Graded exercise therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome in secondary care - a benchmarking study

NICE guideline on ME/CFS: robust advice based on a thorough review of the evidence

In 2021, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence produced an evidence-based guideline on the diagnosis and management of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), a disabling long-term condition of unknown cause. The guideline provides clear support for people living with ME/CFS, their families and carers, and for clinicians. A recent opinion piece published in the journal suggested that there were anomalies in the processing and interpretation of the evidence when developing the guideline and proposed eight areas where these anomalies were thought to have occurred. We outline how these opinions are based on a misreading or misunderstanding of the guideline process or the guideline, which provides a balanced and reasoned approach to the diagnosis and management of this challenging condition.

IA-PACS-CFS: a double-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled, exploratory trial of immunoadsorption in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) including patients with post-acute COVID-19 CFS (PACS-CFS)

BACKGROUND

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a severely debilitating condition which markedly restricts activity and function of affected people. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic ME/CFS related to post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) can be diagnosed in a subset of patients presenting with persistent fatigue 6 months after a mostly mild SARS-CoV-2 infection by fulfillment of the Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC 2003). Induction of autoimmunity after viral infection is a mechanism under intensive investigation. In patients with ME/CFS, autoantibodies against thyreoperoxidase (TPO), beta-adrenergic receptors (ß2AR), and muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (MAR) are frequently found, and there is evidence for effectiveness of immunomodulation with B cell depleting therapy, cyclophosphamide, or intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG). Preliminary studies on the treatment of ME/CFS patients with immunoadsorption (IA), an apheresis that removes antibodies from plasma, suggest clinical improvement. However, evidence from placebo-controlled trials is currently missing.

METHODS

In this double-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled, exploratory trial the therapeutic effect of five cycles of IA every other day in patients with ME/CFS, including patients with post-acute COVID-19 chronic fatigue syndrome (PACS-CFS), will be evaluated using the validated Chalder Fatigue Scale, a patient-reported outcome measurement. A total of 66 patients will be randomized at a 2:1 ratio: 44 patients will receive IA (active treatment group) and 22 patients will receive a sham apheresis (control group). Moreover, safety, tolerability, and the effect of IA on patient-reported outcome parameters, biomarker-related objectives, cognitive outcome measurements, and physical parameters will be assessed. Patients will be hospitalized at the clinical site from day 1 to day 10 to receive five IA treatments and medical visits. Four follow-up visits (including two visits at site and two visits via telephone call) at month 1 (day 30), 2 (day 60), 4 (day 120), and 6 (day 180; EOS, end of study visit) will take place.

DISCUSSION

Although ME/CFS including PACS-CFS causes an immense individual, social, and economic burden, we lack efficient therapeutic options. The present study aims to investigate the efficacy of immunoadsorption and to contribute to the etiological understanding and establishment of diagnostic tools for ME/CFS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration Number: NCT05710770 . Registered on 02 February 2023.

Markers of oxidative stress during post-COVID-19 fatigue: a hypothesis-generating, exploratory pilot study on hospital employees

Introduction

Post-COVID-19 fatigue is common after recovery from COVID-19. Excess formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) leading to oxidative stress-related mitochondrial dysfunction is referred to as a cause of these chronic fatigue-like symptoms. The present observational pilot study aimed to investigate a possible relationship between the course of ROS formation, subsequent oxidative stress, and post-COVID-19 fatigue.

Method

A total of 21 post-COVID-19 employees of the General Hospital Nuremberg suffering from fatigue-like symptoms were studied during their first consultation (T1: on average 3 months after recovery from COVID-19), which comprised an educational talk on post-COVID-19 symptomatology and individualized outpatient strategies to resume normal activity, and 8 weeks thereafter (T2). Fatigue severity was quantified using the Chalder Fatigue Scale together with a health survey (Patient Health Questionnaire) and self-report on wellbeing (12-Item Short-Form Health Survey). We measured whole blood superoxide anion (O 2 • - ) production rate (electron spin resonance, as a surrogate for ROS production) and oxidative stress-induced DNA strand breaks (single cell gel electrophoresis: "tail moment" in the "comet assay").

Results

Data are presented as mean ± SD or median (interquartile range) depending on the data distribution. Differences between T1 and T2 were tested using a paired Wilcoxon rank sign or t-test. Fatigue intensity decreased from 24 ± 5 at T1 to 18 ± 8 at T2 (p < 0.05), which coincided with reduced O 2 • - formation (from 239 ± 55 to 195 ± 59 nmol/s; p < 0.05) and attenuated DNA damage [tail moment from 0.67 (0.36-1.28) to 0.32 (0.23-0.71); p = 0.05].

Discussion

Our pilot study shows that post-COVID-19 fatigue coincides with (i) enhanced O 2 • - formation and oxidative stress, which are (ii) reduced with attenuation of fatigue symptoms.

The Draft Report by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare Does Not Provide Any Evidence That Graded Exercise Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Are Safe and Effective Treatments for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

The German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQWiG) recently published its draft report to the government about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). The IQWiG concluded that graded exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) should be recommended in the treatment for mild and moderate ME/CFS based on two CBT and two GET studies. In this article, we reviewed the evidence used by IQWiG to support their claims, because their conclusion is diametrically opposed to the conclusion by the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in its recently updated ME/CFS guidelines. Our analysis shows that the trials IQWiG used in support suffered from serious flaws, which included badly designed control groups; relying on subjective primary outcomes in non-blinded studies; alliance and response shift bias, including patients in their trials who did not have the disease under investigation, selective reporting, making extensive endpoint changes and low to very low adherence of treatments. Our analysis also shows that the report itself used one CBT and one GET study that both examined a different treatment. The report also used a definition of CBT that does not reflect the way it is being used in ME/CFS or was tested in the studies. The report noted that one study used a wrong definition of post-exertional malaise (PEM), the main characteristic of the disease, according to the report. Yet, it ignored the consequence of this, that less than the required minimum percentage of patients had the disease under investigation in that study. It also ignored the absence of improvement on most of the subjective outcomes, as well as the fact that the IQWiG methods handbook states that one should use objective outcomes and not rely on subjective outcomes in non-blinded studies. The report concluded that both treatments did not lead to objective improvement in the six-minute walk test but then ignored that. The report did not analyze the other objective outcomes of the studies (step test and occupational and benefits status), which showed a null effect. Finally, the report states that the studies do not report on safety yet assumes that the treatments are safe based on a tendency towards small subjective improvements in fatigue and physical functioning, even though the adherence to the treatments was (very) low and the studies included many patients who did not have the disease under investigation and, consequently, did not suffer from exertion intolerance contrary to ME/CFS patients. At the same time, it ignored and downplayed all the evidence that both treatments are not safe, even when the evidence was produced by a British university. In conclusion, the studies used by the report do not provide any evidence that CBT and GET are safe and effective. Consequently, the report and the studies do not provide any support for the recommendation to use CBT and GET for ME/CFS or long COVID, which, in many cases, is the same or resembles ME/CFS, after an infection with SARS-CoV-2.