Cognitive behavioural therapy for severe fatigue following COVID-19 in adolescents: a serial single-case observational study... 2025 Knoop et al

Full title: Cognitive behavioural therapy for severe fatigue following COVID-19 in adolescents: a serial single-case observational study of five consecutively referred patients

Abstract

Background:
Severe fatigue following COVID-19 is a debilitating symptom in adolescents for which no treatment exists currently.

Aims:
The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness and feasibility of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for severe fatigue following COVID-19 in adolescents.

Method:
A serial single-case observational design was used. Eligible patients were ≥12 and <18 years old, severely fatigued and ≥6 months post-COVID-19. Five patients, consecutively referred by a paediatrician, were included. The primary outcome was a change in fatigue severity, assessed with the fatigue severity subscale of the Checklist Individual Strength, 12 weeks after the start of CBT, tested with a permutation distancing two-phase A-B test. Secondary outcomes were the presence of severe fatigue, difficulty concentrating and impaired physical functioning directly post-CBT as determined with questionnaires using validated cut-off scores. Also, the frequency of post-exertional malaise (PEM) and absence from school directly post-CBT determined with self-report items were evaluated.

Results:
All five included patients completed CBT. Twelve weeks after starting CBT for severe post-COVID-19 fatigue, three out of five patients showed a significant reduction in fatigue severity. After CBT, all five patients were no longer severely fatigued. Also, four out of five patients were no longer physically impaired and improved regarding PEM following CBT. All five patients reported no school absence post-CBT and no difficulties concentrating.

Conclusion:
This study provides a first indication for the effectiveness and feasibility of CBT among adolescents with post-COVID-19 fatigue.

Open access

 

They don't explain exactly how they characterised PEM, and the link to the Supplementary Material is just the link to the main article.

 

"They all reported PEM, the frequency ranged from ‘every day’ to ‘few times a week’. They all reported school absence ranging from ‘several times a week’ to ‘few times a month’."

Whoot? What kind of PEM is that? Several times a week. For me PEM takes a couple of days. They probably measured fatigue after exertion?

 

Yes, that would be my suspicion as well.

 

How does cherry picking like this get past peer review?

 

The design can’t assess effectiveness at all.

ME-pedia on the CIS-scale:

It does not seem like it’s a good scale.

 

It sounds like the intended to put most of the blame on the children.

I really fear for the safety of the children if their parents are gaslighted as well.

 

What a complete mess. 3/5 not completing the assessments.

 

Case 1 and 2 were already on a downwards trend.
Case 3 and 4 has too much missing data.
Case 5 did not change much and was still severely fatigued.

 

I eventually found the supplementary file. There’s a collapsable menu at the top:

The file does not explain how they characterised PEM. But it has this as an inclusion criteria:

 

I guess Knoop hasn't read Knoop's research? In which he has been claiming this. He is even claiming this here, on the basis of a very cheap anecdote where you have to "just trust him, bro".

It's a good sign of a serious professionals with years of academic and clinical experience promoting a treatment paradigm that has established itself as a fully curative treatment model that they resort to anecdotes / case studies of that treatment. That's how you know these people are serious. They totally could swing a hole-in-one, they just prefer to putt on the practice turfs with no one watching then send you a video titled "trust me bro, I nailed it, hole-in-one wooot!". Got it.

 

Spoiler: Deleted as confused CDC with CCC criteria

Very interesting, as the CCC are way more elaborate and precise than mere fatigue.

Spoiler: This also raises a question.

(This also raises a question. They used "severity of fatigue" as their primary outcome and they "target" the subjective reporting of fatigue, as per their usual approach following the CB model Knoop and Bleijenberg have been using for decades.

Apart from the mess, unreliableness through incomplete data, and normal healing occurence of LC, they imply that their patients got "normal physical functioning" and "were no longer physically impaired" because of the CBT - so, what then happened to the rest of the CCC required symptoms? They all went poof?)

It's The Netherlands, so due to ignorance and decades of dominant psychosomatic narrative, I doubt wheter the average paediatrician knows what PEM means, I expect them to just translate that as "feeling fatigued after doing stuff". (Even more so if they were pediaetricians in close contact with Knoop's medical psychology department at the same hospital, as he is the *cough* expert.)

Probably. Also, Knoop has a track record of distorting the meaning of words to fit his purpose, he did it with "recovery". Since a short while he's started to claim that CBT has an effect on PEM as well as fatigue (I'd reckon that is because he can't escape it anymore if he wants to continue to claim effectiveness on ME/CFS & Long Covid) and I'd find it on brand if he was messing about with PEM's definition and meaning to do that.

A reminder that for the referred-to previous CBT study he did on Long Covid, with almost the same team and funded by ZonMw with the impression that CBT would improve fatigue and with it influence patients’ work ability and physical and social functioning, they left the actigraphy info out of the paper which found no result for increase of activity (David Tuller's piece on it here.)

Also, PEM was not a selection criterium there, nor was it even mentioned in the paper.
But still, at a Long Covid symposium in Amsterdam Knoop claimed that the study had found "improved physical functioning" and "less often PEM (increase of complaints after exertion)". (And that it was a "safe treatment") Exactly the claims he makes in this paper.

This also may illustrate how he may have "defined" PEM for the study: as a simple "increase of complaints after exertion" which can so easily be distorted, including for it to apply to people without PEM, or healthy people even.

(Which is of course bollocks, PEM is a state, a worsening of the illness, which includes bodily dysfunction & -discomfort and hitting a "wall" in functioning ability, and which gets induced by -regularly absurdly- disproportionate/inappropriate exertion to cause it, and takes some time to peter out again, if it even does. It's not simply feeling worse or getting symptoms after exertion, although that is a part of it, but that feels nothing like a normal effect of e.g. fatigue or sore muscles people without PEM get after e.g jogging.

Spoiler: Deleted as confused CDC with CCC criteria

As per the CCC, it's: "inappropriate loss of physical and mental stamina, rapid muscular and cognitive fatigability, post-exertional malaise and/or post-exertional fatigue and a tendency for other associated symptoms within the patient’s cluster of symptoms to worsen." (Canadian Consensus Criteria - MEpedia)

(Like with the previous study I also have questions again regarding the funding and its application (again ZonMw -dutch public money- and the NKCV), but am unable to look at it more.)

 

Are the CDC criteria the same as the CCC criteria?

It seems to me like they might have a typo, because there is a 2005 CDC version by Reeves.

Source

And CDC 2005 used Fukuda:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1334212/

Edit: there are no references for the criteria at all.

 

Nope! Brain glitch.

I will adjust my post.

(Edited to add: 2003 = CCC, so hence the mistake.)

 

Would not be the first time the Dutch psychosomatic movement is vague about criteria, using CDC which means Fukuda. Rosmalen repeatedly stated they were using the "CDC criteria" for Lifelines, implying they were using the most recent ones without being clear that it was Fukuda 1994.

(See e.g. here.)