Search

BackgroundThe Rehabilitation Strategies Following Esophagogastric cancer (ReStOre) randomized control trial demonstrated a significant improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness of esophagogastric cancer survivors. This follow-up, exploratory study analyzed the biological effect of exercise intervention on levels of 55 serum proteins, encompassing mediators of angiogenesis, inflammation, and vascular injury, from participants on the ReStOre trial.MethodsPatients >6 months disease free from esophagogastric cancer were randomized to usual care or the 12-week ReStOre program (exercise training, dietary counselling, and multidisciplinary education). Serum was collected at baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1), and at 3-month follow up (T2). Serum biomarkers were quantified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).ResultsThirty-seven patients participated in this study; 17 in the control arm and 20 in the intervention arm. Exercise intervention resulted in significant alterations in the level of expression of serum IP-10 (mean difference (MD): 38.02 (95% CI: 0.69 to 75.35)), IL-27 (MD: 249.48 (95% CI: 22.43 to 476.53)), and the vascular injury biomarkers, ICAM-1 (MD: 1.05 (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.66)), and VCAM-1 (MD: 1.51 (95% CI: 1.04 to 2.14)) at T1. A significant increase in eotaxin-3 (MD: 2.59 (95% CI: 0.23 to 4.96)), IL-15 (MD: 0.27 (95% CI: 0 to 0.54)) and decrease in bFGF (MD: 1.62 (95% CI: -2.99 to 0.26)) expression was observed between control and intervention cohorts at T2 (p

Background: The Rehabilitation Strategies Following Esophagogastric cancer (ReStOre) randomized control trial demonstrated a significant improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness of esophagogastric cancer survivors. This follow-up, exploratory study analyzed the biological effect of exercise intervention on levels of 55 serum proteins, encompassing mediators of angiogenesis, inflammation, and vascular injury, from participants on the ReStOre trial. Methods: Patients >6 months disease free from esophagogastric cancer were randomized to usual care or the 12-week ReStOre program (exercise training, dietary counselling, and multidisciplinary education). Serum was collected at baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1), and at 3-month follow up (T2). Serum biomarkers were quantified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Results: Thirty-seven patients participated in this study; 17 in the control arm and 20 in the intervention arm. Exercise intervention resulted in significant alterations in the level of expression of serum IP-10 (mean difference (MD): 38.02 (95% CI: 0.69 to 75.35)), IL-27 (MD: 249.48 (95% CI: 22.43 to 476.53)), and the vascular injury biomarkers, ICAM-1 (MD: 1.05 (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.66)), and VCAM-1 (MD: 1.51 (95% CI: 1.04 to 2.14)) at T1. A significant increase in eotaxin-3 (MD: 2.59 (95% CI: 0.23 to 4.96)), IL-15 (MD: 0.27 (95% CI: 0 to 0.54)) and decrease in bFGF (MD: 1.62 (95% CI: -2.99 to 0.26)) expression was observed between control and intervention cohorts at T2 (p<0.05). Conclusions: Exercise intervention significantly altered the expression of a number of serum biomarkers in disease-free patients who had prior treatment for esophagogastric cancer. Impact: Exercise rehabilitation causes a significant biological effect on serum biomarkers in esophagogastric cancer survivors. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03314311). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this trial was to evaluate the difference in treatment effect, at 26 and 52 weeks after the start of treatment, between cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment (MRT) for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).Design: Multicentre, randomized controlled trial of patients with CFS. Participants were randomly assigned to MRT or CBT.Setting: Four rehabilitation centres in the Netherlands.Subjects: A total of 122 patients participated in the trial.Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were fatigue measured by the fatigue subscale of the Checklist Individual Strength and health-related quality of life measured by the Short-Form 36. Outcomes were assessed prior to treatment and at 26 and 52 weeks after treatment initiation.Results: A total of 114 participants completed the assessment at 26 weeks, and 112 completed the assessment at 52 weeks. MRT was significantly more effective than CBT in reducing fatigue at 52 weeks. The estimated difference in fatigue between the two treatments was -3.02 [95% confidence interval (CI) -8.07 to 2.03; P = 0.24] at 26 weeks and -5.69 (95% CI -10.62 to -0.76; P = 0.02) at 52 weeks. Patients showed an improvement in quality of life over time, but between-group differences were not significant.Conclusion: This study provides evidence that MRT is more effective in reducing long-term fatigue severity than CBT in patients with CFS. Although implementation in comparable populations can be recommended based on clinical effectiveness, it is advisable to analyse the cost-effectiveness and replicate these findings in another multicentre trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with chronic fatigue syndrome experience extreme fatigue, which often leads to substantial limitations of occupational, educational, social and personal activities. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the treatment. Patients try many different therapies to overcome their fatigue. Although there is no consensus, cognitive behavioural therapy is seen as one of the most effective treatments. Little is known about multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment, a combination of cognitive behavioural therapy with principles of mindfulness, gradualincrease of activities, body awareness therapy and pacing. The difference in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness between multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment and cognitive behavioural therapy is as yet unknown. The FatiGo (Fatigue-Go) trial aims to compare the effects of both treatment approaches in outpatient rehabilitation on fatigue severity and quality of life in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Methods: One hundred twenty patients who meet the criteria of chronic fatigue syndrome, fulfil the inclusion criteria and sign the informed consent form will be recruited. Both treatments take 6 months to complete. The outcome will be assessed at 6 and 12 months after the start of treatment. Two weeks after the start of treatment, expectancy and credibility will be measured, and patients will be asked to write down their personal goals and score their current performance on these goals on a visual analogue scale. At 6 and 14 weeks after the start of treatment, the primary outcome and three potential mediators-self-efficacy, causal attributions and present-centred attention-awareness-will be measured. Primary outcomes are fatigue severity and quality of life. Secondary outcomes are physical activity, psychological symptoms, self-efficacy, causal attributions, impact of disease on emotional and physical functioning, present-centred attention-awareness, life satisfaction, patient personal goals, self-rated improvement and economic costs. The primary analysis will be based on intention to treat, and longitudinal analysis of covariance will be used to compare treatments. Discussion: The results of the trial will provide information on the effects of cognitive behavioural therapy and multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment at 6 and 12 months follow-up, mediators of the outcome, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and the influence of treatment expectancy and credibility on the effectiveness of both treatments in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The FatiGo trial concluded that multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment is more effective for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis in the long term than cognitive behaviour therapy and that multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment is more cost-effective for fatigue and cognitive behaviour therapy for quality of life. However, FatiGo suffered from a number of serious methodological flaws. Moreover, it ignored the results of the activity metre, its only objective outcome. This jeopardizes the validity of FatiGo. Its analysis shows that there was no statistically significant difference between multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment and cognitive behaviour therapy and neither are (cost-)effective. FatiGo's claims of efficacy of multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment and cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis are misleading and not justified by their results., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.