Tag: pacing

Interdisciplinary, collaborative D-A-CH (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) consensus statement concerning the diagnostic and treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

in English, German

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a severe, chronic multisystemic disease which, depending on its severity, can lead to considerable physical and cognitive impairment, loss of ability to work and the need for nursing care including artificial nutrition and, in very severe cases, even death.

The aim of this D-A-CH (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) consensus statement is 1) to summarize the current state of knowledge on ME/CFS, 2) to highlight the Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC) as clinical criteria for diagnostics with a focus on the leading symptom post-exertional malaise (PEM) and 3) to provide an overview of current options and possible future developments, particularly with regard to diagnostics and therapy. The D-A-CH consensus statement is intended to support physicians, therapists and valuer in diagnosing patients with suspected ME/CFS by means of adequate anamnesis and clinical-physical examinations as well as the recommended clinical CCC, using the questionnaires and other examination methods presented.

The overview of the two pillars of therapy for ME/CFS, pacing and symptom-relieving therapy options, is intended not only to provide orientation for physicians and therapists, but also to support decision-makers from healthcare policy and insurance companies in determining which therapy options should already be reimbursable by them at this point in time for the indication ME/CFS.

Source: Hoffmann K, Hainzl A, Stingl M, Kurz K, Biesenbach B, Bammer C, Behrends U, Broxtermann W, Buchmayer F, Cavini AM, Fretz GS, Gole M, Grande B, Grande T, Habermann-Horstmeier L, Hackl V, Hamacher J, Hermisson J, King M, Kohl S, Leiss S, Litzlbauer D, Renz-Polster H, Ries W, Sagelsdorff J, Scheibenbogen C, Schieffer B, Schön L, Schreiner C, Thonhofer K, Strasser M, Weber T, Untersmayr E. Interdisziplinäres, kollaboratives D-A-CH Konsensus-Statement zur Diagnostik und Behandlung von Myalgischer Enzephalomyelitis/Chronischem Fatigue-Syndrom [Interdisciplinary, collaborative D-A-CH (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) consensus statement concerning the diagnostic and treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome]. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2024 Aug;136(Suppl 5):103-123. German. doi: 10.1007/s00508-024-02372-y. Epub 2024 May 14. PMID: 38743348. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38743348/

Attenuating Post-exertional Malaise in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Long-COVID: Is Blood Lactate Monitoring the Answer?

Highlights:

  • Lactate monitoring has the potential to extend beyond applied sports settings and could be used to monitor the physiologic and pathophysiological responses to external and internal stimuli in chronic disease areas such as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) and Post-Covid syndrome or Long Covid.
  • It is applicable due to the recurrent, episodic and often disabling post-exertional symptom exacerbation (PESE) otherwise referred to as post-exertional malaise (PEM) which is a characteristic symptom of ME/CFS and Long Covid that can last for days and/or weeks.
  • Lactate monitoring presents an opportunity to support those living with ME/CFS and Long COVID, by allowing patients and practitioners to determine the intensity and anaerobic contribution to everyday tasks which could aid the development of pacing strategies that prevent PEM/PESE.

Source: Faghy PMA, Ashton DRE, McNeils MR, Arena R, Duncan DR. Attenuating Post-exertional Malaise in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Long-COVID: Is Blood Lactate Monitoring the Answer? Curr Probl Cardiol. 2024 Mar 30:102554. doi: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2024.102554. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38561114. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0146280624001932

Graded exercise therapy compared to activity management for paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: pragmatic randomized controlled trial

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.

Source: Gaunt DM, Brigden A, Harris SRS, Hollingworth W, Jago R, Solomon-Moore E, Beasant L, Mills N, Sinai P, Crawley E, Metcalfe C. Graded exercise therapy compared to activity management for paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2024 Mar 2. doi: 10.1007/s00431-024-05458-x. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38429546. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00431-024-05458-x (Full text)

A Scoping Review of ‘Pacing’ for Management of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS): Lessons Learned for the Long COVID Pandemic

Abstract:

Background Controversy over treatment for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a barrier to appropriate treatment. Energy management or pacing is a prominent coping strategy for people with ME/CFS that involves regulating activity to avoid post exertional malaise (PEM), the worsening of symptoms after an activity. Until now, characteristics of pacing, and the effects on patients’ symptoms had not been systematically reviewed. This is problematic as the most common approach to pacing, pacing prescription, and the pooled efficacy of pacing was unknown. Collating evidence may help advise those suffering with similar symptoms, including long COVID, as practitioners would be better informed on methodological approaches to adopt, pacing implementation, and expected outcomes.

Objectives In this scoping review of the literature, we aggregated type of, and outcomes of, pacing in people with ME/CFS.

Eligibility criteria Original investigations concerning pacing were considered in participants with ME/CFS.

Sources of evidence Six electronic databases (PubMed, Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) were searched; and websites MEPedia, Action for ME, and ME Action were also searched for grey literature.

Methods A scoping review was conducted. Review selection and characterisation was performed by two independent reviewers using pretested forms.

Results Authors reviewed 177 titles and abstracts, resulting in included 17 studies: three randomised control trials (RCTs); one uncontrolled trial; one interventional case series; one retrospective observational study; two prospective observational studies; four cross-sectional observational studies; and five cross-sectional analytical studies. Studies included variable designs, durations, and outcome measures. In terms of pacing administration, studies used educational sessions and diaries for activity monitoring. Eleven studies reported benefits of pacing, four studies reported no effect, and two studies reported a detrimental effect in comparison to the control group.

Conclusions Highly variable study designs and outcome measures, allied to poor to fair methodological quality resulted in heterogenous findings and highlights the requirement for more research examining pacing. Looking to the long COVID pandemic, future studies should be RCTs utilising objectively quantified digitised pacing, over a longer duration of examination, using the core outcome set for patient reported outcome measures.

Source: Nilihan E.M. Sanal-Hayes, Marie Mclaughlin, Lawrence D. Hayes, Jacqueline L. Mair, Jane Ormerod, David Carless, Natalie Hilliard, Rachel Meach, Joanne Ingram, Nicholas F. Sculthorpe. A Scoping Review of ‘Pacing’ for Management of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS): Lessons Learned for the Long COVID Pandemic. medRxiv 2023.08.10.23293935; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.10.23293935 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.08.10.23293935v1.full-text (Full text)

A Scoping Review of Pacing for Management of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS): Lessons Learned for the Long COVID Pandemic

Abstract:

Background: Controversy over treatment for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a barrier to appropriate treatment. Energy management or pacing is a prominent coping strategy for people with ME/CFS that involves regulating activity to avoid post exertional malaise (PEM), the worsening of symptoms after an activity. Until now, characteristics of pacing, and the effects on patients’ symptoms had not been systematically reviewed. This is problematic as the most common approach to pacing, pacing prescription, and the pooled efficacy of pacing was unknown. Collating evidence may help advise those suffering with similar symptoms, including long COVID, as practitioners would be better informed on methodological approaches to adopt, pacing implementation, and expected outcomes.

Objectives: In this scoping review of the literature, we aggregated type of, and outcomes of, pacing in people with ME/CFS. Eligibility criteria: Original investigations concerning pacing were considered in participants with ME/CFS. Sources of evidence: Six electronic databases (PubMed, Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) were searched; and websites MEPedia, Action for ME, and ME Action were also searched for grey literature.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted. Review selection and characterisation was performed by two independent reviewers using pretested forms.

Results: Authors reviewed 177 titles and abstracts, resulting in included 17 studies: three randomised control trials (RCTs); one uncontrolled trial; one interventional case series; one retrospective observational study; two prospective observational studies; four cross-sectional observational studies; and five cross-sectional analytical studies. Studies included variable designs, durations, and outcome measures. In terms of pacing administration, studies used educational sessions and diaries for activity monitoring. Eleven studies reported benefits of pacing, four studies reported no effect, and two studies reported a detrimental effect in comparison to the control group.

Conclusions: Highly variable study designs and outcome measures, allied to poor to fair methodological quality resulted in heterogenous findings and highlights the requirement for more research examining pacing. Looking to the long COVID pandemic, future studies should be RCTs utilising objectively quantified digitised pacing, over a longer duration of examination, using the core outcome set for patient reported outcome measures.

Source: Nilihan Sanal-Hayes, Marie Mclaughlin, Lawrence D D Hayes, Jacqueline Mair, Jane Ormerod, David Carless, Natalie Hilliard, Rachel Meach, Joanne Ingram, Nicholas Sculthorpe. A Scoping Review of Pacing for Management of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS): Lessons Learned for the Long COVID Pandemic. medRxiv 2023.08.10.23293935; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.10.23293935 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.08.10.23293935v1 (Full text available as PDF file)

The relevance of pacing strategies in managing symptoms of post-COVID-19 syndrome

Abstract:

Background: Post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) shares many features with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). PCS represents a major health issue worldwide because it severely impacts patients’ work activities and their quality of life. In the absence of treatment for both conditions and given the beneficial effect of pacing strategies in ME/CFS, we conducted this study to assess the effectiveness of pacing in PCS patients.

Methods: We retrospectively included patients meeting the World Health Organization definition of PCS who attended the Internal Medicine Department of Angers University Hospital, France between June 2020 and June 2022, and were followed up until December 2022. Pacing strategies were systematically proposed for all patients. Their medical records were reviewed and data related to baseline and follow-up assessments were collected. This included epidemiological characteristics, COVID-19 symptoms and associated conditions, fatigue features, perceived health status, employment activity, and the degree of pacing adherence assessed by the engagement in pacing subscale (EPS). Recovery was defined as the ability to return to work, and improvement was regarded as the reduction of the number and severity of symptoms.

Results: A total of 86 patients were included and followed-up for a median time of 10 [6-13] months. Recovery and improvement rates were 33.7% and 23.3%, respectively. The EPS score was the only variable significantly associated with recovery on multivariate analysis (OR 40.43 [95% CI 6.22-262.6], p < 0.001). Patients who better adhered to pacing (high EPS scores) experienced significantly higher recovery and improvement rates (60-33.3% respectively) than those with low (5.5-5.5% respectively), or moderate (4.3-17.4% respectively) scores.

Conclusion: Our findings demonstrated that pacing is effective in the management of patients with PCS, and that high levels of adherence to pacing are associated with better outcomes.

Source: Ghali A, Lacombe V, Ravaiau C, Delattre E, Ghali M, Urbanski G, Lavigne C. The relevance of pacing strategies in managing symptoms of post-COVID-19 syndrome. J Transl Med. 2023 Jun 8;21(1):375. doi: 10.1186/s12967-023-04229-w. PMID: 37291581; PMCID: PMC10248991. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10248991/ (Full text)

Co-production of a feasibility trial of pacing interventions for Long COVID

Abstract:

Background: The high incidence of COVID-19 globally has led to a large prevalence of Long COVID but there is a lack of evidence-based treatments. There is a need to evaluate existing treatments for symptoms associated with Long COVID. However, there is first a need to evaluate the feasibility of undertaking randomised controlled trials of interventions for the condition. We aimed to co-produce a feasibility study of non-pharmacological interventions to support people with Long COVID.

Methods: A consensus workshop on research prioritisation was conducted with patients and other stakeholders. This was followed by the co-production of the feasibility trial with a group of patient partners, which included the design of the study, the selection of interventions, and the production of dissemination strategies.

Results: The consensus workshop was attended by 23 stakeholders, including six patients. The consensus from the workshop was to develop a clinical trial platform that focused on testing different pacing interventions and resources. For the co-production of the feasibility trial, patient partners selected three pacing resources to evaluate (video, mobile application, and book) and co-designed feasibility study processes, study materials and undertook usability testing of the digital trial platform.

Conclusion: In conclusion, this paper reports the principles and process used to co-produce a feasibility study of pacing interventions for Long COVID. Co-production was effective and influenced important aspects of the study.

Source: Turner GM, McMullan C, Aiyegbusi OL, Hughes SE, Walker A, Jeyes F, Adler Y, Chong A, Buckland L, Stanton D, Davies EH, Haroon S, Calvert M. Co-production of a feasibility trial of pacing interventions for Long COVID. Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Mar 30;9(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00429-2. PMID: 36997975; PMCID: PMC10061378. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10061378/ (Full text)

An international survey of experiences and attitudes towards pacing using a heart rate monitor for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

Background: Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) is a complex, multi-system neurological condition. The defining feature of ME is post-exertional malaise (PEM) with over 30 symptoms triggered by physical, cognitive, emotional and social activity.

The cause of PEM is unclear but one area of research using cardio-pulmonary exercise tests show a reduced ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT) with repeated tests leading to PEM.

Pacing with heart rate monitoring (HRM) provides feedback to maintain activity intensity below the VAT. There is only one piece of research investigating the use of HRM although a number of guidelines recommend it.

Objective: To identify the experiences and attitudes of people with ME towards HRM.

Methods: A 40 question online survey was devised and released on ME websites, Twitter and Facebook pages. People with ME read the information sheet and followed an online link to the survey. The survey was open for three weeks and all answers were anonymous.

Results: 488 people with ME completed the survey. Most participants were female, 35-50 years and with a reported illness of greater than 5 years. Over 100 types of HR monitor used. Over 30 benefits and over 30 negatives identified. HRM reduced severity of ME and severity and duration of PEM.

Conclusion: Although there are limitations, HRM has many benefits including helping PwME to understand and manage their PEM and support them to increase their activities, including work. There is a need for more research and education of healthcare professionals in the safe use of HRM.

Source: Clague-Baker N, Davenport TE, Madi M, Dickinson K, Leslie K, Bull M, Hilliard N. An international survey of experiences and attitudes towards pacing using a heart rate monitor for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Work. 2023 Mar 13. doi: 10.3233/WOR-220512. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36938766. https://content.iospress.com/articles/work/wor220512 (Full text)

Post-exertional malaise among people with long COVID compared to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)

Abstract:

Background: Long COVID describes a condition with symptoms that linger for months to years following acute COVID-19. Many of these Long COVID symptoms are like those experienced by patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS).

Objective: We wanted to determine if people with Long COVID experienced post-exertional malaise (PEM), the hallmark symptom of ME/CFS, and if so, how it compared to PEM experienced by patients with ME/CFS.

Methods: A questionnaire that asked about the domains of PEM including triggers, experience, recovery, and prevention was administered to 80 people seeking care for Long COVID at Bateman Horne Center. Their responses were compared to responses about PEM given by 151 patients with ME/CFS using chi-square tests of independence.

Results: All but one Long COVID respondent reported having PEM. There were many significant differences in the types of PEM triggers, symptoms experienced during PEM, and ways to recover and prevent PEM between Long COVID and ME/CFS. Similarities between Long COVID and ME/CFS included low and medium physical and cognitive exertion to trigger PEM, symptoms of fatigue, pain, immune reaction, neurologic, orthostatic intolerance, and gastrointestinal symptoms during PEM, rest to recover from PEM, and pacing to prevent PEM.

Conclusion: People with Long COVID experience PEM. There were significant differences in PEM experienced by people with Long COVID compared to patients with ME/CFS. This may be due to the newness of Long COVID, not knowing what exertional intolerance is or how to manage it.

Source: Vernon SD, Hartle M, Sullivan K, Bell J, Abbaszadeh S, Unutmaz D, Bateman L. Post-exertional malaise among people with long COVID compared to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Work. 2023 Mar 7. doi: 10.3233/WOR-220581. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36911963. https://content.iospress.com/articles/work/wor220581 (Full text)

Effect of using a structured pacing protocol on post-exertional symptom exacerbation and health status in a longitudinal cohort with the post-COVID-19 syndrome

Abstract:

Background: Post Exertional Symptom Exacerbation (PESE) is a characteristic symptom of Post-COVID Syndrome (PCS).

Objectives: This prospective study investigated the effect of a 6-week structured World Health Organisation (WHO) Borg CR-10 5-phase pacing protocol on PESE episodes and quality of life in a cohort of individuals with long-standing PCS (average duration of symptoms was 17 months).

Methods: Participants received weekly telephone calls with a clinician to complete the Leeds PESE Questionnaire (LPQ) and identify the appropriate phase of the pacing protocol. EQ-5D 5L was completed at the intervention’s beginning and end to measure overall health.

Results: Thirty-one participants completed the 6-week protocol, with a statistically and clinically significant reduction in the average number of PESE episodes (from 3.4 episodes in week one to 1.1 in week six), with an average decrease of 16% (95% CI: 9% to 24%; p<0.001) each week, and reduction across all three exertional triggers (physical, cognitive, and emotional). Physical activity levels showed moderate improvements during the intervention period. Mean EQ-5D 5L scores improved from 51.4 points to 60.6 points (paired difference of 9.2 points, 95% CI: 3.2 to 15.2 points; p=0.004).

Conclusions: A structured pacing protocol significantly reduces PESE episodes and improves overall health in PCS.

Source: Parker M, Sawant HB, Flannery T, Tarrant R, Shardha J, Bannister R, Ross D, Halpin S, Greenwood DC, Sivan M. Effect of using a structured pacing protocol on post-exertional symptom exacerbation and health status in a longitudinal cohort with the post-COVID-19 syndrome. J Med Virol. 2022 Dec 2. doi: 10.1002/jmv.28373. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36461167. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36461167/