Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy targeting severe fatigue following COVID-19: results of a randomized controlled trial 2023, Kuut, Knoop et al

Trial By Error: Authors of Dutch Long Covid Paper Contradict Each Other

https://virology.ws/2023/10/14/tria...dutch-long-covid-paper-contradict-each-other/

 

Haven't read it, but is the conclusion that they're both wrong?

 

of course that’s another interesting one as an aside: the assumption that for those with ME/CFS (and bearing in mind different severities have different ‘thresholds’ where you are over exerting) deconditioning wouldn’t happen if we are using our muscles. I know that (and was shocked by) car parks being moved further away at my work place when I was pretty ill led to my calves getting more worn down and would have looked to someone presumptive like deconditioning [from not using them] when it was the opposite in cause. I also know I realised this at that point having had the condition for decades and denied this observation at first for many years because I also ‘believed the truism about muscles’ and it took years of the obvious opposite (more walking cumulatively ie day in day out = smaller calves) banging me over the head.

This is quite different to but not contradictory to the ability to, short term only (ie not cumulatively when you try and keep it up over time - although that wanes too as I got ‘less fit’ and more I’ll with the me/cfs in general) how just ten bicep curls with a tiny weight could ‘rip’ the muscles in arm enough to quickly show noticeable difference. Whereas those in gym around me were doing all sorts of huge amounts literally carefully doing ten tiny curls I got more ‘effects’. But as I say this was different it turns out as it doesn’t last either.

there are so many assumptions/presumptions behind the deconditioning thing it drives me nuts. It’s like a religion to the point people think looking at someone’s muscles makes them a liar about their exercise and ridiculous things like the belief ‘it [deconditioning from ‘doing less ’] must have happened in weeks’ because someone goes from being an athlete to ill with ME overnight I just don’t think al would be backed up by the observations. Even if it didn’t harm ME 'fitness' and going downhill illness-wise in the general, I’ve realised that I’m not sure doing muscle things ‘preserves musvle’ in the way they assume and if it does then it certainly would be with caveats about limits and only when someone’s body isn’t ‘drained’ (ie I wonder whether there is something in the recovery or doing process that if you are over threshold or in PEM means it’s not a good thing)

 

Yesterday Knoop gave a talk on ReCOVer at a Long COVID symposium in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. A CBT specialist criticised Knoop and earlier in the day she got applause from the whole room when she stood up and distanced herself from CBT as curative treatment. (See S4ME posts here.)

At the symposium Knoop claimed CBT helped for PEM. (See photo below, credit: Pascal Grootveld. I can't link to the actual Twitter account anymore.)

The slide says:

Of course he cannot claim that based on the study. (See screenshot detail outcomes ReCOVer, credit: Rien de Böck)

And they determined physical function with SF-36, but I find it gobsmacking that he has the audacity to claim "improved physical functioning" when the actometer results showed nothing of the sort.


Also, the presentation was accompanied with a "cheesy video" where someone says "it has brought my life back" (Pascal Grootveld, Xitter). I hope the symposium attendants saw the cringyness of showing a commercial at what is supposed to be an exchange of science.

And I know I sound like a broken record, but Knoop set this project up to (and got the grant money for) studying if they could prevent chronic fatigue after the acute stage of COVID, and then stretched the length participants could be "fatigued" from max 6 to max 12 months without good reason, while saying they could still claim prevention.

Therefore I find his claim that he can treat any Long COVID patient, also those ill for years, with CBT extra misleading.

 

Talk by Hans Knoop about the ReCoVer trial at the Long-COVID congress in Germany. You also see a view patients who feel they improves a lot due to CBT...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE3JdvtRiUk

 

Found this in my email inbox this morning courtesy of NZ's Goodfellow Unit and Bruce Arroll —

Good morning Redacted, here is your latest Gem
A well-conducted RCT from Amsterdam1 found that Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) was effective for long COVID.

Patients had to have proof of being COVID-positive and had fatigue 3-12 months after and were randomised to 17 weeks of CBT or care as usual.

The majority of patients were not hospitalised for COVID-19. The outcomes were done at six months. Patients were omitted if they had significant depression.

The CBT was aimed at sleep, unhelpful beliefs about fatigue, low activity level, perceived low social support, fears and worries around COVID-19 and poor coping with pain.

Some CBT was done online, and some face-to-face. The effect sizes were NNT = 4 for reduced severe fatigue and 2.5 for not being chronically fatigued. Most participants were no longer severely fatigued, but a group of patients remained severely fatigued.

Goodfellow Gems are chosen by Goodfellow Director, Bruce Arroll to be either practice changing or thought provoking.​

 

Lines drawn on a bin.

 

The critical letter by CBT prof. Lisbeth Utens has been published.

Submitted letter Elisabeth Utens:

 

Response Hans Knoop:

 

Article VGCT on the matter:

https://www.vgct.nl/nieuws/post-covid-zit-niet-tussen-de- oren/

 

That would be Emeritus Special Professor Lisbeth Utens.

The protocol A randomised controlled trial testing the efficacy of Fit after COVID, a cognitive behavioural therapy targeting severe post-infectious fatigue following COVID-19 ReCOVer: study protocol (2021, Trials) said —

Then why was it included in the paper? You are the senior author with oversight of the study. And of course the non-apology: "sorry if you felt offended".

No. As it never seems able to confirm the biased subjective report findings used throughout this type of research.

Not listed in primary or secondary outcomes, but is in —

And please just stop with "seriously tired".

 

This would do.

 

Apologies if this has been highlighted already

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/78/4/1078/7331103

JOURNAL ARTICLE Positive Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Targeting Severe Fatigue Following COVID-19 Are Sustained Up to 1 Year After Treatment

Tanja A Kuut, Fabiola Müller, Irene Csorba, Annemarie M J Braamse, Pythia Nieuwkerk, Chantal P Rovers, Hans Knoop

Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 78, Issue 4, 15 April 2024, Pages 1078–1079, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciad661 Published: 27 October 2023 Article history

Views Cite Permissions Icon Permissions Share Icon Share

Extract

To the Editor—Recently, our article entitled “Efficacy of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Targeting Severe Fatigue Following Coronavirus Disease 2019: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial” [1] was published in Clinical Infectious Diseases. This study demonstrated a beneficial effect of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in reducing severe fatigue following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), as compared with care as usual. All secondary outcomes also favored CBT. Positive effects were maintained up to 6 months post-treatment [1].

In this letter, we present the 1 year follow-up outcomes of CBT for post–COVID-19 fatigue. All details on the methods used in this follow-up study are described in the published study protocol [2] and the Supplementary Appendix. In this long-term follow-up study, all 57 patients randomized to CBT were eligible. Of them, 52 participated. For ethical reasons, patients randomized to care as usual were offered CBT and could therefore no longer serve as a control.

The primary outcome was fatigue severity. Secondary outcomes were physical functioning, problems with social functioning, somatic symptom severity, problems concentrating, and proportions of patients being no longer severely fatigued, no longer severely fatigued with a reliable change, and not chronically fatigued. Additionally, for each individual patient, it was calculated whether the change in fatigue severity between 6 months and 1 year post-CBT was reliable and/or clinically significant.

Issue Section: Correspondence

 

This is torture. It's as if they want us to kill ourselves.

 

The results were similar 1 year post CBT compared to 6 months post CBT. Unfortunately there was no longer a control group, the authors write: "For ethical reasons, patients randomized to care as usual were offered CBT and could therefore no longer serve as a control."

In previous CBT and GET studies such as PACE, FITNET, GETSET etc. the control group caught up with the intervention group at long-term follow up.

 

How convenient...

 

They're trying to use the excuse where a treatment that is found to be too effective to withhold from controls, even though it obviously did not meet this. Then they have no means to compare and simply declare it anyway, even though the outcomes are trivial at best in an excessively biased process. That's evidence-based medicine in a nutshell: nothing matters, nothing counts, certainly not what happens to the patients, everyone cheats so you better also cheat or you're a sucker. Pretty much all trials I can remember do this, it's standard practice and effective strategy precisely because no one cares what happens to us, so everyone involved is willing to cheat to achieve, well, nothing.