Abstract
The MAGENTA pragmatic parallel groups randomized controlled trial compared graded exercise therapy (GET) with activity management (AM) in treating paediatric myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Children aged 8-17 years with mild/moderate ME/CFS and presenting to NHS specialist paediatric services were allocated at random to either individualised flexible treatment focussing on physical activity (GET, 123 participants) or on managing cognitive, school and social activity (AM, 118 participants) delivered by NHS therapists. The primary outcome was the self-reported short-form 36 physical function subscale (SF-36-PFS) after 6 months, with higher scores indicating better functioning. After 6 months, data were available for 201 (83%) participants who received a mean of 3.9 (GET) or 4.6 (AM) treatment sessions. Comparing participants with measured outcomes in their allocated groups, the mean SF-36-PFS score changed from 54.8 (standard deviation 23.7) to 55.7 (23.3) for GET and from 55.5 (23.1) to 57.7 (26.0) for AM giving an adjusted difference in means of −2.02 (95% confidence interval −7.75, 2.70). One hundred thirty-five participants completed the mean SF-36-PFS at 12 months, and whilst further improvement was observed, the difference between the study groups remained consistent with chance. The two study groups showed similar changes on most of the secondary outcome measures: Chalder Fatigue, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression, proportion of full-time school attended, a visual analogue pain scale, participant-rated change and accelerometer measured physical activity, whether at the 6-month or 12-month assessment. There was an isolated finding of some evidence of an improvement in anxiety in those allocated to GET, as measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 6 months, with the 12-month assessment, and the Spence Children’s Anxiety scale being aligned with that finding. There was weak evidence of a greater risk of deterioration with GET (27%) than with AM (17%; p = 0.069). At conventional UK cost per QALY thresholds, the probability that GET is more cost-effective than AM ranged from 18 to 21%. Whilst completion of the SF-36-PFS, Chalder Fatigue Scale and EQ-5D-Y was good at the 6-month assessment point, it was less satisfactory for other measures, and for all measures at the 12-month assessment.
Conclusion: There was no evidence that GET was more effective or cost-effective than AM in this setting, with very limited improvement in either study group evident by the 6-month or 12-month assessment points.
Trial registration: The study protocol was registered at www.isrctn.com (3rd September 2015; ISRCTN 23962803) before the start of enrolment to the initial feasibility phase.
What is Known: • Paediatric ME/CFS is disabling with negative effects on physical and cognitive function, mood and quality of life. Although CBT improves fatigue, disability and school attendance, at least 37% of children and young people with ME/CFS have not recovered 6 months after beginning treatment. • Graded exercise therapy (delivered flexibly) and activity management are acceptable to children and adolescents with ME/CFS; however, there is no evidence on effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. | |
What is New: • Graded exercise therapy delivered in an out-patient setting is neither more effective nor more cost-effective than activity management for paediatric ME/CFS. •Physical function did not improve greatly in either group over the 12 months in this pragmatic study conducted in the UK NHS |
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Paediatric myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) has disabling effects on physical function [1], mood [2], quality of life [3,4,5] and attendance and performance at school [6]. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) improves fatigue, disability and school attendance compared to waiting list or usual medical care [7,8,9,10,11]. However, at least 37% of children have not recovered at 6 months [9]. Alternative approaches, but with limited evidence of effectiveness in the paediatric setting, include graded exercise therapy (GET) and activity management (AM) (also called energy management [12] or pacing).
The MAGENTA study addressed this evidence gap, aiming to test the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of GET compared to AM for children with mild to moderate ME/CFS.
Methods
Study design and participants
MAGENTA was a pragmatic parallel group randomized controlled trial (RCT) recruiting between 10 September 2015 and 23 March 2018, with 12-month follow-up. Recruitment started during an initial feasibility phase [13, 14], which successfully progressed to a full trial (Appendix 1).
Eligible children met the 2007 NICE criteria for a diagnosis of ME/CFS [15], were aged 8 to 17 years, spoke English, were not severely affected [15] and did not require CBT for anxiety or depression at their first clinical assessment. Exclusion criteria included other disorders associated with fatigue [15].
Randomization and masking
Participants were allocated to GET or AM in a 1:1 ratio using a web-based system (Bristol Trials Centre, UK), accessed by the recruiting nurse. There is minimisation by age (8 to 12 and 13 to 17 years) and sex, weighted towards the allocation minimising the imbalance in trial groups with probability 0.8. This study was necessarily unmasked, with participants, parents and clinicians, aware of allocation.
Interventions
AM and GET were delivered in 1:1 sessions, face-to-face or via video call. Treatment fidelity was encouraged by training for therapists in each intervention and recording the inclusion of mandatory, prohibited and flexible components of the interventions for each session (Appendix 2).
GET was delivered by specialist therapists as a personalised approach, initially establishing a baseline level of physical activity (walking, sport, etc.) estimated as the median amount of daily physical activity over a week. Children were asked to avoid peaks in exercise, to be able to do the same every day. Participants were offered a detailed assessment of their physical activity at baseline. Once that baseline was established, participants were asked to slowly increase (by 10–20% a week) their physical activity when they felt able to. Participants were asked to monitor exercise and were taught how to stay within 50–70% of their maximum heart rate [13, 14]. If symptoms increased, participants were advised to stabilise or reduce their physical activity.
Activity management (AM) was provided as a personalised approach that established a baseline (similar every day) level of cognitive (e.g. schoolwork, social activities) and physical activity (walking, any exercise) using diaries. This usually required a reduction in activity on some days. Both physical activity and cognitive activity were then gradually increased as participants were able. If participants’ symptoms increased, they were advised to keep activity constant or reduce activity (cognitive and physical). Sessions were delivered by health professionals including specialist doctors, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and nurses.
Follow-up sessions were offered to participants in both groups [16]. In this pragmatic trial, the total number and frequency of sessions were agreed between participants and clinicians. From previous paediatric RCTs, we expected between eight and 12 sessions [7, 13, 17]. Participants who developed anxiety or depression after randomization were offered additional CBT.
Outcomes
Participants completed outcomes measures at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was the SF-36 physical function subscale (SF-36-PFS, scored 0–100 with 100 being the best physical function [18]) collected at 6 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes were the SF-36-PFS at 12 months, self-reported school attendance (days per week), the Chalder Fatigue scale [19] (11-item version), pain (visual analogue scale with anchors “NO PAIN” and “PAIN AS BAD AS POSSIBLE”), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in those aged 12 and over [20], Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale (SCAS) [21], The Clinical Global Impression Scale [22] and quality of life (EQ-5D-Y [23]). At 6 and 12 months, parents completed an adapted four-item Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: General Health V2.0 (WPAI:GH) questionnaire [24] and a resource use questionnaire. If completed questionnaires had not been received after two reminders, participants were invited to provide just the primary outcome over the phone.
Further secondary outcome measures were derived from data collected by waist-worn accelerometers (Actigraph GT3X+, Actigraph LLC Florida) after randomization, and at 3 and 6 months (Appendix 3) [25]. Minutes of sedentary, light, moderate to vigorous and vigorous intensity activity were derived using accepted cut-offs [26, 27]. Total physical activity volume was derived from accelerometer counts per minute.
Safety outcomes included adverse events, serious adverse events, deterioration in physical function and withdrawal from treatment.
Sample size
To detect a minimal clinically important between-group difference (MCID) of 10 points (standard deviation 25) on the SF-36-PFS [28], at 6 months, 100 participants in each group were required to provide 80% power at 5% significance. A target of 230 participants allowed for missing data.
Statistical analysis
The statistical and health economic analysis plan was published online in November 2019 (Appendix 4), prior to the senior authors having sight of the data. The primary analysis compared mean SF-36-PFS score, analysed as a continuous variable, at 6 months according to random allocation (intention-to-treat) among participants with measured outcomes, using multivariable linear regression adjusting for baseline values of the outcome, age and gender. Similar analyses were conducted for secondary outcomes.
A pre-specified subgroup analysis compared GET and AM in males and females separately. Sensitivity analyses for the primary outcome were additional adjustment by the number of days between random allocation and primary outcome measure completion and the proportion of school attended at baseline, and multiple imputation of missing outcome data under the missing at random assumption. A pre-specified analysis examined the relationship between the treatment effect and the number of sessions attended.
Health economic analyses
A cost-utility analysis compared GET versus AM from the health service and public sector perspective. We estimated the incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) of GET, at a threshold willingness-to-pay of £20,000 (~ US$30,000) per QALY [29].
Training and supervision costs for healthcare professionals were assumed to be equal for GET and AM. GET and AM outpatient sessions and additional appointments for CBT were extracted from hospital records. Other healthcare use was based on parent-report. We assumed that, on average, sessions associated with either GET or AM lasted for 60 min. Resource use was valued using 2019 unit costs [30, 31].
Quality-of-life preference scores derived from the EQ-5D-Y visual analogue scale (VAS) were converted to a 0–1 scale and QALYs calculated using linear interpolation to estimate the area under the curve. We used the adult value set for the EQ-5D-Y [32] to estimate preference scores and QALYs in a sensitivity analysis. Multiple imputation (n = 50 imputations) was used for missing EQ-5D-Y and total cost data (Appendix 3). Incremental costs, QALYs and net benefits were estimated using seemingly unrelated regression adjusting for age, sex and baseline values of the dependent variable. Non-parametric bootstrap 95% confidence intervals were employed for the iNMB. The probability that GET was more cost-effective than AM across a range of cost per QALY thresholds was investigated using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve method [33].
All analyses used Stata version 15.1 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas).
Results
MAGENTA closed as planned on achieving its recruitment target, with 241 children (60% of eligible patients) randomly allocated to GET or AM (Fig. 1). Participants’ characteristics at baseline were balanced between treatment groups (Table 1). Participants were disabled by their fatigue with only 28 (12%) attending full-time school, although some children reported having high physical function at baseline (Supplementary Fig. 1).
Adherence was high, with 114 (96%) and 109 (94%) starting their allocated GET and AM intervention respectively (Table 2; Supplementary Fig. 2). Thirteen participants started non-allocated treatment before the primary outcome was measured at 6 months: five in AM and five in GET switched to the other study treatment; two in GET started CBT only and one in AM added GET to their AM treatment. Fidelity in allocated treatment sessions was high with three GET and nine AM participants receiving a prohibited element or not receiving a compulsory element during their allocated treatment. CBT for participants who developed depression or anxiety was received by 32 (27%) participants in the GET group and 27 (23%) participants in the AM group, with a mean of 5.5 and 5.4 sessions over 12 months respectively.
The mean total number of allocated treatment sessions was 3.9 in the GET group and 4.6 in the AM group by 6 months (Table 2; Supplementary Fig. 2). The mean (SD) time between baseline clinical assessment and primary outcome collection at the 6-month assessment point was 7.4 (1.4) and 7.3 months (1.5) in GET and AM respectively, with data available for 201 (83%) participants. Compared to baseline measures, only small improvements in the mean SF-36-PFS scores were observed at the 6-month assessment (the primary outcome) in both study groups, with no evidence of a difference between the groups (adjusted difference in means −2.02, 95% confidence interval −7.75 to 3.70, p = 0.49; Table 3). Sensitivity analyses supported the same conclusions (Supplementary Table 1). There was no evidence that those participants attending more than two sessions saw their physical function improve by the 6-month assessment point (Supplementary Table 1). These results are lower than the current estimated MCID of 10 points on the SF-36-PFS used in the estimation of the sample size for this trial [28].
There was no evidence (interaction p-value 0.71) of a difference in the relative effects of GET and AM between males and females (Table 3). Modest increases in mean scores were observed in those participants completing the SF-36-PFS at the 12-month assessment, with no evidence of a difference between the two allocated groups (Table 3).
There was little evidence of differences between groups in the secondary outcome measures (Supplementary Table 2). The allocated groups saw similar improvements over time in mean Chalder Fatigue scores. Fewer participants responded to the other secondary measures, with an overall picture of similarly modest improvements over 12 months in the two allocated groups. The mean number of allocated treatment sessions attended by the 12-month assessment was 6.2 for participants allocated to GET and 6.9 for those allocated to AM (Table 2). There was some evidence from the HADS completed at 6 months of a greater improvement in anxiety for participants allocated to GET compared to AM. School attendance was unchanged at 6- and 12 months in both treatment groups. Overall, 30% (26% GET, 34% AM) felt they were much better or very much better using the CGI (Supplementary Table 3) at 6 months and 40% at 12 months. For the minority of participants who returned accelerometer data, derived counts per minute were similar between both treatment groups at baseline, 3 and 6 months (Supplementary Table 4).
Five participants in both study groups reported being much worse or very much worse when completing the CGI at the 6-month assessment (Supplementary Table 3) with similar findings at 12 months. Physical function between baseline and 6 or 12 months deteriorated by 20 points in 18 of 97 participants (19%) allocated to GET and 24 of 104 participants (23%) allocated to AM. Four serious adverse events requiring hospital treatment were reported (Supplementary Table 5): one event in each of two participants allocated to AM, two events in one participant allocated to GET. One serious adverse event was possibly related to GET, a psychiatric hospital admission due to suicidal ideation. Five participants withdrew from their allocated therapy due to feeling worse, four of 117 (3%) in the GET group and 1/123 (1%) participants in the AM group. There were no additional clinician reports of serious deteriorations in the study participants. Combining these measures, there was evidence of deterioration (from at least one measure) in 33 out of 123 (27%) of participants in the GET group and 20 out of 117 (17%) participants in the AM group (p = 0.069).
Complete healthcare use questionnaires were returned by parents regarding 124 participants (51%) at 6 months and 115 (48%) participants at 12 months. Participants assigned to GET had more therapy delivered by a physiotherapist, whereas participants allocated to AM were more likely to get care delivered by a psychologist or occupational therapist (Supplementary Table 6). Considering all healthcare professionals, participants allocated to AM attended a mean of 7.74 appointments with healthcare professionals over 12 months compared to 6.90 for participants allocated to GET. The average cost per participant of specialist care over 12 months was £46 (95% CI, − £5, £97) more expensive for participants allocated to AM (Supplementary Table 5 with further detail of costs in Supplementary Table 7).
EQ-5D scores demonstrated small improvements in both groups over the 12-month follow up (Supplementary Table 8). There was no evidence of a difference in QALYs (−0.02; 95% CI −0.05 to 0.01; Table 4) between participants randomized to GET and AM. At 12 months, the incremental net monetary benefit of GET compared to AM was − £343 (95% CI, − £1183, £497) at a £20,000 per QALY threshold. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY, the probability that GET is more cost-effective than AM at 12 months was 21% and 18% respectively (Table 4; Supplementary Fig. 3). The sensitivity analysis using adult value sets to estimate QALYs provided similar results (Supplementary Table 9).
Discussion
There was little difference in physical function after 6 months between children in the two allocated groups. On average, physical function did not improve to a clinically significant degree (which we have previously determined to be a MCID of 10 points [28]) in either group after 6 or 12 months, consistent with the accelerometer data which suggests the MAGENTA participants had a reduction in moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity at 3 and 6 months. Some outcomes did change: fatigue improved in both groups, sustained to 12 months, which may explain why overall, 40% felt they were much better or very much better after a year. Whilst the observed incremental net monetary benefit at a £20,000 per QALY threshold favoured AM, this estimated difference between the two interventions was imprecise and could have arisen by chance. These results must be interpreted in the light of the pragmatic nature of the study in which, for the majority of participants, sessions took place over 12 months with up to 6-week intervals, reflecting the reality of delivering interventions for paediatric ME/CFS within the NHS. Few adverse events occurred, suggesting that both treatments were safe.
The lack of improvement in self-reported physical function in either group was unexpected, contrasting with the findings of adult treatment trials using the SF-36-PFS measure [34] and our earlier SMILE RCT of interventions for paediatric ME/CFS. The comparison group for the SMILE study was AM with additional GET or CBT when required, which saw a mean improvement between baseline and 6 months of 14 points on the SF-36-PFS [35]. Pragmatic RCTs, like MAGENTA, most commonly aim to establish whether the intervention under evaluation would offer improvements, in terms of increased effectiveness and avoidance of treatment harms, in comparison with the best available alternative used in routine clinical practice, with this approach also avoiding the ethical concerns of asking children to forego a routinely available treatment to join a no-treatment control group. The key strengths of MAGENTA were its randomized design, its acceptability with a majority of eligible patients willing to participate, the pragmatic approach with participants receiving treatments as delivered in the NHS and the high completion of the primary outcome. MAGENTA does have several limitations however. As many participants attended sessions of their allocated intervention over a 12-month period, pre-defining the primary outcome at the 12-month assessment may have better captured the full effects of GET and AM. Only cautious conclusions can be drawn from those secondary outcome measures with poor completion rates. Whilst we registered MAGENTA before starting recruitment during the feasibility phase, we did not confirm the primary outcome measure until the first full trial protocol (Appendices 1 and 5); we recognise this invites the accusation that we used the data collected during the feasibility phase to select the primary outcome. Furthermore, the economic evaluation has been conducted from a NHS perspective only and excludes societal and productivity costs. Finally, in October 2021, NICE revised its ME/CFS diagnostic criteria for technology appraisal [12]. We cannot retrospectively determine if the MAGENTA participants meet these new diagnostic criteria, which have been criticised [36]. We believe, however, that the MAGENTA findings remain relevant evidence to inform the treatment of children presenting with ME/CFS.
Conclusions
We did not show a difference between GET and AM, or a substantial improvement in physical function with either intervention. This lack of improvement in physical function may be explained by the low intensity of therapy sessions.
Data availability
The study participants provided consent to their data being retained and used by the University of Bristol for present and future research and teaching purposes. Individual study data cannot be released to research groups outside of the University of Bristol.
Trial registration: MAGENTA is registered at https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN23962803, and the pre-specified Statistical Analyses Plan has been publicly available since 14/11/2019: https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/publications/magenta-managed-activity-graded-exercise-in-teenagers-and-pre-ado
References
Crawley E, Sterne JA (2009) Association between school absence and physical function in paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalopathy. Arch Dis Child 94(10):752–756. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2008.143537
Loades ME, Read R, Smith L et al (2020) How common are depression and anxiety in adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and how should we screen for these mental health co-morbidities? A clinical cohort study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-020-01646-w
Simila WA, Halsteinli V, Helland IB et al (2020) Health-related quality of life in Norwegian adolescents living with chronic fatigue syndrome. Health Qual Life Outcomes 18(1):170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01430-z
Parslow R, Patel A, Beasant L et al (2015) What matters to children with CFS/ME? A conceptual model as the first stage in developing a PROM. Arch Dis Child 100(12):1141–1147. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2015-308831
Missen A, Hollingworth W, Eaton N et al (2012) The financial and psychological impacts on mothers of children with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME). Child Care Health Dev 38(4):505–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.01298.x
Parslow RM, Harris S, Broughton J et al (2017) Children’s experiences of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): a systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies. BMJ Open 7(1):e012633. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012633
Stulemeijer M, de Jong LW, Fiselier TJ et al (2005) Cognitive behaviour therapy for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 330(7481):14. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38301.587106.63
Al-Haggar MS, Al-Naggar ZA, Abdel-Salam MA (2006) Biofeedback and cognitive behavioural therapy for Egyptian adolescents suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome. J Pediatr Neurol 4(3):161–169. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1557320
Nijhof SL, Bleijenberg G, Uiterwaal CS et al (2012) Effectiveness of internet-based cognitive behavioural treatment for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome (FITNET): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379(9824):1412–1418. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60025-7
Knoop H, Stulemeijer M, de Jong LW et al (2008) Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome: long-term follow-up of a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics 121(3):e619–e625. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-1488
Nijhof SL, Priesterbach LP, Uiterwaal CS et al (2013) Internet-based therapy for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome: long-term follow-up. Pediatrics 131(6):e1788–e1795. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-2007
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): Myalgic encephalomyelitis (or encephalopathy)/chronic fatigue syndrome: diagnosis and management NICE (2021) Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng206. Accessed 24 Mar 2023
Brigden A, Beasant L, Hollingworth W et al (2016) Managed Activity Graded Exercise iN Teenagers and pre-Adolescents (MAGENTA) feasibility randomised controlled trial: study protocol. BMJ Open 6(7):e011255. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011255
Brigden A, Beasant L, Gaunt D et al (2019) Results of the feasibility phase of the managed activity graded exercise in teenagers and pre-adolescents (MAGENTA) randomised controlled trial of treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Pilot Feasibility Stud 5:151. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-019-0525-3
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (or encephalopathy): diagnosis and management. NICE (2007) Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG53?UID=165465499201922445224. Accessed 24 Mar 2023
Haig-Ferguson A, Loades M, Whittle C et al (2019) “It’s not one size fits all”; the use of videoconferencing for delivering therapy in a Specialist Paediatric Chronic Fatigue Service. Internet Interv 15:43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2018.12.003
Chalder T, Deary V, Husain K et al (2010) Family-focused cognitive behaviour therapy versus psycho-education for chronic fatigue syndrome in 11- to 18-year-olds: a randomized controlled treatment trial. Psychol Med 40(8):1269–1279. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329170999153X
Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30(6):473–483
Chalder T, Berelowitz G, Pawlikowska T et al (1993) Development of a fatigue scale. J Psychosom Res 37(2):147–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(93)90081-p
White D, Leach C, Sims R et al (1999) Validation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for use with adolescents. Br J Psychiatry 175:452–454. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.175.5.452
Spence SH, Barrett PM, Turner CM (2003) Psychometric properties of the Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale with young adolescents. J Anxiety Disord 17(6):605–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0887-6185(02)00236-0
Busner J, Targum SD (2007) The clinical global impressions scale: applying a research tool in clinical practice. Psychiatry (Edgmont) 4(7):28–37
Ravens-Sieberer U, Wille N, Badia X et al (2010) Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study. Qual Life Res 19(6):887–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9649-x
Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM (1993) The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics 4(5):353–365. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006
Solomon-Moore E, Jago R, Beasant L et al (2019) Physical activity patterns among children and adolescents with mild-to-moderate chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. BMJ Paediatr Open 3(1):e000425. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2018-000425
Evenson KR, Catellier DJ, Gill K et al (2008) Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children. J Sports Sci 26(14):1557–1565. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410802334196
Jago R, Edwards MJ, Sebire SJ et al (2015) Effect and cost of an after-school dance programme on the physical activity of 11–12 year old girls: The Bristol Girls Dance Project, a school-based cluster randomised controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 12:128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-015-0289-y
Brigden A, Parslow RM, Gaunt D et al (2018) Defining the minimally clinically important difference of the SF-36 physical function subscale for paediatric CFS/ME: triangulation using three different methods. Health Qual Life Outcomes 16(1):202. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-1028-2
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE): Guide to the methods of technology appraisal NICE (2013). Available from: http://publications.nice.org.uk/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pmg9. Accessed 28 Jul 2023
National Health Service: National Schedule of NHS Costs NHS (2019) Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/national-cost-collection/. Accessed 28 Jul 2023
Curtis LA, Burns A (2019) Unit costs of health and social care. Personal Social Services Research Unit: University of Kent
Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35(11):1095–1108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002
Fenwick E, O’Brien BJ, Briggs A (2004) Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves–facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 13(5):405–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.903
Larun L, Brurberg KG, Odgaard-Jensen J et al (2019) Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:CD003200. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub8
Crawley EM, Gaunt DM, Garfield K et al (2018) Clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Lightning Process in addition to specialist medical care for paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child 103(2):155–164. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2017-313375
White P, Abbey S, Angus B et al (2023) Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2022-330463
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the children, adolescents and families who took part in this study and to the Bath specialist CFS/ME service who recruited them. Our thanks go to the Trial Steering Committee and Data Safety and Monitoring Committee for the independent review and scrutiny of the MAGENTA trial. Our gratitude goes to the young people with ME/CFS and their parents who were involved in study planning and conduct through membership of an advisory group or the Trial Steering Committee.
Funding
National Institute for Health and Care Research, SRF-2013-06-013.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
DMG collated the data, conducted the statistical analysis and presented the results. AB managed the trial and collected and collated the data. SRSH conducted the health economic analyses and compiled the health economic tables. WH contributed to the study design and supervised the health economic analyses. RJ contributed to the study design and supervised the activity measurement. ESM conducted the analysis of the accelerometer data. LB conducted the qualitative work and contributed to the delivery of the trial. PS managed the trial and contributed to the delivery of the trial. NM contributed to the study design and supervised the qualitative work. EC obtained the funding, designed and supervised the trial and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. CM contributed to the study design and supervised the statistical analyses. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
This study was performed according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The UK National Research Ethics Service Committee (South West—Frenchay 15/SW/0124) approved the MAGENTA feasibility study and all protocol amendments (Appendix 1).
Consent for publication
All young people and their parents or carers completed paper or online study consent or assent forms as appropriate prior to their participation in the study.
Disclaimer
This report is independent research, and the views expressed in this publication of are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, or the UK Department of Health & Social Care. The funder had no role in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report or the decision to submit the article for publication.
Competing interests
Whilst leading the MAGENTA study, EC ran the specialist CFS/ME service at Royal United Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, had received one grant from MRC, multiple grants from the UK NIHR and was an unfunded medical advisor to the Sussex & Kent ME/CFS Society. The other authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Communicated by Peter de Winter
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Gaunt, D.M., Brigden, A., Harris, S.R.S. et al. Graded exercise therapy compared to activity management for paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Eur J Pediatr 183, 2343–2351 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-024-05458-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-024-05458-x