Energy envelope maintenance among patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome: Implications of limited energy reserves

Practical Recommendations for Exercise Training in Patients with Long COVID with or without Post-exertional Malaise: A Best Practice Proposal

People with long COVID may suffer from a wide range of ongoing symptoms including fatigue, exertional dyspnea, reduced exercise performance, and others. In particular, impaired exercise performance is a condition that can be recovered in many people through an individualized physical exercise training program. However, clinical experience has shown that the presence of post-exertional malaise (PEM) is a significant barrier to physical exercise training in people with long COVID. Currently, there is no guideline or consensus available on how to apply exercise training in this cohort. Therefore, we conducted a literature review in the PubMed library using the following search terms: "COVID", "post-COVID", "long COVID" and "exercise" searching for studies from January 2020 to January 2024. Data from 46 trials were included. Exercise training regimes were very heterogeneous and none of these studies reported on the management of PEM in the context of an exercise training program. Based on the feedback from an additional survey that was answered by 14 international experts in the field of exercise training in long COVID, combined with the authors´ own extensive practical experience, a best practice proposal for exercise training recommendations has been developed. This proposal differentiates exercise procedures according to the presence of no, mild/moderate or severe PEM in people with long COVID. These recommendations may guide allied healthcare professionals worldwide in initiating and adjusting exercise training programs for people with long COVID, stratified according to the presence and severity of PEM.

Understanding, diagnosing, and treating Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome - State of the art: Report of the 2nd international meeting at the Charité Fatigue Center

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a devastating disease affecting millions of people worldwide. Due to the 2019 pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), we are facing a significant increase of ME/CFS prevalence. On May 11th to 12th, 2023, the second international ME/CFS conference of the Charité Fatigue Center was held in Berlin, Germany, focusing on pathomechanisms, diagnosis, and treatment. During the two-day conference, more than 100 researchers from various research fields met on-site and over 700 attendees participated online to discuss the state of the art and novel findings in this field. Key topics from the conference included: the role of the immune system, dysfunction of endothelial and autonomic nervous system, and viral reactivation. Furthermore, there were presentations on innovative diagnostic measures and assessments for this complex disease, cutting-edge treatment approaches, and clinical studies. Despite the increased public attention due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the subsequent rise of Long COVID-19 cases, and the rise of funding opportunities to unravel the pathomechanisms underlying ME/CFS, this severe disease remains highly underresearched. Future adequately funded research efforts are needed to further explore the disease etiology and to identify diagnostic markers and targeted therapies.

A scoping review of 'Pacing' for management of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS): lessons learned for the long COVID pandemic

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. Whilst a definitive definition of pacing is not unanimous within the literature or healthcare providers, it typically comprises 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, to fully capture patient surveys not published in academic journals.

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 17 included 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, our results suggest future studies should be RCTs utilising objectively quantified digitised pacing, over a longer duration of examination (i.e. longitudinal studies), using the core outcome set for patient reported outcome measures. Until these are completed, the literature base is insufficient to inform treatment practises for people with ME/CFS and long COVID.

What has cardiac rehabilitation looked like in the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned for the future

The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted widespread national shutdown, halting or dramatically reducing the delivery of non-essential outpatient services including cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Center-based CR services were closed for as few as two weeks to greater than one year and the uncertainty surrounding the duration of the lockdown phase prompted programs to consider programmatic adaptations that would allow for the safe and effective delivery of CR services. Among the actions taken to accommodate in person CR sessions included increasing the distance between exercise equipment and/or limiting the number of patients per session. Legislative approval of reimbursing telehealth or virtual services presented an opportunity to reach patients that may otherwise have not considered attending CR during or even before the pandemic. Additionally, the considerable range of symptoms and infection severity as well as the risk of developing long lasting, debilitating symptoms has complicated exercise recommendations. Important lessons from publications reporting findings from clinical settings have helped shape the way in which exercise is applied, with much more left to discover. The overarching aim of this paper is to review how programs adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic and identify lessons learned that have positively influenced the future of CR delivery.

A new clinical challenge: supporting patients coping with the long-term effects of COVID-19

Mental Health Practitioners (MHPs) have a unique opportunity to provide resources and support to those suffering from Long COVID (LC), the post infectious illness that often follows an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. In working with these individuals, MHPs can learn from the experiences of patients with another post-infectious disease known as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). ME/CFS was once thought to be a psychologically mediated disorder caused by deconditioning and the fear of exertion following a precipitating event such as a viral infection. Research now shows that LC and ME/CFS are biomedical, multisystem, complex physiologic diseases. This article provides a framework to MHPs for the treatment of LC patients using knowledge derived from three decades of research on ME/CFS.

Long COVID and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS)-A Systemic Review and Comparison of Clinical Presentation and Symptomatology

Background and Objectives: Long COVID defines a series of chronic symptoms that patients may experience after resolution of acute COVID-19. Early reports from studies with patients with long COVID suggests a constellation of symptoms with similarities to another chronic medical illness-myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). A review study comparing and contrasting ME/CFS with reported symptoms of long COVID may yield mutualistic insight into the characterization and management of both conditions. Materials and Methods: A systemic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and PsycInfo through to 31 January 2021 for studies related to long COVID symptomatology. The literature search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA methodology. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Long COVID symptoms reported by the included studies were compared to a list of ME/CFS symptoms compiled from multiple case definitions. Twenty-five out of 29 known ME/CFS symptoms were reported by at least one selected long COVID study. Conclusions: Early studies into long COVID symptomatology suggest many overlaps with clinical presentation of ME/CFS. The need for monitoring and treatment for patients post-COVID is evident. Advancements and standardization of long COVID research methodologies would improve the quality of future research, and may allow further investigations into the similarities and differences between long COVID and ME/CFS.