Is It Useful to Question the Recovery Behaviour of Patients with ME/CFS or Long COVID?

Post-COVID fatigue: Reduced quality-of-life associated with clinically relevant fatigue in mild disease courses

Fatigue is a pervasive symptom experienced by many individuals after COVID-19. Despite its widespread occurrence, fatigue remains a poorly understood and complex phenomenon. Our aim is to evaluate the subjective experience of mental fatigue after COVID-19 and to assess its significance for daily life functioning. In this online questionnaire study (N = 220), the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), World Health Organization Quality-of-Life assessment (WHOQoL) and a subjective severity rating of the COVID-19 disease progression were used. For our statistical analyses we utilized independent samples t-tests, one-way ANOVA with post-hoc analyses, and a multiple regression. As expected our findings revealed the COVID group reported significantly higher levels of subjective fatigue compared to the control group. Moreover, there was a significant difference between experienced fatigue across the four severity groups. Participants who had a milder course of disease also experienced severe subjective fatigue. Subjective fatigue explained 40% variance in quality-of-life. In conclusion, severe subjective fatigue appears to be associated with increased self-reported COVID-19 symptom severity and lower quality-of-life but is already observable in milder cases. This underscores, firstly, the importance of considering also less severe cases and, secondly, the need to develop rehabilitation and psychological interventions for fatigue.

Safety and Efficacy of Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Long COVID Patients Experiencing Long-Lasting Symptoms

Due to the high prevalence and persistence of long COVID, it is important to evaluate the safety and efficacy of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for patients who experience long-lasting symptoms more than six months after initial COVID-19 onset. Enrolled patients were admitted for a four-week in-patient-PR due to long COVID symptoms (n = 47). The safety of PR was confirmed by the absence of adverse events. Symptom-related outcomes were evaluated pre- and post-PR with significant score changes for: 6 min walking distance (61 [28 to 103] m), quality of life (mental Short Form-12: 10 [6 to 13], and physical: 9 [6 to 12]), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (1 [0 to 3]), fatigue (MFI-20: -19 [-28 to -8]), dyspnea (DYSPNEA-12: -7 [-9 to -2] and mMRC; -1 [-1 to 0]), Nijmegen questionnaire (-8 [-11 to -5]), anxiety and depression (HADS:-4 [-5 to -2] and -2 [-4 to -1], respectively) and posttraumatic stress disorder checklist scale (-8 [-12 to -4]). At the individual level, the percentage of symptomatic patients for each outcome decreased, with a high response rate, and the number of persistent symptoms per patient was reduced from six at PR initiation to three at the end of the program. Our results show that in-PR is safe and efficient at decreasing long-lasting symptoms experienced by long COVID patients at more than six months after initial disease onset.

[Systems thinking, subjective findings and diagnostic "pigeonholing" in ME/CFS: A mainly qualitative public health study from a patient perspective]

BACKGROUND

ME/CFS (Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) is an illness that is predominantly viewed as a neuroimmunological multisystem disease, which is still unknown to many doctors in Germany or which they classify as a psychosomatic disease. From their perspective, ME/CFS patients report significant deficits in terms of medical treatment and a doctor-patient relationship (DP relationship) that is perceived as problematic. The aim of the present study is to more precisely analyse the process of finding a diagnosis as an influencing factor on the DP relationship in ME/CFS from the point of view of those affected.

METHOD

As part of an explorative qualitative survey, 544 ME/CFS patients (> 20 years; 455 ♀, 89 ♂) with a medical diagnosis of ME/CFS were asked in writing about their experiences with regard to the process of finding a diagnosis. The sampling was previously done by self-activation and via the snowball principle. The questionnaire to be answered was structured analogously to a focused, standardized guideline interview. The evaluation was carried out as part of a qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. Some of the results were subsequently quantified.

RESULTS

The participants described what they saw as the inadequate process of making a diagnosis as a central factor in a problematic DP relationship in ME/CFS. From their point of view, many doctors deny the existence of ME/CFS or classify it as a solely psychosomatic illness, insist on their level of knowledge, ignore patient knowledge and disregard scientific information provided. They follow the standard program, think in "pigeonholes" and are incapable of systemic thinking. This has a significant impact on the DP relationship.

DISCUSSION

From the point of view of ME/CFS patients, the process of making a diagnosis and the recognition of ME/CFS as a neuroimmunological multisystem disease are the central aspects of a DP relationship that they experience as problematic. In the past, findings classified as "subjective" and thus ignored, the pigeonholing that is characteristic of biomedically oriented medicine and a healthcare system that opposes systemic thinking when making a diagnosis have all been identified as factors that may have a significant impact on the DP relationship.

[Implications of the quality of the doctor-patient relationship on health in adult ME/CFS patients. A qualitative public health study from a patien perspective]

BACKGROUND

Most patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) are dissatisfied with medical care. They complain about e. g. the lack of medical recognition of ME/CFS as a neuroimmunological disease and the medical perception of those affected as "difficult patients".

METHOD

As part of an exploratory qualitative survey, 544 medically diagnosed ME/CFS patients (> 20 years; 455 ♀, 89 ♂) were asked about their subjective experiences with regard to the doctor-patient relationships (DP relationship) to their treating physicians. The questionnaire was structured analogously to a focused, standardized guideline interview. The written answers were evaluated using a qualitative content analysis according to Mayring.

RESULTS

The participants reported a significant deterioration in their health situation and their quality of life as a result of misdiagnoses and incorrect treatments, the strained DP relationship and the lack of support from the physicians. All of this leads to fear of visiting the doctor, a general loss of trust in physicians, a feeling of helplessness up to bitterness and resignation - with suicide as the last mental option for some patients to escape from this precarious situation. During medical consultations, other participants only addressed health problems that were not related to ME/CFS, or only went to the doctor in an emergency, or refrained from contacting doctors entirely.

CONCLUSIONS

The DP relationship described by the participants as problematic in their opinion has significant negative health consequences for them. It is therefore of great urgency to develop a patient-centred treatment concept that focuses on ME/CFS patients as experts on their own illness.

Long COVID as a functional somatic symptom disorder caused by abnormally precise prior expectations during Bayesian perceptual processing: A new hypothesis and implications for pandemic response

This review proposes a model of Long-COVID where the constellation of symptoms are in fact genuinely experienced persistent physical symptoms that are usually functional in nature and therefore potentially reversible, that is, Long-COVID is a somatic symptom disorder. First, we describe what is currently known about Long-COVID in children and adults. Second, we examine reported "Long-Pandemic" effects that create a risk for similar somatic symptoms to develop in non-COVID-19 patients. Third, we describe what was known about somatization and somatic symptom disorder before the COVID-19 pandemic, and suggest that by analogy, Long-COVID may best be conceptualized as one of these disorders, with similar symptoms and predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors. Fourth, we review the phenomenon of mass sociogenic (functional) illness, and the concept of nocebo effects, and suggest that by analogy, Long-COVID is compatible with these descriptions. Fifth, we describe the current theoretical model of the mechanism underlying functional disorders, the Bayesian predictive coding model for perception. This model accounts for moderators that can make symptom inferences functionally inaccurate and therefore can explain how to understand common predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors. Finally, we discuss the implications of this framework for improved public health messaging during a pandemic, with recommendations for the management of Long-COVID symptoms in healthcare systems. We argue that the current public health approach has induced fear of Long-COVID in the population, including from constant messaging about disabling symptoms of Long-COVID and theorizing irreversible tissue damage as the cause of Long-COVID. This has created a self-fulfilling prophecy by inducing the very predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors for the syndrome. Finally, we introduce the term "Pandemic-Response Syndrome" to describe what previously was labeled Long-COVID. This alternative perspective aims to stimulate research and serve as a lesson learned to avoid a repeat performance in the future.

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

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.

Patients' Post-/Long-COVID Symptoms, Vaccination and Functional Status-Findings from a State-Wide Online Screening Study

(1) Background: Better understanding of post-/long-COVID and limitations in daily life due to the symptoms as well as the preventive potential of vaccinations is required. It is unclear whether the number of doses and timepoint interrelate with the trajectory of post-/long-COVID. Accordingly, we examined how many patients positively screened with post-/long-COVID were vaccinated and whether the vaccination status and the timepoint of vaccination in relation to the acute infection were related to post-/long-COVID symptom severity and patients' functional status (i.e., perceived symptom severity, social participation, workability, and life satisfaction) over time. (2) Methods: 235 patients suffering from post-/long-COVID were recruited into an online survey in Bavaria, Germany, and assessed at baseline (T1), after approximately three weeks (T2), and approximately four weeks (T3). (3) Results: 3.5% were not vaccinated, 2.3% were vaccinated once, 20% twice, and 53.3% three times. Overall, 20.9% did not indicate their vaccination status. The timepoint of vaccination was related to symptom severity at T1, and symptoms decreased significantly over time. Being vaccinated more often was associated with lower life satisfaction and workability at T2. (4) Conclusions: This study provides evidence to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, as it has shown that symptom severity was lower in those patients who were vaccinated prior to the infection compared to those getting infected prior to or at the same time of the vaccination. However, the finding that being vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 more often correlated with lower life satisfaction and workability requires more attention. There is still an urgent necessity for appropriate treatment for overcoming long-/post-COVID symptoms efficiently. Vaccination can be part of prevention measures, and there is still a need for a communication strategy providing objective information about the usefulness and risks of vaccinations.

A Scoping Review of Digital Interventions that Treat Post-/Long-COVID

BACKGROUND

Patients with Post-/Long-COVID need support, and health care professionals require evidence-based patient care. Digital interventions can meet these requirements, especially if personal contact is limited.

OBJECTIVE

We reviewed evidence-based digital interventions, to help manage physical and mental health, for patients with Post-/Long-COVID.

METHODS

A scoping review was carried out; summarizing novel digital health interventions for treating Post-/Long-COVID patients. Using the PICO scheme, original studies were summarized in which patients with Post-/Long-COVID symptoms used digital interventions to help aid recovery.

RESULTS

From all scanned articles, k = 8 original studies matched the inclusion criteria. Three were "pre-test" studies. Three describe the implementation of a tele-rehabilitation program, one is a Post-/Long-COVID program, and one study describes the results of qualitative interviews with patients who used an online peer support group. Following the PICO scheme, we categorized previous studies: studies varied in terms of (P) participants, ranging from adults in different countries, such as former hospitalized patients with COVID-19, to disadvantaged communities in the UK, as well as health-care workers. In addition, the studies included patients who had previously been infected with COVID-19, who had ongoing symptoms, and some studies focused on specific symptoms, some post-COVID-19 or long-term. Other studies included patients in online peer support groups. The (I) interventions also varied. Most interventions used a combination of psychological and physical exercises, but they varied in duration, frequency, and social dimensions. The reviewed studies investigated physical and mental health (C) conditions of patients with Post-/Long-COVID. Most studies reported (O) outcomes/ improvements in physiological health perception, some physical conditions, fatigue, and some psychological aspects such as depression. However, some studies found no improvements in bowel/bladder problems, concentration, short-term memory, unpleasant dreams, physical ailments, perceived bodily pain, emotional ailments, and perceived mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

More systematic research with larger sample sizes is required to overcome sampling bias and include the health care professionals' perspective as well as help patients mobilize support by health care professionals and social network partners. The evidence so far suggests that patients should be provided with digital interventions to manage symptoms and reintegrate into everyday life, including work.

CLINICALTRIAL

Long COVID: major findings, mechanisms and recommendations

Long COVID is an often debilitating illness that occurs in at least 10% of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. More than 200 symptoms have been identified with impacts on multiple organ systems. At least 65 million individuals worldwide are estimated to have long COVID, with cases increasing daily. Biomedical research has made substantial progress in identifying various pathophysiological changes and risk factors and in characterizing the illness; further, similarities with other viral-onset illnesses such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome have laid the groundwork for research in the field. In this Review, we explore the current literature and highlight key findings, the overlap with other conditions, the variable onset of symptoms, long COVID in children and the impact of vaccinations. Although these key findings are critical to understanding long COVID, current diagnostic and treatment options are insufficient, and clinical trials must be prioritized that address leading hypotheses. Additionally, to strengthen long COVID research, future studies must account for biases and SARS-CoV-2 testing issues, build on viral-onset research, be inclusive of marginalized populations and meaningfully engage patients throughout the research process.

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.

The Updated NICE Guidance Exposed the Serious Flaws in CBT and Graded Exercise Therapy Trials for ME/CFS

The British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recently published its updated guidelines for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). NICE concluded, after an extensive review of the literature, that graded exercise therapy (GET) is harmful and should not be used, and that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is only an adjunctive and not a curative treatment. Leading proponents of the cognitive behavioural model (CBmodel) find it difficult to accept this paradigm shift. In, for example, an article in The Lancet, they try to argue that the new NICE guideline is based on ideology instead of science. In this article we reviewed the evidence they used to support their claims. Our analysis shows that the trials they used in support suffered from serious flaws which included badly designed control groups, relying on subjective primary outcomes in non-blinded studies, including patients in their trials who didn’t have the disease under investigation or had a self-limiting disease, selective reporting, outcome switching and making extensive endpoint changes, which created an overlap in entry and recovery criteria, using a post-hoc definition of recovery which included the severely ill, not publishing results that contradict their own conclusion, ignoring their own (objective) null effect, etc. The flaws in these trials all created a bias in favour of the interventions. Despite all these flaws, treatments that are said to lead to recovery in reality do not lead to objective improvement. Therefore, these studies do not support the claim that CBT and GET are effective treatments. Moreover, the arguments that are used to claim that NICE was wrong, in reality, highlight the absence of evidence for the safety and efficacy of CBT and GET and strengthen the decision by NICE to drop CBT and GET as curative treatments for ME/CFS.