Tag: Tack

Assessment and Incidence Determination of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Following a SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Prospective Cohort of Hospital Employees

Abstract:

Background and Objectives: Post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS), characterized by persistent fatigue, can develop after a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a chronic, post-infectious condition marked by severe fatigue and post-exertional malaise. This study aimed to determine the incidence and characteristics of PCS and ME/CFS in a cohort of hospital employees (HEs) with SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Materials and Methods: All HEs who tested SARS-CoV-2-positive between March 2020 and May 2021 who later reported persistent fatigue were invited for an assessment from July to December 2022. Canadian Consensus Criteria were used for the diagnosis of ME/CFS. Assessments included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and determination of coagulation factors, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) antibodies and autoantibodies (AABs) against G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs).

Results: Of the 221 HEs, 11.8% (95% confidence interval (CI95%) 7.8-16.8, 26/221) still reported persistent fatigue and 3.2% (CI95% 1.3-6.4, 7/221) were diagnosed with ME/CFS. In total, 19 HEs (median age 51.0 years, 89.4% female, 63.1% possible or confirmed nosocomial infection) participated in our assessment. In 42.1% (8/19) MoCA results were below normal. Laboratory values showed increased GPCR AABs in 66.6% (12/18), possible EBV reactivation in 86.7% (13/15) and coagulation parameters suggesting inflammatory processes in 38.9% (7/18).

Conclusions: Our study was able to determine lower-bound incidences of PCS with fatigue and ME/CFS and demonstrated a diagnostic pathway for HEs following SARS-CoV-2 infections. Possible EBV reactivation, increased GPCR AABs and potential coagulation cascade activation may play a pathogenic role.

Source: Tack M, Gruber R, Betting L, Herbrandt S, Wu S, Schlößer B, Häussermann P, Maegele M, Schlang G, Mattner F. Assessment and Incidence Determination of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Following a SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Prospective Cohort of Hospital Employees. Medicina (Kaunas). 2026 Mar 3;62(3):480. doi: 10.3390/medicina62030480. PMID: 41901562. https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/62/3/480 (Full study)

The risk of blaming patients for their lack of recovery

Dear Editor,

In their article on the management of patients with severe myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), Miller et al. propose a biopsychosocial model in which “a gradual, controlled approach to increasing activity is an important part of rehabilitation.” This approach, however, is far from new and has been tested in randomized trials with limited success.

The PACE study, for example, examined fourteen sessions of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) or graded exercise therapy (GET), each combined with specialist medical care. Treatment aimed to help ME/CFS patients gradually resume physical activities, address unhelpful cognitions, and reverse deconditioning. Recovery rates for GET and CBT were low and did not differ significantly from the control group, with rates of 4%, 7%, and 3%, respectively, as defined by the study’s pre-registered recovery criteria. [1] Employment and fitness data also showed no clinically significant improvement. [2]

Read the full letter by Michiel Tack here: https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r977/rr-3

Bias in Exercise Trials for ME/CFS: the Importance of Objective Outcomes and Long-term Follow-up

Sharpe and colleagues recommend that patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) be offered cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET)1, advice that contrasts with recent NICE guidance on ME/CFS.2 The authors argue that “there are many randomized trials indicating the safety and efficacy of these treatments.”1

All of these trials, however, were nonblinded and relied on subjective symptom questionnaires as their main outcomes, a combination that creates a high risk of response bias. Treatment manuals used in these trials included explicit encouragements to raise patients’ expectations of GET and CBT. One patient booklet, for example, informed patients: “You will experience a snowballing effect as increasing fitness leads to increasing confidence in your ability. You will have conquered CFS by your own effort and you will be back in control of your body again.”3 These encouragements were not provided to participants in the control group and might have influenced how patients rated their health. In contrast to what Sharpe and colleagues claim, measuring the expectations of patients before the trial begins, does not address how therapists might have influenced symptom reporting during the trial.

There are further arguments that suggest these trials might have measured response bias rather than improvements in health. There were, for example, no clinically significant differences on objective outcome measures that are less prone to response bias such as employment figures, activity levels, or fitness tests.3 In addition, at long-term follow-up, the control group seemed to perform just as well as participants who received GET or CBT. This could not be explained by additional treatment received after the trial ended.4 These findings are difficult to interpret if patients did indeed rehabilitate successfully following GET or CBT. It is unfortunate that the authors, who were primary researchers in many of these trials, do not address these concerns.

Lastly, Sharpe and colleagues argue that “harm reported from patient community surveys reflects poorly implemented therapy.”1 Patient surveys, however, indicate that ME/CFS patients report harm of GET even if prescribed by a specialist or physiotherapist.5 The authors have previously been challenged for misrepresenting the findings of these surveys.5 Post-exertional malaise or a marked worsening of symptoms when patients exceed their energy limit, is a characteristic feature of ME/CFS.2 There are therefore reasonable safety concerns about treatments such as GET and CBT that try to push patients to exceed their limits.

Read the full article HERE.

Source: Tack, M. Bias in Exercise Trials for ME/CFS: the Importance of Objective Outcomes and Long-term Follow-up. J GEN INTERN MED 37, 3193 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-022-07704-0  (Full text)