., 2000Go) for a 2-week
period both at baseline and follow-up, showed a trend of significant
relationship with the GMV increase.
Lastly, the author points out that our study, for lack of control
group, has not proven that the increase in GMV is specifically due to
CBT, rather than spontaneous recovery. We agree with the author that
the lack of patient control group limits the scope of our inferences,
as has already been acknowledged both in the manuscript and in the
reply to Dr Bramsen. We would like to point out that the improvement
rate of the sample in our study far exceeded the improvement rate
seen with passive support groups or a waiting list condition (Prins
et al., 2001Go). But crucially, the aim of our study was not to test
whether CBT is an effective intervention for CFS, as has been the
topic of previous studies (Whiting et al., 2001Go; Chambers et al.,
2006Go), but rather to investigate whether there was a relationship
between behavioural improvements following CBT in CFS and changes in
brain morphology. Our data clearly indicate that there are changes in
brain morphology that are contingent upon behavioural improvements
following CBT.
References
Chambers D, Bagnall AM, Hempel S, Forbes C. Interventions for the
treatment, management and rehabilitation of patients with chronic
fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: an updated systematic
review. J R Soc Med (2006) 99:506–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Chiaravalloti ND, Christodoulou C, Demaree HA, DeLuca J.
Differentiating simple versus complex processing speed: influence on
new learning and memory performance. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol (2003)
25:489–501.[ISI][Medline]
de Lange FP, Koers A, Kalkman JS, Bleijenberg G, Hagoort P, van der
Meer JW, et al. Increase in prefrontal cortical volume following
cognitive behavioural therapy in patients with chronic fatigue
syndrome. Brain (2008) 131:2172–80.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Prins JB, Bleijenberg G, Bazelmans E, Elving LD, de Boo TM, Severens
JL, et al. Cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome:
a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet (2001)
357:841–7.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
van der Werf SP, Prins JB, Vercoulen JH, van der Meer JW, Bleijenberg
G. Identifying physical activity patterns in chronic fatigue syndrome
using actigraphic assessment. J Psychosom Res (2000)
49:373–9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Vercoulen JH, Bazelmans E, Swanink CM, Fennis JF, Galama JM, Jongen
PJ, et al. Physical activity in chronic fatigue syndrome: assessment
and its role in fatigue. J Psychiatr Res (1997)
31:661–73.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Vercoulen JH, Bazelmans E, Swanink CM, Galama JM, Fennis JF, van der
Meer JW, et al. Evaluating neuropsychological impairment in chronic
fatigue syndrome. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol (1998) 20:144–56.[ISI][Medline]
Wechsler D. WAIS-R, wechsler adult intelligence scale revised. (1981)
New York: The Psychological Corporation.
Whiting P, Bagnall AM, Sowden AJ, Cornell JE, Mulrow CD, Ramirez G.
Interventions for the treatment and management of chronic fatigue
syndrome: a systematic review. Jama (2001) 286:1360–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
behavioural therapy
Journal: Brain, Advance Access published online on January 29, 2009
Brain, doi:10.1093/brain/awn358
Author: Tom Kindlon
Affiliation: Irish ME/CFS Association, PO Box 3075 Dublin 2, Ireland
E-mail: tomkindlon@oceanfree.net; tkindlon@maths.tcd.ie
Received November 19, 2008. Accepted December 14, 2008.
Sir, In their reply to Dr Bramsen, De Lange et al. (2008Go) use a
type of circular reasoning: cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), they
say, has previously been shown to be 'effective' for chronic fatigue
syndrome (CFS) so the change they measured must be due to CBT.
First, it needs to be pointed out that CBT is far from a panacea for
CFS. A recent meta-analysis (Malouff et al., 2008Go) of the efficacy
of CBT in treating CFS found an effect size of d = 0.48 (95% CI 0.27–0.69).
In their letter, De Lange et al. (2008Go) refer to a review by
Whiting et al. (2001Go) as part-evidence for their claim that CBT is
effective for CFS. However, this review recommended the use of
objective outcome measures e.g.
Outcomes such as 'improvement,' in which participants were asked
to rate themselves as better or worse than they were before the
intervention began, were frequently reported. However, the person may
feel better able to cope with daily activities because they have
reduced their expectations of what they should achieve, rather than
because they have made any recovery as a result of the intervention.
A more objective measure of the effect of any intervention would be
whether participants have increased their working hours, returned to
work or school, or increased their physical activities'.
Given one of the aims of CBT (for CFS) has been said to be 'increased
confidence in exercise and physical activity' (O'Dowd et al.), we
cannot have complete confidence that the improvements recorded in CBT
trials thus far represent objective improvements [such as
improvements in grey matter volume (GMV)], rather than simply being
due to altering how patients answer questionnaires. An INAMI report
(2006) on the use of CBT (combined with GET) in over 600 CFS patients
in Belgium found that while patients reported improvements on their
fatigue scores, there was negligible change on the tests of exercise
capacity and there was actually a worsening of their employment
status (as measured by the amount of hours worked per week), both at
the end of the intervention and at follow-up.
CFS is not generally a progressive condition—improvement often occurs
(Nisenbaum et al., 2003Go; Cairns et al., 2005). Indeed, in a recent
uncontrolled study of CBT (Scheeres et al., 2008Go), co-written by
one of the authors (Bleijenberg), a spontaneous recovery rate of 5%
was assumed over a similar period as this study. Thus the authors
have not proven that the 12% improvement in GMV in CFS was due to
CBT. If their logic was applied throughout medicine, control groups
would only be required to test if an intervention was effective as
measured by one or a limited number of outcome measures. After that,
if a positive change in any other outcome measure was recorded in any
uncontrolled study, it would be acceptable for pharmaceutical
companies and others to claim that this must be due to their
'effective' intervention!
References
Cairns R, Hotopf M. A systematic review describing the prognosis of
chronic fatigue syndrome. Occup Med (Lond) (2005) 55:20–31.[CrossRef][Medline]
de Lange FP, Koers A, Kalkman JS, Bleijenberg G, Hagoort P, Meer JW,
et al. Reply to: can CBT substantially change grey matter volume in
chronic fatigue syndrome? Brain (2008) doi: 10.1093/brain/awn208
[Epub ahead of print 30 August 2008].
Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB, Rooke SE, Bhullar N, Schutte NS.
Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic fatigue
syndrome: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev (2008) 28:736–45.[Medline]
Nisenbaum R, Jones JF, Unger ER, Reyes M, Reeves WC. A
population-based study of the clinical course of chronic fatigue
syndrome. Health Qual Life Outcomes (2003) 1:49.[CrossRef][Medline]
O'D;owd H, Gladwell P, Rogers CA, Hollinghurst S, Gregory A.
Cognitive behavioural therapy in chronic fatigue syndrome: a
randomised controlled trial of an outpatient group programme. Health
Technol Assess (2006) 10:1–121. iii-iv, ix-x.[ISI][Medline]
Rapport d'évaluation (2002–2004) portant sur l'exécution des
conventions de rééducation entre le Comité de l'assurance soins de
santé (INAMI) et les Centres de référence pour le Syndrome de fatigue
chronique (SFC) (2006)
http://www.inami.fgov.be/care/fr/doctors/specific-information/sfc-cvs/sfc-cvs04.htm
(10 September 2008, date last accessed).
Scheeres K, Wensing M, Bleijenberg G, Severens JL. Implementing
cognitive behavior therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome in mental
health care: a costs and outcomes analysis. BMC Health Serv Res
(2008) 8:175.[Medline]
Whiting P, Bagnall AM, Sowden AJ, Cornell JE, Mulrow CD, Ramirez G.
Interventions for the treatment and management of chronic fatigue
syndrome: a systematic review. JAMA (2001) 286:1360–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
_______________________________________
Reply: Change in grey matter volume cannot be assumed to be due to
cognitive behavioural therapy
Journal: Brain, Advance Access published online on January 29, 2009
Brain, doi:10.1093/brain/awn359
Authors:
Floris P. de Lange1,2, Gijs Bleijenberg3, Jos W. M. van der Meer4,
Peter Hagoort1 and Ivan Toni1
Affiliations:
1 Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud
University Nijmegen, The Netherlands 2 Inserm-CEA Cognitive
Neuroimaging Unit, CEA/SAC/DSV/DRM/NeuroSpin, Gif sur Yvette, France
3 Expert Center Chronic Fatigue, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical
Center, The Netherlands 4 Department of General Internal Medicine,
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, The Netherlands
Correspondence to: Dr Floris de Lange, Donders Institute for Brain,
Cognition and Behaviour, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, NL-6500 HB, The
Netherlands E-mail: florisdelange@gmail.com
Received December 17, 2008. Accepted December 17, 2008.
Sir, We thank Tom Kindlon for his letter, in which he raises several
important issues. We will respond to all the issues in the same order
as they appear in his letter.
First, Tom Kindlon points out that cognitive behavioural therapy
(CBT) is not a panacea for the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). It
should be obvious from all previous meta-analyses that CBT does not
lead to a full recovery in all CFS patients (while the exact numbers
on improvement rates depend on a host of experimental factors like
the exact type of therapy given, inclusion criteria of the study, as
well as other factors such as the patient's self efficacy, social
support and physical activity pattern). Nevertheless, it should also
be obvious from these meta-studies that psychotherapeutic
interventions like graded exercise therapy and CBT interventions are
the only interventions that have shown reliable, replicable and
relatively robust improvements in health status in CFS, compared wtih
all other interventions that have been investigated to date.
The second point of Tom Kindlon is that we should have used objective
measures to quantify improvement in health status rather than
questionnaires as the latter may simply reflect changes in response
tendency of the CFS patients. We share the author's preference for
objective measures, which is why all the reported significant
brain–behaviour relations in our manuscript in fact pertain to
objective, quantitative measures [see e.g. Fig. 4 of de Lange et al.
(2008Go)]. The significant relationship between behavioural
improvements and increase in grey matter volume (GMV) was constituted
by the choice reaction time task (Vercoulen et al., 1998Go) and the
digit symbol substitution test of the Wechsler adult intelligence
scale (WAIS-dst) (Wechsler, 1981Go), two objective psychophysical
tasks that are often used as measures of information processing speed
(Chiaravalloti et al., 2003Go). Moreover, improvements in general
physical activity, quantified by objective actigraphic measurements
(Vercoulen et al., 1997Go; van der Werf et al., 2000Go) for a 2-week
period both at baseline and follow-up, showed a trend of significant
relationship with the GMV increase.
Lastly, the author points out that our study, for lack of control
group, has not proven that the increase in GMV is specifically due to
CBT, rather than spontaneous recovery. We agree with the author that
the lack of patient control group limits the scope of our inferences,
as has already been acknowledged both in the manuscript and in the
reply to Dr Bramsen. We would like to point out that the improvement
rate of the sample in our study far exceeded the improvement rate
seen with passive support groups or a waiting list condition (Prins
et al., 2001Go). But crucially, the aim of our study was not to test
whether CBT is an effective intervention for CFS, as has been the
topic of previous studies (Whiting et al., 2001Go; Chambers et al.,
2006Go), but rather to investigate whether there was a relationship
between behavioural improvements following CBT in CFS and changes in
brain morphology. Our data clearly indicate that there are changes in
brain morphology that are contingent upon behavioural improvements
following CBT.
References
Chambers D, Bagnall AM, Hempel S, Forbes C. Interventions for the
treatment, management and rehabilitation of patients with chronic
fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: an updated systematic
review. J R Soc Med (2006) 99:506–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Chiaravalloti ND, Christodoulou C, Demaree HA, DeLuca J.
Differentiating simple versus complex processing speed: influence on
new learning and memory performance. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol (2003)
25:489–501.[ISI][Medline]
de Lange FP, Koers A, Kalkman JS, Bleijenberg G, Hagoort P, van der
Meer JW, et al. Increase in prefrontal cortical volume following
cognitive behavioural therapy in patients with chronic fatigue
syndrome. Brain (2008) 131:2172–80.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Prins JB, Bleijenberg G, Bazelmans E, Elving LD, de Boo TM, Severens
JL, et al. Cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome:
a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet (2001)
357:841–7.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
van der Werf SP, Prins JB, Vercoulen JH, van der Meer JW, Bleijenberg
G. Identifying physical activity patterns in chronic fatigue syndrome
using actigraphic assessment. J Psychosom Res (2000)
49:373–9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Vercoulen JH, Bazelmans E, Swanink CM, Fennis JF, Galama JM, Jongen
PJ, et al. Physical activity in chronic fatigue syndrome: assessment
and its role in fatigue. J Psychiatr Res (1997)
31:661–73.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Vercoulen JH, Bazelmans E, Swanink CM, Galama JM, Fennis JF, van der
Meer JW, et al. Evaluating neuropsychological impairment in chronic
fatigue syndrome. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol (1998) 20:144–56.[ISI][Medline]
Wechsler D. WAIS-R, wechsler adult intelligence scale revised. (1981)
New York: The Psychological Corporation.
Whiting P, Bagnall AM, Sowden AJ, Cornell JE, Mulrow CD, Ramirez G.
Interventions for the treatment and management of chronic fatigue
syndrome: a systematic review. Jama (2001) 286:1360–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
* * *
Tom makes a very good point; when I reduced the amount I was pushing myself to do (i.e., gave myself permission to do less and rest more), I began to feel better. Not because I had improved by objective measures, but because I was no longer pushing myself to a level that made me sicker. In fact, by objective measures of how much I was doing each day, you'd have to say I regressed, because I was doing less.
Ellen Goudsmit's research on pacing showed that patients felt better, but did not actually accomplish more, when activity was spread out through the day, interspersed with rest periods, rather than "shop till you drop" and then crashing. Continually "topping off the tank" makes a difference in how we feel, but does not cause an objective improvement.
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
9:00PM-10:00PM