New Therapy For Chronic Fatigue Syndrome To Be Tested

Press Release: A preliminary study suggests there may be hope in the offing for some sufferers of chronic fatigue syndrome with a new therapy being tested by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine.

José Montoya, MD, associate professor of medicine (infectious diseases), and postdoctoral scholar Andreas Kogelnik, MD, PhD, have used the drug valganciclovir – an antiviral often used in treating diseases caused by human herpes viruses – to treat a small number of CFS patients.

The researchers said they treated 25 patients during the last three years, 21 of whom responded with significant improvement that was sustained even after going off the medication at the end of the treatment regimen, which usually lasts six months. The first patient has now been off the drug for almost three years and has had no relapses. A paper describing the first dozen patients Montoya and Kogelnik treated with the drug was published in the December issue of Journal of Clinical Virology.

“This study is small and preliminary, but potentially very important,” said Anthony Komaroff, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who was not involved in the study. “If a randomized trial confirmed the value of this therapy for patients like the ones studied here, it would be an important landmark in the treatment of this illness.”

Montoya has received a $1.3 million grant from Roche Pharmaceutical, which manufactures the drug under the brand name Valcyte, to conduct a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study set to begin this quarter at Stanford. The study will assess the effectiveness of the drug in treating a subset of CFS patients.

Montoya is speaking about his efforts at the biannual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in Fort Lauderdale on Jan. 11 and 12.

Chronic fatigue syndrome has baffled doctors and researchers for decades, because aside from debilitating fatigue, it lacks consistent symptoms. Although many genetic, infectious, psychiatric and environmental factors have been proposed as possible causes, none has been nailed down. It was often derided as “yuppie flu,” since it seemed to occur frequently in young professionals, though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says it’s most common in the middle-aged. But to those suffering from it, CFS is all too real and its effects are devastating, reducing once-vigorous individuals to the ranks of the bedridden, with an all-encompassing, painful and sleep-depriving fatigue.

More than 1 million Americans suffer from the disorder, according to the CDC. The disease often begins with what appears to be routine flulike symptoms, but then fails to subside completely – resulting in chronic, waxing and waning debilitation for years.

Valganciclovir is normally used against diseases caused by viruses in the herpes family, including cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus and human herpes virus-6. These diseases usually affect patients whose immune systems are severely weakened, such as transplant and cancer patients. Montoya, who had used the drug in treating such patients for years, decided to try using it on a CFS patient who came to him in early 2004 with extremely high levels of antibodies for three of the herpes family viruses in her blood. At the time, she had been suffering from CFS for five years.

When a virus infects someone, the levels of antibodies cranked out by the immune system in response typically increase until the virus is overcome, then slowly diminish over time. But Montoya’s patient had persistently high antibodies for the three viruses. In addition, the lymph nodes in her neck were significantly enlarged, some up to eight times their normal size, suggesting her immune system was fighting some kind of infection, even though a comprehensive evaluation had failed to point to any infectious cause.

Concerned about the unusual elevations in antibody levels as well as the swelling of her lymph nodes, Montoya decided to prescribe valganciclovir. “I thought by giving an antiviral that was effective against herpes viruses for a relatively long period of time, perhaps we could impact somehow the inflammation that she had in her lymph nodes,” said Montoya.

Within four weeks, the patient’s lymph nodes began shrinking. Six weeks later she phoned Montoya from her home in South America, describing how she was now exercising, bicycling and going back to work at the company she ran before her illness. “We were really shocked by this,” recalled Montoya.

Of the two dozen patients Montoya and Kogelnik have since treated, the 20 that responded all had developed CFS after an initial flulike illness, while the non-responders had suffered no initial flu.

Some of the patients take the drug for more than six months, such as Michael Manson, whose battle with CFS has lasted more than 18 years. The former triathlete was stricken with a viral infection a year after his marriage. After trying unsuccessfully to overcome what he thought were lingering effects of the flu, he had no choice but to drastically curtail all his activities and eventually stop working.

During his longest period of extreme fatigue, 13 1/2 weeks, Manson said, “My wife literally thought I was passing away. I could hear the emotion in her voice as she tried to wake me, but I couldn’t wake up to console her. That was just maddening.”

Now in his seventh month of treatment, Manson is able to go backpacking with his children with no ill after-effects. Prior to starting the treatment, Manson’s three children, ages 9 to 14, had never seen him healthy.

Montoya and Kogelnik emphasized that even if their new clinical trial validates the use of valganciclovir in treating some CFS patients, the drug may not be effective in all cases. In fact, the trial will assess the effectiveness of the medication among a specific subset of CFS patients; namely, those who have viral-induced dysfunction of the central nervous system.

“This could be a solution for a subset of patients, but that subset could be quite large,” said Kristin Loomis, executive director of the HHV-6 Foundation, which has helped fund a significant portion of the preparatory work for the clinical trial. “These viruses have been suspected in CFS for decades, but researchers couldn’t prove it because they are so difficult to detect in the blood. If Montoya’s results are confirmed, he will have made a real breakthrough.”

“What is desperately needed is the completion of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that we are about to embark on,” Montoya said.

 

Source: Stanford University Medical Center. “New Therapy For Chronic Fatigue Syndrome To Be Tested.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 9 January 2007. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070108191506.htm

 

Treatment and management of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: all roads lead to Rome

Abstract:

This review explores the current evidence on benefits and harms of therapeutic interventions in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) and makes recommendations. CFS/ME is a complex, multi-system, chronic medical condition whose pathophysiology remains unknown. No established diagnostic tests exist nor are any FDA-approved drugs available for treatment. Because of the range of symptoms of CFS/ME, treatment approaches vary widely.

Studies undertaken have heterogeneous designs and are limited by sample size, length of follow-up, applicability and methodological quality. The use of rintatolimod and rituximab as well as counselling, behavioural and rehabilitation therapy programs may be of benefit for CFS/ME, but the evidence of their effectiveness is still limited. Similarly, adaptive pacing appears to offer some benefits, but the results are debatable: so is the use of nutritional supplements, which may be of value to CFS/ME patients with biochemically proven deficiencies.

To summarize, the recommended treatment strategies should include proper administration of nutritional supplements in CFS/ME patients with demonstrated deficiencies and personalized pacing programs to relieve symptoms and improve performance of daily activities, but a larger randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluation is required to confirm these preliminary observations.

At present, no firm conclusions can be drawn because the few RCTs undertaken to date have been small-scale, with a high risk of bias, and have used different case definitions. Further, RCTs are now urgently needed with rigorous experimental designs and appropriate data analysis, focusing particularly on the comparison of outcomes measures according to clinical presentation, patient characteristics, case criteria and degree of disability (i.e. severely ill ME cases or bedridden).

© 2017 The British Pharmacological Society.

 

Source: Castro-Marrero J, Sáez-Francàs N, Santillo D, Alegre J. Treatment and management of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: all roads lead to Rome. Br J Pharmacol. 2017 Mar;174(5):345-369. doi: 10.1111/bph.13702. Epub 2017 Feb 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28052319

 

A UK based review of recommendations regarding the management of chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a controversial illness, with apparent disagreements between medical authorities and patient support organisations regarding safe and effective treatments. The aim of this study was to measure the extent of different views regarding treatments, comparing patient support organisations and medical authorities in the UK.

METHODS: Two independent raters analysed two groups of resources: UK patient support websites and both medical websites and textbooks. A 5-point Likert scale was developed with the question ‘With what strength does the source recommend these treatments?’ The various treatments were divided into the following four groups: complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), pharmacological, rehabilitative, and pacing therapies.

RESULTS: There were significant differences between the scores for patient support organisations and medical sources for all 4 treatment groups. The results for supporting CAM were 74% (patient group) vs 16% (medical source) (p<0.001), 71% vs 42% for pharmacological (p=0.01), 28% vs 94% for rehabilitative (p<0.001) and 91% vs 50% for pacing treatments (p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: There were substantially different treatment recommendations between patient support organisations and medical sources. Since expectations can determine response to treatment, these different views may reduce the engagement in and effectiveness of rehabilitative therapies recommended by national guidelines and supported by systematic reviews.

Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

 

Source: Mallet M, King E, White PD. A UK based review of recommendations regarding the management of chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res. 2016 Sep;88:33-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.07.008. Epub 2016 Jul 17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27521650

 

Comment

Ellen M Goudsmit 2016 Aug 16 12:55 p.m.

It should be noted that the PACE trial did not assess pacing as recommended by virtually all patient groups. This behavioural strategy is based on the observation that minimal exertion tends to exacerbate symptoms, plus the evidence that many with ME and CFS cannot gradually increase activity levels for more than a few days because of clinically significant adverse reactions [1]. It does not make any assumptions about aetiology.

The authors state that “It should be remembered that the moderate success of behavioural approaches does not imply that CFS/ME is a psychological or psychiatric disorder.” I submit that this relates to CBT and GET and not to strategies such as pacing. It might be helpful here to remind readers that the GET protocol for CFS/ME (as tested in most RCTs) is partly based on an operant conditioning theory, which is generally regarded as psychological [2]. The rehabilitative approaches promoted in the UK, i.e. CBT and GET, tend to focus on fatigue and sleep disorders, both of which may be a result of stress and psychiatric disorders e.g. depression. A review of the literature from the ‘medical authorities’ in the UK shows that almost without exception, they tend to limit the role of non-psychiatric aetiological factors to the acute phase and that somatic symptoms are usually attributed to fear of activity and the physiological effects of stress.

I informed the editor that as it read, the paper suggests that 1. patients have no sound medical source to support their preference for pacing and that 2. the data from the PACE trial provides good evidence against this strategy. I clarified that the trial actually evaluated adaptive pacing therapy (a programme including advice on stress management and a version of pacing that permits patients to operate at 70% of their estimated capability.) The editor chose not to investigate this issue in the manner one expects from an editor of a reputable journal. In light of the above issues, the information about pacing in this paper may mislead readers.

Interested scientists may find an alternative analysis of the differing views highly illuminating [3].

[1]. Goudsmit, EM., Jason, LA, Nijs, J and Wallman, KE. Pacing as a strategy to improve energy management in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: A consensus document. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2012, 34, 13, 1140-1147. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2011.635746.]

[2]. Goudsmit, E. The PACE trial. Are graded activity and cognitive-behavioural therapy really effective treatments for ME? Online 18th March 2016. http://www.axfordsabode.org.uk/me/ME-PDF/PACE trial the flaws.pdf

[3]. Friedberg, F. Cognitive-behavior therapy: why is it so vilified in the chronic fatigue syndrome community? Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior, 2016, 4, 3, 127-131. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21641846.2016.1200884

Long-term methylphenidate intake in chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: Concentration disturbances are frequent in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). In a placebo-controlled double-blind crossover study, methylphenidate over 4 weeks was superior to placebo in the relief of fatigue and concentration disturbance. This observational study describes the effect of long-term methylphenidate intake on fatigue, concentration, and daily life activities, as reported by the patients themselves.

METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all CFS patients who were prescribed methylphenidate at the general internal medicine department of a university hospital between August 2004 and February 2007, for possible improvement of concentration difficulties and fatigue.

RESULTS: Out of 194 consecutive patients, 149 (76.8%) sent the questionnaire back. At the time of the questionnaire, 65.3% had stopped the intake of methylphenidate, 34.7% still took it daily or occasionally. Among the patients who continued methylphenidate, 48% reported an at least 50% improvement of fatigue, and 62% reported an at least 50% improvement of concentration difficulties. This continued intake of methylphenidate resulted in more working hours in these patients. Side effects (agitation, palpitations, and dry mouth) were reported significantly more in patients who had stopped methylphenidate than in those who still took it.

CONCLUSION: The long-term intake of methylphenidate by CFS patients with concentration difficulties has a positive effect in about one out of three patients.

 

Source: Blockmans D, Persoons P. Long-term methylphenidate intake in chronic fatigue syndrome. Acta Clin Belg. 2016 Dec;71(6):407-414. Epub 2016 Jun 27. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27351244

 

Unexpected findings and promoting monocausal claims, a cautionary tale

Abstract:

Stories of serendipitous discoveries in medicine incorrectly imply that the path from an unexpected observation to major discovery is straightforward or guaranteed. In this paper, I examine a case from the field of research about chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).

In Norway, an unexpected positive result during clinical care has led to the development of a research programme into the potential for the immunosuppressant drug rituximab to relieve the symptoms of CFS. The media and public have taken up researchers’ speculations that their research results indicate a causal mechanism for CFS – consequently, patients now have great hope that ‘the cause’ of CFS has been found, and thus, a cure is sure to follow.

I argue that a monocausal claim cannot be correctly asserted, either on the basis of the single case of an unexpected, although positive, result or on the basis of the empirical research that has followed up on that result. Further, assertion and promotion of this claim will have specific harmful effects: it threatens to inappropriately narrow the scope of research on CFS, might misdirect research altogether, and could directly and indirectly harm patients. Therefore, the CFS case presents a cautionary tale, illustrating the risks involved in drawing a theoretical hypothesis from an unexpected observation.

Further, I draw attention to the tendency in contemporary clinical research with CFS to promote new research directions on the basis of reductive causal models of that syndrome. Particularly, in the case of CFS research, underdetermination and causal complexity undermine the potential value of a monocausal claim. In sum, when an unexpected finding occurs in clinical practice or medical research, the value of following up on that finding is to be found not in the projected value of a singular causal relationship inferred from the finding but rather in the process of research that follows.

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Source: Copeland SM.Unexpected findings and promoting monocausal claims, a cautionary tale. J Eval Clin Pract. 2016 Jun 10. doi: 10.1111/jep.12584. [Epub ahead of print] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27283254

A Systematic Review of Drug Therapies for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Abstract:

PURPOSE: The pathogenesis of chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is complex and remains poorly understood. Evidence regarding the use of drug therapies in CFS/ME is currently limited and conflicting. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the existing evidence on the efficacy of drug therapies and determine whether any can be recommended for patients with CFS/ME.

METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were searched from the start of their records to March 2016 to identify relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials focusing solely on drug therapy to alleviate and/or eliminate chronic fatigue symptoms were included in the review. Any trials that considered graded exercise therapy, cognitive behavior therapy, adaptive pacing, or any other nonpharmaceutical treatment plans were excluded. The inclusion criteria were examined to ensure that study participants met specific CFS/ME diagnostic criteria. Study size, intervention, and end point outcome domains were summarized.

FINDINGS: A total of 1039 studies were identified with the search terms; 26 studies met all the criteria and were considered suitable for review. Three different diagnostic criteria were identified: the Holmes criteria, International Consensus Criteria, and the Fukuda criteria. Primary outcomes were identified as fatigue, pain, mood, neurocognitive dysfunction and sleep quality, symptom severity, functional status, and well-being or overall health status. Twenty pharmaceutical classes were trialed. Ten medications were shown to be slightly to moderately effective in their respective study groups (P < 0.05).

IMPLICATIONS: These findings indicate that no universal pharmaceutical treatment can be recommended. The unknown etiology of CFS/ME, and complications arising from its heterogeneous nature, contributes to the lack of clear evidence for pharmaceutical interventions. However, patients report using a large number and variety of medications. This finding highlights the need for trials with clearly defined CFS/ME cohorts. Trials based on more specific criteria such as the International Consensus Criteria are recommended to identify specific subgroups of patients in whom treatments may be beneficial.

Copyright © 2016 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

Source: Collatz A, Johnston SC, Staines DR, Marshall-Gradisnik SM. A Systematic Review of Drug Therapies for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. Clin Ther. 2016 Jun;38(6):1263-1271.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2016.04.038. Epub 2016 May 24. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27229907

 

Efficacy of rintatolimod in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME)

Abstract:

Chronic fatigue syndrome/ Myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a poorly understood seriously debilitating disorder in which disabling fatigue is an universal symptom in combination with a variety of variable symptoms. The only drug in advanced clinical development is rintatolimod, a mismatched double stranded polymer of RNA (dsRNA).

Rintatolimod is a restricted Toll-Like Receptor 3 (TLR3) agonist lacking activation of other primary cellular inducers of innate immunity (e.g.- cytosolic helicases). Rintatolimod also activates interferon induced proteins that require dsRNA for activity (e.g.- 2′-5′ adenylate synthetase, protein kinase R).

Rintatolimod has achieved statistically significant improvements in primary endpoints in Phase II and Phase III double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials with a generally well tolerated safety profile and supported by open-label trials in the United States and Europe. The chemistry, mechanism of action, clinical trial data, and current regulatory status of rintatolimod for CFS/ME including current evidence for etiology of the syndrome are reviewed.

 

Source: Mitchell WM. Efficacy of rintatolimod in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME). Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Jun;9(6):755-70. Doi: 10.1586/17512433.2016.1172960. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4917909/ (Full article)

 

Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Systematic Review for a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a debilitating multisystem condition affecting more than 1 million adults in the United States.

PURPOSE: To determine benefits and harms of treatments for adults with ME/CFS and identify future research needs.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases (January 1988 to September 2014); clinical trial registries; reference lists; and manufacturer information.

STUDY SELECTION: English-language randomized trials of the effectiveness and adverse effects of ME/CFS treatments.

DATA EXTRACTION: Data on participants, study design, analysis, follow-up, and results were extracted and confirmed. Study quality was dual-rated by using prespecified criteria; discrepancies were resolved through consensus.

DATA SYNTHESIS: Among 35 treatment trials enrolling participants primarily meeting the 1994 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Oxford case definitions of CFS, the immune modulator rintatolimod improved some measures of exercise performance compared with placebo in 2 trials (low strength of evidence). Trials of galantamine, hydrocortisone, IgG, valganciclovir, isoprinosine, fluoxetine, and various complementary medicines were inconclusive (insufficient evidence). Counseling therapies and graded exercise therapy compared with no treatment, relaxation, or support improved fatigue, function, global improvement, and work impairment in some trials; counseling therapies also improved quality of life (low to moderate strength of evidence). Harms were rarely reported across studies (insufficient evidence).

LIMITATION: Trials were heterogeneous and were limited by size, number, duration, applicability, and methodological quality.

CONCLUSION: Trials of rintatolimod, counseling therapies, and graded exercise therapy suggest benefit for some patients meeting case definitions for CFS, whereas evidence for other treatments and harms is insufficient. More definitive studies comparing participants meeting different case definitions, including ME, and providing subgroup analysis are needed to fill research gaps.

Comment in

 

Source: Smith ME, Haney E, McDonagh M, Pappas M, Daeges M, Wasson N, Fu R, Nelson HD. Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Systematic Review for a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jun 16;162(12):841-50. doi: 10.7326/M15-0114. http://annals.org/aim/article/2322801/treatment-myalgic-encephalomyelitis-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-systematic-review-national-institutes (Full article)

 

Comments

  • Ellen M Goudsmit 2016 Feb 12 05:56 a.m.

    Postscript 2016. The errors noted were rejected as inaccuracies by the editors and thus my comment (under Haney et al) was not published as a letter or correction. Example, they refused to accept that a trial discussed used two sets of criteria, not just the one listed. And if they had checked the reference given for the London criteria, they would have known that it does not give a list of authors. I was not named, so the citation is factually incorrect. I submit that this attitude to factual errors is inconsistent with good science.

  • Ellen M Goudsmit 2015 Jun 24 10:14 a.m.

    I’ve already noted some of the factual errors and misleading comments in this review online: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2322800

    Due to the word limit, I could not add that Haney et al named four individuals as authors of the London criteria for ME, despite the fact that their reference, the Westcare Report, did not [1]. The people listed in the review did not write the version published in the Westcare Report and this information has been in the public domain since 1994.

    I was also unable to point out that that Haney et al refer to clinical criteria (e.g., p. 834), when most of the case definitions they discussed were formulated for research.

    The omission of the new research criteria for classic ME is baffling as they have already been cited in the literature, most recently by Jason et al [2]. If people are going to make decisions about ME, or ME/CFS, they need to know what ME is. I suggest readers look online or access the original paper from 2009 [3].

    [1]. The UK Patient Organisations. “London Criteria”. In: Report from The National Task Force on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome (PVFS), Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME). Bristol: Westcare; 1994. Appendix B, Names, Definitions and Descriptions: p. 96-8. Available from: http://www.actionforme.org.uk/Resources/Action for ME/Documents/get-informed/national task force.pdf

    [2]. Jason, LA., Sunnquist, M., Brown, A and Reed, J. Defining essential features of myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 2015, 25, 6, 657-674. Online 6th May. doi:10.1080/10911359.2015.1011256

    [3]. Goudsmit E, Shepherd C, Dancy CP, Howes S. ME: Chronic fatigue syndrome or a distinct clinical entity? Health Psychol Update. 2009;18(1):26-33. Available from: http://shop.bps.org.uk/publications/publications-by-subject/health/health-psychology-update-vol-18-no-1-2009.html

    Alternatively see: http://www.foodsmatter.com/me_and_cfs/cfs_me_causes_general/articles/goudsmit-me-clinical entity-10-12.html

    Revised article (2014): http://www.axfordsabode.org.uk/me/mecrit2014.htm

  • This article was mentioned in a comment by Ellen M Goudsmit 2015 Jul 17 1:24 p.m.

    See:Diagnostic Methods for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Systematic Review for a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop. [Ann Intern Med. 2015.]

  • Lily Chu 2016 Aug 24 04:39 a.m.

    In response to public comments, Dr. Smith and her colleagues have conducted sensitivity analyses on the data, assessing the impact of CBT and GET on various outcomes when only subjects fitting Oxford criteria are considered versus when subjects fitting non-Oxford case definitions (i.e. 1994 Fukuda) are considered. They concluded in an Addendum to the original report that:

    “Our sensitivity analysis would result in a downgrading of our strength of evidence on several outcomes which can be attributed to the decrease in power, dominance of one large trial, or lack of trials using criteria other than the Oxford (Sharpe, 1991) case definition for inclusion. Blatantly missing from this body of literature are trials evaluating effectiveness of interventions in the treatment of individuals meeting case definitions for ME or ME/CFS.”

    Almost all patients are diagnosed in the United States and most countries using the Fukuda criteria. The United Kingdom is the only region that uses the Oxford criteria on a regular basis. This means that clinicians need to be aware of low strength of evidence or the lack of evidence behind CBT and GET when considering this treatment for their ME/CFS patients.

    The full revised report may be read at: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/586/2004/chronic-fatigue-report-160728.pdf

Functional level of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome reporting use of alternative vs. traditional treatments

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is common among patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but whether it is viewed as more or less effective than traditional medicine is unclear.

PURPOSE: To evaluate patients’ level of functioning based on the types of treatments they report using (i.e., traditional-only, CAM-only, or a combination of both).

METHODS: Participants were recruited from physician referrals and media sources (newspaper, support groups), and 97 participants were retained for this analysis. Based on self-report, individuals were divided into three groups: using CAM-only (N=27), traditional medicine-only (N=22), or a combination of both treatments (N=58).

RESULTS: Social functioning was significant (p<.01), with post-hoc analyses indicating significantly better social functioning for individuals taking CAM-only in comparison to patients using traditional-only or a combination of traditional and CAM treatments. Significantly fewer participants (p<.01) using CAM-only had a current psychiatric diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest using CAM-only treatments in CFS is associated with higher social functioning and fewer current psychiatric diagnoses. The results support the need for research to fully evaluate how CAM may affect functioning among individuals with CFS.

 

Source: Wise S, Jantke R, Brown A, Jason LA. Functional level of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome reporting use of alternative vs. traditional treatments. Fatigue. 2015;3(4):235-240. Epub 2015 Oct 22. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4830425/ (Full article)

 

Phenylephrine alteration of cerebral blood flow during orthostasis: effect on n-back performance in chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) with orthostatic intolerance is characterized by neurocognitive deficits and impaired working memory, concentration, and information processing. In CFS, upright tilting [head-up tilt (HUT)] caused decreased cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFv) related to hyperventilation/hypocapnia and impaired cerebral autoregulation; increasing orthostatic stress resulted in decreased neurocognition.

We loaded the baroreflex with phenylephrine to prevent hyperventilation and performed n-back neurocognition testing in 11 control subjects and 15 CFS patients. HUT caused a significant increase in heart rate (109.4 ± 3.9 vs. 77.2 ± 1.6 beats/min, P < 0.05) and respiratory rate (20.9 ± 1.7 vs. 14.2 ± 1.2 breaths/min, P < 0.05) and decrease in end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2; 42.8 ± 1.2 vs. 33.9 ± 1.1 Torr, P < 0.05) in CFS vs. control. HUT caused CBFv to decrease 8.7% in control subjects but fell 22.5% in CFS.

In CFS, phenylephrine prevented the HUT-induced hyperventilation/hypocapnia and the significant drop in CBFv with HUT (-8.1% vs. -22.5% untreated). There was no difference in control subject n-back normalized response time (nRT) comparing supine to HUT (106.1 ± 6.9 vs. 97.6 ± 7.1 ms at n = 4), and no difference comparing control to CFS while supine (97.1 ± 7.1 vs 96.5 ± 3.9 ms at n = 4). However, HUT of CFS subjects caused a significant increase in nRT (148.0 ± 9.3 vs. 96.4 ± 6.0 ms at n = 4) compared with supine.

Phenylephrine significantly reduced the HUT-induced increase in nRT in CFS to levels similar to supine (114.6 ± 7.1 vs. 114.6 ± 9.3 ms at n = 4). Compared with control subjects, CFS subjects are more sensitive both to orthostatic challenge and to baroreflex/chemoreflex-mediated interventions. Increasing blood pressure with phenylephrine can alter CBFv. In CFS subjects, mitigation of the HUT-induced CBFv decrease with phenylephrine has a beneficial effect on n-back outcome.

Copyright © 2014 the American Physiological Society.

 

Source: Medow MS, Sood S, Messer Z, Dzogbeta S, Terilli C, Stewart JM. Phenylephrine alteration of cerebral blood flow during orthostasis: effect on n-back performance in chronic fatigue syndrome. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2014 Nov 15;117(10):1157-64. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00527.2014. Epub 2014 Oct 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4233252/ (Full article)