Category: Public Health

Prevalence of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) in Australian primary care patients: only part of the story?

Abstract:

Background: ME/CFS is a disorder characterized by recurrent fatigue and intolerance to exertion which manifests as profound post-exertional malaise. Prevalence studies internationally have reported highly variable results due to the 20 + diagnostic criteria. For Australia, the prevalence of ME/CFS based on current case definitions is unknown.

Objectives: To report prevalence of ME/CFS in patients aged ≥ 13 years attending Australian primary care settings for years 2015-2019, and provide context for patterns of primary care attendance by people living with ME/CFS.

Methodology: Conducted in partnership with the Patient Advisory Group, this study adopted a mixed methods approach. De-identified primary care data from the national MedicineInsight program were analyzed. The cohort were regularly attending patients, i.e. 3 visits in the preceding 2 years. Crude prevalence rates were calculated for years 2015-2019, by sex, 10-year age groups, remoteness and socioeconomic status. Rates are presented per 100,000population (95% confidence intervals (CI)). Qualitative data was collected through focus groups and in-depth 1:1 interview.

Results: Qualitative evidence identified barriers to reaching diagnosis, and limited interactions with primary care due to a lack of available treatments/interventions, stigma and disbelief in ME/CFS as a condition. In each year of interest, crude prevalence in the primary care setting ranged between 94.9/100,000 (95% CI: 91.5-98.5) and 103.9/100,000 population (95%CI: 100.3-107.7), equating to between 20,140 and 22,050 people living with ME/CFS in Australia in 2020. Higher rates were observed for age groups 50-59 years and 40-49 years. Rates were substantially higher in females (130.0-141.4/100,000) compared to males (50.9-57.5/100,000). In the context of the qualitative evidence, our prevalence rates likely represent an underestimate of the true prevalence of ME/CFS in the Australian primary care setting.

Conclusion: ME/CFS affects a substantial number of Australians. Whilst this study provides prevalence estimates for the Australian primary care setting, the qualitative evidence highlights the limitations of these. Future research should focus on using robust case ascertainment criteria in a community setting. Quantification of the burden of disease can be used to inform health policy and planning, for this understudied condition.

Source: Orji N, Campbell JA, Wills K, Hensher M, Palmer AJ, Rogerson M, Kelly R, de Graaff B. Prevalence of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) in Australian primary care patients: only part of the story? BMC Public Health. 2022 Aug 9;22(1):1516. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13929-9. PMID: 35945527. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-022-13929-9 (Full text)

Chronic fatigue syndrome: an old public health issue highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic

In some cases, C O VID-19 has been shown to cause both acute as well as prolonged neuropsychiatric manifestations, possibly due to CNS immune cell activation.13,14 Between 13 and 23% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients suffer from fatigue and PEM-like symptoms more than 6 months after the infection.15 These numbers, although alarming, are hardly surprising. Looking back at the 2002/03 SARS pandemic, a similar proportion of hospitalized patients with a severe course also developed CFS/ME (27% of survivors 4 years after hospitalisation).16Other common pathogens that can lead to CFS/ME include viruses like Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), cytomegalovirus (CMV) and enteroviruses, bacteria such as mycoplasma, Borrelia burgdorferi (Lyme disease), and Coxiella burnetii (Q fever).17 In fact, in 3 out of 4 cases of CFS/ME, the disease develops following an infectious episode.18 Interestingly, the innate immune response to infections is generally higher among women than men, which could perhaps also explain the higher prevalence of CFS/ME among women given the role that immunity plays in it. With an estimated prevalence of 0.1-0.7%, CFS/ME is far above the threshold value set by the European Union for classification as a rare disease (<5:10,000).

Read the rest of this article HERE. 

Source: Bonk JS, Khedkar PH. Chronic fatigue syndrome: an old public health issue highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2022 Jul 30:e13863. doi: 10.1111/apha.13863. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35906837. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/apha.13863 (Full text)

Post-acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Neglected Public Health Issue

Introduction:

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused at least 508,827,830 infections and is associated with a 1.2% mortality rate worldwide (). New SARS-CoV-2 variants have driven new waves of the pandemic as a result of their increased transmissibility and ability to evade the immune response (). The post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) is an important but underestimated public health issue that can have a long-term impact on pulmonary and multiple extrapulmonary tissues and organs through several potential mechanisms (, ). Recent studies demonstrate that approximately 4–69% of patients (including children, adolescents, adults, and senior) suffer from PASC (–). There is considerable evidence concerning post-acute sequelae that will likely outlast the current pandemic and need to be addressed. This article reviews the clinical sequelae of COVID-19 survivors and provides valuable insights required to fill the gaps in medical knowledge.

Source: Wang Z, Yang L. Post-acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Neglected Public Health Issue. Front Public Health. 2022 Jun 17;10:908757. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.908757. PMID: 35784200; PMCID: PMC9247346. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9247346/ (Full text)

Detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in urine samples: A noninvasive and sensitive way to assay COVID-19 immune conversion

Abstract:

Serum-based ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) has been widely used to detect anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. However, to date, no study has investigated patient urine as a biological sample to detect SARS-CoV-2 virus-specific antibodies. An in-house urine-based ELISA was developed using recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein.

The presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in urine was established, with 94% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with the urine-based ELISA and 88% sensitivity and 100% specificity with a paired serum-based ELISA. The urine-based ELISA that detects anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is a noninvasive method with potential application as a facile COVID-19 immunodiagnostic platform, which can be used to report the extent of exposure at the population level and/or to assess the risk of infection at the individual level.

Source: Ludolf F, Ramos FF, Bagno FF, Oliveira-da-Silva JA, Reis TAR, Christodoulides M, Vassallo PF, Ravetti CG, Nobre V, da Fonseca FG, Coelho EAF. Detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in urine samples: A noninvasive and sensitive way to assay COVID-19 immune conversion. Sci Adv. 2022 May 13;8(19):eabn7424. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abn7424. Epub 2022 May 13. PMID: 35559681; PMCID: PMC9106288. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9106288/ (Full text)

Risk of long COVID associated with delta versus omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2

The omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 (PANGO B.1.1.529) spread rapidly across the world, out-competing former variants soon after it was first detected in November, 2021. According to the Our World in Data COVID-19 database, In Europe, the number of confirmed cases reported between December, 2021, and March, 2022 (omicron period) has exceeded all previously reported cases. Omicron appears to cause less severe acute illness than previous variants, at least in vaccinated populations. However, the potential for large numbers of people to experience long-term symptoms is a major concern, and health and workforce planners need information urgently to appropriately scale resource allocation.
In this case-control observational study, we set out to identify the relative odds of long-COVID (defined following the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines as having new or ongoing symptoms 4 weeks or more after the start of acute COVID-19) in the UK during the omicron period compared with the delta period. We used self-reported data from the COVID Symptom Study app. (King’s College London Research Ethics Management Application System number 18210, reference LRS-19/20-18210). Data were extracted and pre-processed using ExeTera13 (version 0.5.5).
Read the rest of this article HERE.
Source: Antonelli M, Pujol JC, Spector TD, Ourselin S, Steves CJ. Risk of long COVID associated with delta versus omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2. Lancet. 2022 Jun 18;399(10343):2263-2264. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00941-2. PMID: 35717982; PMCID: PMC9212672. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00941-2/fulltext (Full text)

COVID-19 Pandemic-Revealed Consistencies and Inconsistencies in Healthcare: A Medical and Organizational View

Abstract:

The circumstances of the Coronavirus disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) pandemic have had a significant impact on global and national developments, affecting the existence of society in all its expressions, as well as the lives of people themselves. In the context of the pandemic, increased attention has been focused on acute measures, but the ending of the pandemic is expected as a resolution of the related healthcare problems. However, there are several indicators that the COVID-19 pandemic might induce long-term consequences for individual and public health. Some of the consequences are inferred and predictable, but there are also areas of medicine that have been indirectly affected by the pandemic, and these consequences have not yet been sufficiently explored.

This study is focused on drawing attention to some of the COVID-19 pandemic consistencies and the pandemic-revealed inconsistencies in healthcare. Content analysis and statistical analysis were applied to achieve the aim of the study. The main findings of the study address chronic disease burden (particularly, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)), healthcare governance and organizational issues, and the synergy between health policy perspectives and innovative solutions in practice.

The study provides insight into the particular healthcare issues affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the increase in mortality in some diagnoses besides COVID-19 and the possible emergence of a new type of resistance-vaccine-resistance-contemporaneously supporting the identification of the tendencies and currently unnoticed indirect consistencies and inconsistencies revealed by the pandemic.

Source: Araja D, Berkis U, Murovska M. COVID-19 Pandemic-Revealed Consistencies and Inconsistencies in Healthcare: A Medical and Organizational View. Healthcare (Basel). 2022 May 31;10(6):1018. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10061018. PMID: 35742069. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/10/6/1018/htm  (Full text)

A systematic review and meta-analysis of long term physical and mental sequelae of COVID-19 pandemic: call for research priority and action

Abstract:

The long-term physical and mental sequelae of COVID-19 are a growing public health concern, yet there is considerable uncertainty about their prevalence, persistence and predictors. We conducted a comprehensive, up-to-date meta-analysis of survivors’ health consequences and sequelae for COVID-19. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched through Sep 30th, 2021. Observational studies that reported the prevalence of sequelae of COVID-19 were included. Two reviewers independently undertook the data extraction and quality assessment.

Of the 36,625 records identified, a total of 151 studies were included involving 1,285,407 participants from thirty-two countries. At least one sequelae symptom occurred in 50.1% (95% CI 45.4-54.8) of COVID-19 survivors for up to 12 months after infection. The most common investigation findings included abnormalities on lung CT (56.9%, 95% CI 46.2–67.3) and abnormal pulmonary function tests (45.6%, 95% CI 36.3–55.0), followed by generalized symptoms, such as fatigue (28.7%, 95% CI 21.0–37.0), psychiatric symptoms (19.7%, 95% CI 16.1–23.6) mainly depression (18.3%, 95% CI 13.3–23.8) and PTSD (17.9%, 95% CI 11.6–25.3), and neurological symptoms (18.7%, 95% CI 16.2–21.4), such as cognitive deficits (19.7%, 95% CI 8.8–33.4) and memory impairment (17.5%, 95% CI 8.1–29.6).

Subgroup analysis showed that participants with a higher risk of long-term sequelae were older, mostly male, living in a high-income country, with more severe status at acute infection. Individuals with severe infection suffered more from PTSD, sleep disturbance, cognitive deficits, concentration impairment, and gustatory dysfunction. Survivors with mild infection had high burden of anxiety and memory impairment after recovery.

Our findings suggest that after recovery from acute COVID-19, half of survivors still have a high burden of either physical or mental sequelae up to at least 12 months. It is important to provide urgent and appropriate prevention and intervention management to preclude persistent or emerging long-term sequelae and to promote the physical and psychiatric wellbeing of COVID-19 survivors.

Source: Zeng N, Zhao YM, Yan W, Li C, Lu QD, Liu L, Ni SY, Mei H, Yuan K, Shi L, Li P, Fan TT, Yuan JL, Vitiello MV, Kosten T, Kondratiuk AL, Sun HQ, Tang XD, Liu MY, Lalvani A, Shi J, Bao YP, Lu L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of long term physical and mental sequelae of COVID-19 pandemic: call for research priority and action. Mol Psychiatry. 2022 Jun 6:1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41380-022-01614-7. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35668159; PMCID: PMC9168643. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9168643/ (Full text)

Long COVID-19 and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: similarities and differences of two peas in a pod

Sr. Editor,

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious respiratory disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2). Prolonged recovery of COVID-19 symptoms, so-called Long COVID-19, has been described even in patients who have mild symptoms and did not required hospitalisation. Various studies showed that at least one out of ten COVID-19 symptomatic patients develop Long
COVID-19.

Although there is an absence of a evidence-based clinical practice guidelines neither a clear aetiopatogenesis, a clinical case definition of post-COVID-19 condition was proposed across the International Severe Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Long COVID-19 occurs in individuals with a history of probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, usually 3 months from the onset of COVID-19 with symptoms that last for at least 2 months and cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis.

Read the rest of this article HERE.

Source: Qanneta R, COVID-19 persistente y Encefalomielitis Mialgica /Sındrome de Fatiga Cronica: similitudes y diferencias,  Reumatologia Clinica (2022), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reuma.2022.05.003 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9167847/pdf/main.pdf (Full text available in English as PDF file)

LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS (LOCOMOTION): protocol for a mixed-methods study in the UK

Abstract:

Introduction: Long COVID, a new condition whose origins and natural history are not yet fully established, currently affects 1.5 million people in the UK. Most do not have access to specialist long COVID services. We seek to optimise long COVID care both within and outside specialist clinics, including improving access, reducing inequalities, helping self-management and providing guidance and decision support for primary care. We aim to establish a ‘gold standard’ of care by systematically analysing current practices, iteratively improving pathways and systems of care.

Methods and analysis: This mixed-methods, multisite study is informed by the principles of applied health services research, quality improvement, co-design, outcome measurement and learning health systems. It was developed in close partnership with patients (whose stated priorities are prompt clinical assessment; evidence-based advice and treatment and help with returning to work and other roles) and with front-line clinicians. Workstreams and tasks to optimise assessment, treatment and monitoring are based in three contrasting settings: workstream 1 (qualitative research, up to 100 participants), specialist management in 10 long COVID clinics across the UK, via a quality improvement collaborative, experience-based co-design and targeted efforts to reduce inequalities of access, return to work and peer support; workstream 2 (quantitative research, up to 5000 participants), patient self-management at home, technology-supported monitoring and validation of condition-specific outcome measures and workstream 3 (quantitative research, up to 5000 participants), generalist management in primary care, harnessing electronic record data to study population phenotypes and develop evidence-based decision support, referral pathways and analysis of costs. Study governance includes an active patient advisory group.

Ethics and dissemination: LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS study is sponsored by the University of Leeds and approved by Yorkshire & The Humber-Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21/YH/0276). Participants will provide informed consent. Dissemination plans include academic and lay publications, and partnerships with national and regional policymakers.

Source: Sivan M, Greenhalgh T, Darbyshire JL, Mir G, O’Connor RJ, Dawes H, Greenwood D, O’Connor D, Horton M, Petrou S, de Lusignan S, Curcin V, Mayer E, Casson A, Milne R, Rayner C, Smith N, Parkin A, Preston N, Delaney B; LOCOMOTION consortium. LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS (LOCOMOTION): protocol for a mixed-methods study in the UK. BMJ Open. 2022 May 17;12(5):e063505. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063505. PMID: 35580970; PMCID: PMC9114312. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9114312/ (Full text)

NICE sets out steps NHS must take to implement ME/CFS guidelines

Abstract:

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has issued an unprecedented implementation statement setting out the practical steps needed for its updated guideline on the diagnosis and management of myalgic encephalomyelitis (or encephalopathy)/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) to be implemented by the NHS.

Such statements are only issued when a guideline is expected to have a “substantial” impact on NHS resources, and this is thought to be the first. It outlines the additional infrastructure and training that will be needed in both secondary and primary care to ensure that the updated ME/CFS guideline, published in October 2021, can be implemented.

The statement is necessary because the 2021 guideline completely reversed the original 2007 guideline recommendations that people with mild or moderate ME/CFS be treated with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET). Instead, the 2021 guideline says that CBT should be only offered to support patients to manage their symptoms and that any exercise programme should be overseen by an ME/CFS specialist team.

Many areas have no or very limited specialist ME/CFS services, meaning that services must be commissioned, specialist health professionals need to be trained to deliver these services, and GPs need training in how to care for their patients. “With no nationally commissioned service for ME/CFS in either primary or secondary care, it will be for local systems to determine how to structure their services to achieve the aims of the guideline,” said Paul Chrisp, director of the Centre for Guidelines at NICE.

The 2007 recommendations were overturned during a long and difficult guideline development process. Patient groups had long argued that the recommendations were inappropriate, ineffective, and potentially harmful, and hindered research into the disease. But health professionals raised concerns about the proposed guidelines and the process that underpinned them. Just weeks before the final guideline was due to be published three members of the development committee resigned, royal colleges and other professional bodies signalled that they would not support it, and NICE had to delay publication. The guideline was finally published after a meeting was arranged with stakeholders to iron out differences, but concerns among medical leaders persisted.

When the 2021 guideline was published, Charles Shepherd, honorary medical adviser of the ME Association, told The BMJ that the recommendations were “something that currently cannot be coped with.” After publication of the implementation statement, he said, “I think NICE have gone as far as they can. It is now up to individual clinical services to reposition what they do in order to comply with the recommendations and for commissioners to start setting up new clinical services where none currently exist—especially in Wales and Northern Ireland.

“A lot of people with ME/CFS are clearly not getting the medical care and support that they need in both primary care and secondary care, especially those who are severely affected and do not have access to any form of domiciliary service or a dedicated inpatient facility.” He added: “It would obviously be helpful if the royal colleges could also express their support for implementation of the changes, as it’s not clear whether they remain unhappy with the recommendations downgrading CBT and the removal of GET.”

The same day NICE published its implementation statement, Sajid Javid, health and social care secretary, announced the publication of research priorities for ME/CFS by Action for ME, a charity that supports people with ME.  “We are committed to funding research into this important area,” he said. Javid and his chief scientific adviser, Lucy Chappell, will co-chair an advisory board of experts on ME/CFS, including patients, to discuss what needs to happen next and liaise with the devolved nations.

“We will be developing our own delivery plan later this year and will be working with stakeholders to understand how we can improve experiences and outcomes for people with these debilitating conditions,” he said. “At the heart of the delivery plan will be two core principles. Firstly, that we do not know enough about ME/CFS, which must change if we are to improve experiences and outcomes. Secondly, we must trust and listen to those with lived experience of ME/CFS.”

The BMJ asked three royal colleges for a response to the implementation statement, but none responded before publication.

Source: Ingrid Torjesen. NICE sets out steps NHS must take to implement ME/CFS guidelines. BMJ 2022;377:o1221. https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1221