metricas
covid
Buscar en
Revista Científica de la Sociedad Española de Enfermería Neurológica (English ed.)
Toda la web
Inicio Revista Científica de la Sociedad Española de Enfermería Neurológica (Englis... Systematic review of chronic fatigue syndrome treatment methodology
Información de la revista
Visitas
95
Original article
Acceso a texto completo
Disponible online el 28 de octubre de 2024
Systematic review of chronic fatigue syndrome treatment methodology
Revisión sistemática de la metodología de tratamiento del síndrome de fatiga crónica
Visitas
95
Sergio López Barbetaa,
Autor para correspondencia
Sergio.lopez@ufv.es

Corresponding author.
, Manuela Carrión Martínezb, Alejandro Lendínez Mesac, Alberto Diliz Vieirad, Carlos Díaz-Rodrígueze
a Escuela Postgrado UFV, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain
b Unidad de Neurorrehabilitación, Instituto de Rehabilitación Neurológica (Irneuro), Madrid, Spain
c Servicio de Neurología, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Grupo de Investigación InveCuid, Fundación de Investigación Sanitaria Imas12, Madrid, Spain
d Facultad HM Hospitales de Ciencias de la Salud de la UCJC - HM Hospitales, Universidad Camilo José Cela, Villafranca del Castillo, Madrid, Spain
e Departamento de Ciencias de la Actividad Física y del Deporte, Facultad Ciencias de la Salud. Universidad EUNEIZ, Vitoria Gasteiz, Spain
Este artículo ha recibido
Recibido 06 Febrero 2024. Aceptado 05 Abril 2024
Información del artículo
Resumen
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Figuras (1)
Tablas (3)
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Table 2. Authors’ conclusions.
Table 3. Origen of the study and journal impact factor.
Mostrar másMostrar menos
Material adicional (1)
Abstract
Introduction

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a highly prevalent pathology that has not been clearly defined. Currently, there is no universally accepted treatment protocol, and the diagnostic markers, etiology, and specific pathophysiology for developing effective non-pharmacological treatments remain unknown.

Objective

To determine the currently established rehabilitation treatment methodologies for CFS. In addition, to establish an analysis of the efficacy of the treatment plans studied and to determine advances on the etiology of CFS.

Methods

A systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published since 2011 was conducted. Studies evaluating non-pharmacological interventions for adult CFS patients were included, differentiating them according to chosen diagnostic criteria and variable measurement. The treatment hypothesis of the selected interventions was also taken into account.

Results

17 RCTs were included, 6 of which based their performance protocol on a self-management booklet and 11 of which did so through face-to-face involvement of a therapist and active therapy. The results of these studies were assessed primarily by patient-reported outcomes, and 5 of these studies reported on objective outcome measures.

Conclusion

There is no significant evidence on the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions in CFS patients. In addition, the lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria makes it difficult to compare studies and to develop a standardised treatment plan. Advances in the aetiology and pathophysiology of CFS point to the need for a broader therapeutic approach.

Keywords:
Fatigue syndrome, chronic
Nervous system
Pain
Physical therapy modalities
Systematic review
Therapeutics
Resumen
Introducción

El síndrome de fatiga crónica (SFC) es una patología de alta prevalencia que no ha sido definida con claridad. En la actualidad, no existe un protocolo de tratamiento universalmente aceptado, y los marcadores diagnósticos, la etiología y la fisiopatología específica para desarrollar tratamientos no farmacológicos eficaces siguen siendo desconocidos.

Objetivo

Determinar las metodologías de tratamiento de rehabilitación establecidas actualmente para el SFC. Además, establecer un análisis de la eficacia de los planes de tratamiento estudiados y determinar los avances sobre la etiología del SFC.

Método

Se llevó a cabo una revisión sistemática de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados (ECA) publicados desde el 2011. Se incluyeron estudios que evaluaban las intervenciones no farmacológicas para pacientes adultos con SFC, diferenciándolos según criterios diagnósticos escogidos y medición de variables. Asimismo, se tuvo en cuenta la hipótesis de tratamiento de las intervenciones seleccionadas.

Resultados

Se incluyeron 17 ECA, 6 de los cuales basaron su protocolo de actuación en un folleto de autogestión y 11 lo hicieron a través de la participación presencial de un terapeuta y terapia activa. Los resultados de estos estudios se evaluaron principalmente mediante medidas de resultado informadas por el paciente y 5 de estos estudios informaron sobre medidas de resultado objetivas.

Conclusión

No existen evidencias de carácter significativo sobre la eficacia de las intervenciones no farmacológicas en pacientes con SFC. Además, la falta de consenso en los criterios diagnósticos dificulta la comparación entre estudios y la elaboración de un plan de tratamiento estandarizado. Los avances en la etiología y fisiopatología del SFC apuntan a la necesidad de un abordaje terapéutico más amplio.

Palabras clave:
Síndrome de fatiga crónica
Sistema nervioso
Dolor
Modalidades de fisioterapia
Revisión sistemática
Terapéutica
Glossary
Texto completo
Introduction

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) or myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) is one of the most prevalent neurological diseases today,1 affecting .07–2.6% of the world's population.

In recent years, the incidence of CFS has increased due to its relationship with severe acute respiratory syndrome type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its chronic form, long-term COVID.2

This pathology is associated with a low quality of life due to a decrease in the patient's activity levels, affecting job performance and social interactions.3 Its incidence is higher in women than in men and it affects all age ranges and demographic groups.4

For years CFS was included in the group of psychiatric diseases, being approached through the psychogenic or psychosomatic model and considering its perpetuation due to avoidance behaviours, health anxiety, hypochondria or personality traits. However, this theory was discarded after learning about the involvement of post-exertional malaise (PEM), which is characterised by a marked and rapid physical and/or cognitive fatigability with minimal effort, an exacerbation of symptoms after effort, immediate or delayed exhaustion after exercise, a prolonged recovery period (24 h or more) and a low threshold of physical and mental fatigability. Currently, CFS is considered a chronic disease with a low rate of recovery of functionality.5

Regarding symptoms, CFS includes PEM, cognitive impairment, sleep disorders, autonomic dysfunction and/or muscle or joint pain, headache, concentration or short-term memory problems, flu-like syndrome, susceptibility to infections, digestive disorders, nocturia, etc.1,6

With regards to diagnostic criteria guides, the most commonly used in CFS are the Oxford criteria from 1991,7 the criteria of the Centre for Disease Control (Fukuda, 1994),8 the Canadian consensus criteria (CCC) of 2003,9 the international consensus criteria for ME (ME-ICC10 and the criteria for systemic exertion intolerance disease (SEID).

However, the clinical approach guidelines do not specify which population they are aimed at, with the standard treatment for mild or moderate CFS being cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET), both accepted by the Centres for Disease Control in the USA and the NICE guidelines in the United Kingdom.11

Regarding its aetiology, since 2012 CFS has been studied as a central sensitisation disorder due to hyper reactivity of the CNS to extrinsic and intrinsic stimuli,12 but currently there is no clear definition or a universally accepted treatment or prevention plan.

Against this backdrop, our main objective with this systematic review was to provide updated awareness of the rehabilitation treatment methodologies currently established for CFS. Furthermore, we sought to establish an analysis of the efficacy of studied treatment plans and to determine advances on the aetiology and pathophysiology of the disease.

MethodDesign

A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the treatment methodology of non-pharmacological interventions applied in patients with CFS, according to their efficacy and methodology of action. The studies were grouped and evaluated according to the therapy used, the diagnostic criteria and the measurement of variables. The review was limited to randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Search criteria

The recommendations of the PRISMA13 guideline were followed in carrying out this systematic review. A literature search was conducted using the main electronic literature databases Pubmed (www.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), Cochrane (www.cochrane.org) and PEDro (www.pedro.org.au/spanish/), covering the period from 2011 to June 2022. This timeline was chosen due to the great boom in the pathology in the last 10 years, the diagnostic advances that have occurred, and the latest change in the definition of CFS in the international consensus criteria in 2011.

The search terms used were: (Fatigue Syndrome, Chronic OR Myalgic Encephalomyelitis) AND (Physical Therapy OR Treatment) AND (Randomized Controlled Trial OR Clinical Trial OR Systematic Review). The type of trial was limited to RCTs and all languages were included.

Selection criteria

Articles meeting the following criteria were selected:

  • a)

    An empirical study published in full text in a scientific journal.

  • b)

    Research on possible physiotherapeutic treatments, carried out individually or in a multidisciplinary team, aimed at improving the symptoms of CFS.

  • c)

    Adult patients over 18 years of age.

  • d)

    Primary diagnosis of CFS according to international criteria or the Centre for Disease Control, Fukuda, Oxford, NICE guidelines, Canadian diagnostic criteria, London or the hospital's own criteria (provided that they specify the eligibility criteria).

  • e)

    Patients who do not have another serious comorbidity condition, medical (e.g., cancer, multiple sclerosis, etc.) and/or psychological (e.g., depression with suicidal ideation, schizophrenia, etc.)

Data extraction

Data included were: objectives, number of participants, age, definition criteria used for diagnosis (Table 1), treatment period, measurement tools, distribution of control and performance groups, measurement variables were taken into account. Data were also obtained regarding the effectiveness of the treatment compared to the control group and the conclusion expressed by the authors (Table 2).

Table 1.

Sample characteristics.

Author and year  Sample  Sample characteristic  Diagnostic criteria  Intervention group  Control group 
Broadbent, 2017  n = 24  Age 18−65; no diagnosed cardiopulmonary, metabolic or endocrine conditions or musculoskeletal injury that would preclude participation in exercise; be able to communicate in English  Fukuda, 1994  GET = 8; IE = 8; UC = 8 (GET/IE:Static bike)  n = 24 control group without CFS 
Chan, 2013  n = 137  Person diagnosed with a CFS-like illness who had persistent, unexplained fatigue for 6 months that was recent onset (not lifelong). Presence of 4 or more of the following 8 symptoms: memory or concentration problems, post-exertional malaise, unrefreshing sleep, muscle pain, multi-joint pain, new headaches, sore throat, and tender lymph nodes  Fukuda, 1994  n = 72 (Qigong)  n = 65 
Chan, 2014  n = 150  Same criteria as previous study (Chan, 2013). Additionally: under 50 years of age who reported no history of cancer, hypothyroidism, sleep apnoea, narcolepsy, hepatitis B or C virus infection, severe obesity, and mental disorders including major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder, and alcohol or other substance abuse. Also not having practiced Qigong in the last 6 months  Fukuda, 1994  n = 75 (Qigong)  n = 75 
Clark, 2017  n = 211  Age 18+, 4 months of fatigue, one of 10 related symptoms: difficulty sleeping, headaches, cognitive dysfunction, malaise or flu-like symptoms, painful lymph nodes, sore throat, physical or mental effort that worsens symptoms, dizziness or nausea, palpitations or multi-site muscle or joint pain without evidence of inflammation  NICE, CDC 2003;Oxford  n = 107 (SMC+GES)  n = 104 (SMC) 
Ho, 2012  n = 64  18−55 years; 6 or more months with symptoms; 4 or more symptoms such as memory or concentration impairment, post-exertional malaise, sleep problems, muscle pain, arthralgia, headache, recurrent sore throat, and tenderness in cervical or axillary lymph nodes  Fukuda, 1994  n = 27; Qigong training (2 h) twice a week for 5 weeks, followed by home Qigong exercises (30 min) for 12 weeks in the intervention group  n = 25 (no intervention) 
Kos, 2015  n = 33  Native Dutch-speaking women with CFS between 18 and 65 years of age; participants who had previously been treated with activity markers or CBT or who had already entered the multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for CFS at their local hospital were excluded  Fukuda, 1994  n = 16 (APSM)  n = 17 (RT) 
Li, 2017  n = 89  People between 18 and 55 years of age; (1) unexplained, persistent, or recurrent chronic fatigue that is not relieved by rest; (2) 4 or more of the following symptoms for 6 months or more: short-term memory loss, sore throat, swollen lymph nodes, muscle or joint pain, headache, fatigue lasting more than 24 h after exercise; (3) not pregnant or having given birth less than one year ago  Fukuda, 1994  n = 46; transcutaneous electrical stimulation of Dazhui and Mingmen, Shenque and Guanyuan acupoints [current intensity (14 ± 2) mA]  n = 43; simulated transcutaneous electrical stimulation of the same acupoints (current intensity 1mA) 
Meng, 2020  n=91  (1) men and women, (2) aged 18–34 years, and (3) with a clinical diagnosis of CFS, (4) the fatigue lasts at least 6 months; (5) the fatigue is of new or definite onset; (6) the fatigue is not the result of organic disease or continued exertion; (7) the fatigue is not relieved by rest; (8) the fatigue causes a substantial reduction in previous work, educational, social, and personal activities; and (9) the patient has had 4 or more of the following symptoms, present concurrently for 6 months or more: Impaired memory or concentration, sore throat, tender cervical or axillary lymph nodes, muscle pain, pain in multiple joints, new headaches, unrefreshing sleep, or malaise after exertion  Does not specify  Cupping pressure:1 = .02mpa (n 1⁄4 38); 2 = .03mpa (n 1⁄4 38);3 = .05mpa (n 1⁄4 36)  None 
Oka, 2014  n = 30  Fatigue does not improve with 6 months of conventional treatment; 20–70 years; severe but not disabling fatigue (unassisted); can remain seated for at least 30 min  Fukuda, 1994  n = 15 (isometric yoga practice with biweekly sessions of 20 min and daily sessions at home for 2 months  n = 15 pharmacological 
Oka, 2018  n = 15  Fatigue not improved by 6 months of conventional treatment; 20–70 years; severe but not disabling fatigue (without assistance); can sit for at least 30 min  Fukuda, 1994; International Consensus Criteria, 2011  20 min of biweekly practice with a yoga instructor and daily practice at home for 8 weeks  None 
Pinxsterhuis, 2017  n = 137  (1) Age 18 or older; (2) Meet CDC and Canadian clinical or research diagnostic criteria; (3) not pregnant, able to read and speak Norwegian, and considered physically able to attend the programme  Fukuda, 1994; Canadian Diagnostic Criteria 2003  n = 71 (self-control programme)  n = 66 
Ridsdale, 2012  n = 174  16 to 75 years old who had consulted their GP complaining of fatigue for more than 3 months  Does not specify  BUC = 75;GET = 1; COUNS=76  None 
Vos-Vromans, 2016  n = 114  Score on the fatigue subscale of the Individual Checklist (CIS) equal to or greater than 40; willingness to participate in a treatment aimed at changing behaviour; age between 18 and 60 years; understanding of written and verbal DutchPatients who had already received CBT or MRT were excluded  Fukuda, 1994  n = 59 (MRT)  n = 55 (CBT) 
White, 2011  n = 641  No psychiatric comorbidities; bimodal score of 6 out of 11 or more on the Chalder fatigue questionnaire; score of 65 out of 100 or less on the physical function subscale of the short form-36; older than 18 years; meeting the London criteria requiring: post-exertional fatigue, poor memory and concentration, fluctuating symptoms, and no primary depressive or anxiety disorder  Oxford  APT = 160; CBT = 161; GET = 160; SMC = 160  None 
White, 2013  n = 640  Patients from their previous study (White 2011) where (1) fatigue was the main symptom, (2) it was of definite onset and not lifelong, (3) fatigue was severe, disabling, and affected physical and mental function, and (4) fatigue had persisted for 6 months or more and was present 50% of the time  Oxford, CDC 2003, London  APT = 160; CBT = 161; GET = 160; SMC = 160  None 
White, 2015  n = 640  Patients from their previous study (White 2007), whether or not they required sporadic treatment after their main trial  Oxford  APT = 60CBT = 161 GET = 160; SMC = 160  None 
Wilshire, 2018  n = 481  (1) Meet Oxford criteria; (2) Score 65 or less on the physical function subscale of the short-form health survey; (3) experienced at least 6 of the 11 fatigue items on the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ)  Oxford  CBT = 161; GET=160  SMC=160 
Table 2.

Authors’ conclusions.

Author and year  Conclusion 
Broadbent, 2017  Twelve weeks of GET and IE with CFS individuals significantly increased NK cell LAMP-1/LAMP-2 expression, and increased NK cell degranulation/activation is an important clinical finding for improving immune function. GET and IE can also reduce CD8+ CD38+ expression, indicating reduced inflammatory responses in both exercise groups.Furthermore, both GET and IE improved exercise capacity without worsening CFS symptoms, and larger, longer-duration trials of these exercise modalities and outcome measures for CFS are warranted. 
Chan, 2013  Qigong can not only reduce fatigue symptoms, but also has an antidepressant effect for patients with CFS-like illnesses 
Chan, 2014  Baduanjin Qigong was an effective and acceptable treatment for sleep disturbances in CFS-like illnesses 
Clark, 2017  GES is a safe intervention that may reduce fatigue and, to a lesser extent, physical disability in CFS patients. These results need to be confirmed and extended to other healthcare settings. 
Ho, 2012  Qigong exercise can be used as an alternative and complementary therapy or rehabilitation program for chronic fatigue and CFS 
Kos, 2015  APSM was found to be feasible and effective in optimizing participation in desired activities of daily living in women with CFS 
Li, 2017  TEAS relieves fatigue symptoms and potential symptoms in CFS patients. It is a safe therapy 
Meng, 2020  Cupping therapy has significantly relieved fatigue symptoms and improved emotion and sleep condition of CFS patients, and 10 treatment sessions had superior results compared to 5 sessions in each group. In addition, in 5 treatment sessions, high-pressure cupping showed improvement in fatigue syndromes and sleep status according to effectiveness indices 
Oka, 2014  Isometric yoga as an adjunctive therapy is feasible and successful in alleviating fatigue and pain in a subset of therapy 
Oka, 2018  A single session of seated isometric yoga reduced fatigue and increased vigour in CFS patients. Yoga also increased vagus nerve function and changed blood biomarkers in a pattern suggesting anti-stress and anti-inflammatory effects. These changes appear to be related to the short-term fatigue-relieving effect of seated isometric yoga in CFS patients. Furthermore, activation of the dopaminergic nervous system could explain the energy increases induced by seated isometric yoga in this patient population 
Pinxsterhuis, 2017  The evaluated self-management program had no sustained effect, compared with usual care 
Ridsdale, 2012  Fatigue presenting to primary care physicians tends to subside over 6 months to a greater extent than previously found. Compared with BUC, those treated with graded exercise or counselling therapies were not significantly better with respect to the primary outcome of fatigue, although they were less dissatisfied at 1 year. 
Vos-Vromans, 2016  This study provides evidence that MRT is more effective in reducing the severity of long-term fatigue than CBT in patients with CFS 
White, 2011  CBT and GET can be safely added to SMC to moderately improve CFS outcomes, but APT is not an effective adjunct 
White, 2013  This study confirms that recovery from CFS is possible, and that CBT and GET are the therapies most likely to lead to recovery 
White, 2015 (continuation by Sharpe, 2015)  The beneficial effects of CBT and GET seen at one year were maintained at long-term follow-up, a median of 2–5 years after randomization. Outcomes with SMC alone or APT were improved from the one-year outcome and were similar to CBT and GET at long-term follow-up, but these data should be interpreted in the context that additional therapies have been given based on physician choice and patient preference after the final assessment of the one-year trial 
Wilshire, 2018  These results raise serious questions about the robustness of the claims made about the efficacy of CBT and GET. The modest treatment effects obtained on self-report measures in the PACE trial do not outweigh, which could reasonably be explained by participant reporting biases. 

In addition, data were extracted regarding the quality of the RCT, the country in which it was conducted, and the impact factor of the published journal.

Quality assessment

The studies were evaluated in alphabetical order of the surname of the main author, and when these coincided, they were ordered by year of publication.

The PEDro scale was used to assess the quality and validity of the RCTs.

Trials with a score equal to or greater than 5 were considered to be of high quality both internally and externally and were included in this review for data extraction.

Intervention efficacy and impact

The effectiveness of the interventions was assessed according to the significance data, considering significant results when p < .05, on the original data of the scientific articles. Moreover, to assess the clinical impact of the studies published in scientific journals, the impact factor (JCR) of the publication was also taken into account. For this purpose, data on JCR from 2020 was extracted from Web of Science (www.webofscience.com), and when this data was not available, the scientific journal's website and its metrics were searched (Table 3).

Table 3.

Origen of the study and journal impact factor.

Author  CountryOf origin  Journal  2020 impact factor 
Broadbent, 2017  Australia  Physiological Reports  3.90 
Chan, 2013  China  Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine  2.63 
Chan, 2014  China  Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine  2.629 
Clark, 2017  United Kingdom  The Lancet  79.323 
Ho, 2012  United Kingdom  Annals of Behavioural Medicine  4.908 
Kos, 2015  Belgium  The American Journal of Occupational Therapy  3.325 
Li, 2017  China  Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion  4.50 
Meng, 2020  China  Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice  2.446 
Oka, 2014  Japan  BioPsychoSocial Medicine  2.373 
Oka, 2018  Japan  BioPsychoSocial Medicine  2.373 
Pinxsterhuis, 2017  Norway  Clinical Rehabilitation (SAGE)  3.477 
Ridsdale, 2012  United Kingdom  Psychological Medicine  7.23 
Vos-Vromans, 2016  Low countries  Journal of Internal Medicine  8.989 
White, 2011  United Kingdom  The Lancet  79.323 
White, 2013  United Kingdom  Psychological Medicine  7.723 
White, 2015  United Kingdom  The Lancet  79.323 
Wilshire, 2018  United Kingdom  BMC Psychology  1.214 
ResultsStudy inclusion process

From the PubMed, Cochrane and PEDro databases, the search explained above yielded 779 results. After reading the full text, 17 studies that met the eligibility criteria were finally included (Fig. 1). Of the selected studies, 10 were conducted in Europe, 6 in Asia and one in Oceania (Table 3).

Figure 1.

Selection process.

(0.39MB).
Participant characteristics and case definition for inclusion criteria

A total of 3671 adult patients, aged 18–75 years, were enrolled in 17 RCTs. These 17 studies followed several inclusion methodologies according to the criteria: Fukuda 1994 (n = 11),14–23 Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2003 (n = 2),24,25 Oxford 1991 (n = 5),14,26–28 London 1994 (n = 1),25 Canadian criteria 2003 (n = 1),21 NICE 2015 (n = 1),24 International criteria 2011 (n = 1).21 There were also 2 RCTs29,30 that used their own criteria for the diagnosis of CFS.

Intervention plan characteristics

Regarding the interventions, the most common were graded exercise (GET) (n = 6),14,24–28 cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) (n = 6),23,25–29 Qigong exercise (n = 315,16,21 and adaptive stimulation therapy (APT) (n = 3).25–27 The other interventions applied to a lesser extent are self-guided graded exercise (SGE) (n = 1),24 transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TEAS) (n = 1),17 activity pace self-management (APSM) (n = 1),19 seated isometric yoga (n = 2),19,20 self-control therapy (n = 1),21 multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment (n = 123 and cupping (n = 1).30

Of the 17 studies selected, only the teams that performed GET, GES or MRT (n = 8) had a physiotherapist as part of the team. The rest of the research was carried out by healthcare personnel or experts in the therapy to be performed.

GES, APSM, Self control and APT therapies (n = 6) base their action protocol on a self-management booklet, while GET, Qigong, TEAS, isometric yoga, CBT, MRT and cupping treatments (n = 11) advocate the face-to-face participation of a therapist.

Measurement of outcomes

Outcomes were assessed primarily using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Almost all studies included outcomes on fatigue and physical functioning, some on mental functioning, sleep, illness beliefs, pain, and global impressions of change. In total, 20 different PROM tools were applied. Most RCTs used multiple outcome measures both primary and secondary.

The Chandler Fatigue Scale (CFQ) was the most commonly used (n = 10), followed by the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) (n = 9). Variables such as depression and anxiety were also studied with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) (n = 4), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) (n = 2), the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI) (n = 3) and the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) (n = 3).

Fatigue was also measured using the Check List Individual Strength (CIS) (n = 2) and the Profile of Mood Status (POMS) (n = 2). In addition, there were numerous secondary variables within the selected investigations.

In addition to the POMS measures, 5 studies reported on objective outcome measures: indices of autonomic function and blood biomarkers (n = 314,20,22; an activity monitor bracelet (n = 1),24 and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (n = 1).29

Quality and validity

All but 320,25,27 of the studies included in this review scored 5 or higher on the PEDro scale, indicating optimal internal and external validity. Most studies were between 5 and 6, except for 222,23 which scored 7 and one30 which managed to score 8, the latter being the only study to be double-blind between study subjects and evaluators.

Interpretation of outcomes from randomised clinical trials

Five studies showed the effectiveness of GET therapy on various factors: blood count índices,15 fatigue,25,26,28,29 depression29 and physical function.25,28 The effects were maintained up to one year later. In addition, it was shown to be more effective for these variables than APT25,26 and SMC.14,25,26 However, when comparisons were made with other methodologies such as CBT or IE, no significance showed up in the results.

APT did not seem to be effective in any study when compared with CBT and GET, nor self-control therapy.21 In contrast, GES24 showed significance on fatigue and physical functioning compared to SMC.

Qigong exercise showed a significant decrease in fatigue values,15,16,22 depression,15 sleep quality16 and telomerase measurement22 compared to the measurements made at the beginning of the study.

APSM18 obtained significant improvements in fatigue and performance in the measurement made at study termination (3 weeks), compared to the one made at the beginning.

In turn, TEAS17 also achieved significant results in fatigue and psychological health compared to the control group at the end of the 4 weeks of intervention.

The cupping therapy30 demonstrated significant results in fatigue, anxiety, depression and sleep quality, for the 3 pressures studied compared to the measurements obtained at the beginning of the study, but without establishing significance between them.

Isometric yoga19,20 showed significant improvements in fatigue parameters, respiratory function and blood biomarkers at 2 months compared to baseline measurements, but not compared to the control group. IE30 also showed significance on blood biomarkers compared to UC, but was not significant when compared to GET.

MRT23 obtained significant improvements in fatigue and self-efficacy compared to CBT therapy. In turn, CBT showed significant results on fatigue25,26,29 and physical function25,27,28 compared to APT, SMC and the control group; but not when comparing the results with GET or MRT.

Furthermore, in many of the included investigations15,16,18–20 an improvement in the measured parameters (fatigue, physical function, etc.) of the control group can be seen at the end of the study compared to the first measurement of the same group.

DiscussionAetiology and pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome

Regarding genetic hypothesis, we observed that a family history of CFS significantly raises prevalence rates in members of the same family.

In addition to these factors, multiple infectious aetiologies are attributed to CFS, such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), human herpes virus (HHV-6), human parvovirus B19, Coxiella burnetii, giardiasis, West Nile virus, dengue virus, and even viral infections such as mononucleosis.1,3,4,8 Anti-HHV-6 IgM antibodies and HHV-6 antigens were also detected in peripheral blood.

Some authors studied cases of patients diagnosed with CFS/ME or fibromyalgia, who had recently been vaccinated against hepatitis B, relating them temporally.31

Also salient are the studies that identified immune deregulation as biomarkers, the most common being those that cause changes in B and T cell phenotypes and cytokine profiles, including changes in natural killer (NK) cell cytotoxicity.32

Along these lines, some authors have shown an increase in proinflammatory serum cytokines and have related their presence to the severity of the disease, correlating higher TGF-β and lower resistin levels with the severity of the symptoms, obtaining results of up to 17 cytokines with levels in CFS.33

It is noteworthy that Cook et al.34 showed that patients with CFS/ME have lower resting cerebral blood flow, differences in the connections between brain regions, alterations in the metabolism of the entire structure, reduced volume of grey and white matter, greater presence of lesions in white matter, increased neuroinflammation and altered brain function during cognition.

Chronic neuroinflammation of the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus is currently being proposed as a critical factor in the perpetuation and relapses of CFS/ME.35

Long-COVID and chronic fatigue syndrome

In addition to the hypotheses raised here, the hypothesis of severe acute respiratory syndrome, caused by a coronavirus similar to the etiological agent of COVID-192 is also present. Currently, after overcoming the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2, many patients, mainly female, continue to report symptoms and even develop damage to vital organs or limbs.1,2,5

The research carried out by Lee et al.36 on the brains of deceased COVID-19 patients showed punctate hyperintensities that represented areas of microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. These changes were also been found in patients with CFS.

The tissue damage resulting from this disease is accompanied fatigue as one of the main symptoms3,4,7 but other authors have described the symptoms as pain, anxiety, depression and poor sleep quality, "brain fog", shortness of breath and arrhythmias.

All these symptoms persist for months after the viral infection, indicating damage to vital or non-vital organs, and being characteristic of the aforementioned CFS.15,16

Furthermore, the latest research certifies that patients with 6 months of evolution with acute COVID-19, of a mild or moderate nature, met the criteria for CFS/ME, and the number of cases may have doubled as a result of the pandemic.37,38

Analysis of randomised clinical trial outcomes

GET was shown to be a moderately effective therapy,14 in addressing short-, medium- and long-term fatigue,27 and short-term depression.26 GES therapy has the same scientific basis as GET, the main difference being the self-help booklet format.

Regarding the interventions with self-control therapy21 and seated isometric yoga,20 the former did not obtain significant findings, while the latter obtained improvements in fatigue, respiratory function and blood biomarkers at 2 months compared to measurements taken at baseline, but not compared to the control group.

However, the intervention with APT26 did not obtain significant results in any research while Qigong15,16 showed moderate efficacy in reducing post-treatment fatigue and an improvement in depression and sleep quality indices.

With regards to APSM,18 it was shown to be moderately effective in the sensation of fatigue, while the intervention with TEAS17 was also effective in post-treatment fatigue, without taking into account the PEM.

CBT26,29 demonstrated efficacy in fatigue and physical function when compared with other passive therapies, but not in studies that included another active therapy method such as GET or MRT. The latter therapy has shown improvements in fatigue levels and self-efficacy in the short and medium term.

Conclusion

No significant evidence currently exists on the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions in patients with CFS.

However, although the number of investigations in the treatment of CFS is increasing, the lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria hinders the development of a standardised treatment plan and, therefore of reliable comparison between studies.

Despite this, hypotheses on the aetiology and pathophysiology of CFS, together with advances in biomarkers, point to the need for a broader therapeutic approach.

Conflict of interests

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

Appendix A
Supplementary data

The following is Supplementary data to this article:

(26.72MB)

References
[1]
E.-J. Lim, Y.-C. Ahn, E.-S. Jang, S.-W. Lee, S.-H. Lee, C.-G. Son.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME).
J Transl Med [Internet], 18 (2020),
[2]
P. Wostyn.
COVID-19 and chronic fatigue syndrome: Is the worst yet to come?.
Med Hypotheses [Internet], 146 (2021),
[3]
N. Eaton-Fitch, S.C. Johnston, P. Zalewski, D. Staines, S. Marshall-Gradisnik.
Health-related quality of life in patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: an Australian cross-sectional study.
[4]
Beyond Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Redefining an Illness [Internet]..
National Academies Press, (2015),
[5]
M.E.A. Wormgoor, S.C. Rodenburg.
The evidence base for physiotherapy in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome when considering post-exertional malaise: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.
J Transl Med [Internet], 19 (2021),
[6]
L. Larun, K.G. Brurberg, J. Odgaard-Jensen, J.R. Price.
Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome.
Cochrane Libr [Internet], 4 (2017),
[7]
M.C. Sharpe.
A report–chronic fatigue syndrome: Guidelines for research.
J R Soc Med [Internet], 84 (1991), pp. 118-121
[8]
K. Fukuda.
The chronic fatigue syndrome: a comprehensive approach to its definition and study.
[9]
B.M. Carruthers, A.K. Jain, K.L. De Meirleir, D.L. Peterson, N.G. Klimas, A.M. Lerner, et al.
Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: clinical working case definition, diagnostic and treatment protocols.
[10]
B.M. Carruthers, M.I. van de Sande, K.L. De Meirleir, N.G. Klimas, G. Broderick, T. Mitchell, et al.
Myalgic encephalomyelitis: international consensus criteria.
[11]
L. Bateman, A.C. Bested, H.F. Bonilla, B.V. Chheda, L. Chu, J.M. Curtin, et al.
Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: essentials of diagnosis and management.
[12]
J. Nijs, M. Meeus, J. Van Oosterwijck, K. Ickmans, G. Moorkens, G. Hans, et al.
In the mind or in the brain? Scientific evidence for central sensitisation in chronic fatigue syndrome.
[13]
D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D.G. Altman, The PRISMA Group.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
Open Med, 3 (2009), pp. 123-130
[14]
S. Broadbent, R. Coutts.
Intermittent and graded exercise effects on NK cell degranulation markers LAMP‐1/LAMP‐2 and CD8+CD38+ in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis.
Physiol Rep [Internet], 5 (2017),
[15]
J.S.M. Chan, R.T.H. Ho, C.-W. Wang, L.P. Yuen, J.S.T. Sham, C.L.W. Chan.
Effects of Qigong exercise on fatigue, anxiety, and depressive symptoms of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome-like illness: a randomized controlled trial.
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med [Internet], 2013 (2013), pp. 1-8
[16]
J.S.M. Chan, R.T.H. Ho, K.-F. Chung, C.-W. Wang, T.-J. Yao, S.-M. Ng, et al.
Qigong exercise alleviates fatigue, anxiety, and depressive symptoms, improves sleep quality, and shortens sleep latency in persons with chronic fatigue syndrome-like illness.
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med [Internet]., 2014 (2014), pp. 1-10
[17]
J. Li, J. Xie, Z. Pan, X. Guo, Y. Li, R. Fu.
Chronic fatigue syndrome treated with transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation: a randomized controlled trial.
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu [Internet], 37 (2017),
[18]
D. Kos, I. van Eupen, J. Meirte, D. Van Cauwenbergh, G. Moorkens, M. Meeus, et al.
Activity pacing self-management in chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.
Am J Occup Ther [Internet]., 69 (2015), pp. 1-11
[19]
T. Oka, T. Tanahashi, T. Chijiwa, B. Lkhagvasuren, N. Sudo, K. Oka.
Isometric yoga improves the fatigue and pain of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome who are resistant to conventional therapy: a randomized, controlled trial.
Biopsychosoc Med [Internet]., 8 (2014),
[20]
T. Oka, T. Tanahashi, N. Sudo, B. Lkhagvasuren, Y. Yamada.
Changes in fatigue, autonomic functions, and blood biomarkers due to sitting isometric yoga in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome.
Biopsychosoc Med [Internet]., 12 (2018),
[21]
I. Pinxsterhuis, L. Sandvik, E.B. Strand, E. Bautz-Holter, U. Sveen.
Effectiveness of a group-based self-management program for people with chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.
Clin Rehabil [Internet]., 31 (2017), pp. 93-103
[22]
R.T.H. Ho, J.S.M. Chan, C.-W. Wang, B.W.M. Lau, K.F. So, L.P. Yuen, et al.
A randomized controlled trial of qigong exercise on fatigue symptoms, functioning, and telomerase activity in persons with chronic fatigue or chronic fatigue syndrome.
Ann Behav Med [Internet]., 44 (2012), pp. 160-170
[23]
D.C.W.M. Vos-Vromans, R.J.E.M. Smeets, I.P.J. Huijnen, A.J.A. Köke, W.M.G.C. Hitters, L.J.M. Rijnders, et al.
Multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment versus cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.
J Intern Med [Internet]., 279 (2016), pp. 268-282
[24]
L.V. Clark, F. Pesola, J.M. Thomas, M. Vergara-Williamson, M. Beynon, P.D. White.
Guided graded exercise self-help plus specialist medical care versus specialist medical care alone for chronic fatigue syndrome (GETSET): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.
Lancet [Internet]., 390 (2017), pp. 363-373
[25]
P.D. White, K. Goldsmith, A.L. Johnson, T. Chalder, M. Sharpe.
Recovery from chronic fatigue syndrome after treatments given in the PACE trial.
Psychol Med [Internet]., 43 (2013), pp. 2227-2235
[26]
P.D. White, K.A. Goldsmith, A.L. Johnson, L. Potts, R. Walwyn, J.C. DeCesare, et al.
Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial.
Lancet [Internet]., 377 (2011), pp. 823-836
[27]
M. Sharpe, K.A. Goldsmith, A.L. Johnson, T. Chalder, J. Walker, P.D. White.
Rehabilitative treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome: long-term follow-up from the PACE trial.
Lancet Psychiatry [Internet]., 2 (2015), pp. 1067-1074
[28]
C.E. Wilshire, T. Kindlon, R. Courtney, A. Matthees, D. Tuller, K. Geraghty, et al.
Rethinking the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome—a reanalysis and evaluation of findings from a recent major trial of graded exercise and CBT.
BMC Psychol [Internet]., 6 (2018),
[29]
L. Ridsdale, M. Hurley, M. King, P. McCrone, N. Donaldson.
The effect of counselling, graded exercise and usual care for people with chronic fatigue in primary care: a randomized trial.
Psychol Med [Internet]., 42 (2012), pp. 2217-2224
[30]
X.-D. Meng, H.-R. Guo, Q.-Y. Zhang, X. Li, Y. Chen, M.-Y. Li, et al.
The effectiveness of cupping therapy on chronic fatigue syndrome: a single-blind randomized controlled trial.
Complement Ther Clin Pract [Internet]., 40 (2020),
[31]
N. Agmon-Levin, Y. Zafrir, S. Kivity, A. Balofsky, H. Amital, Y. Shoenfeld.
Chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia following immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine: another angle of the ‘autoimmune (auto-inflammatory) syndrome induced by adjuvants’ (ASIA).
Immunol Res [Internet]., 60 (2014), pp. 376-383
[32]
G. Bjørklund, M. Dadar, L. Pivina, M.D. Doşa, Y. Semenova, M. Maes.
Environmental, neuro-immune, and neuro-oxidative stress interactions in chronic fatigue syndrome.
Mol Neurobiol [Internet]., 57 (2020), pp. 4598-4607
[33]
J.G. Montoya, T.H. Holmes, J.N. Anderson, H.T. Maecker, Y. Rosenberg-Hasson, I.J. Valencia, et al.
Cytokine signature associated with disease severity in chronic fatigue syndrome patients.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A [Internet]., 114 (2017),
[34]
D.B. Cook, A.R. Light, K.C. Light, G. Broderick, M.R. Shields, R.J. Dougherty, et al.
Neural consequences of post-exertion malaise in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
Brain Behav Immun [Internet]., 62 (2017), pp. 87-99
[35]
A. Mackay, W.P. Tate.
A compromised paraventricular nucleus within a dysfunctional hypothalamus: a novel neuroinflammatory paradigm for ME/CFS.
Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol [Internet]., 32 (2018),
[36]
M.-H. Lee, D.P. Perl, G. Nair, W. Li, D. Maric, H. Murray, et al.
Microvascular injury in the brains of patients with covid-19.
N Engl J Med [Internet]., 384 (2021), pp. 481-483
[37]
A.L. Komaroff, L. Bateman.
Will COVID-19 lead to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome?.
Front Med (Lausanne) [Internet], 7 (2021),
[38]
C. Kedor, H. Freitag, L. Meyer-Arndt, K. Wittke, L.G. Hanitsch, T. Zoller, et al.
A prospective observational study of post-COVID-19 chronic fatigue syndrome following the first pandemic wave in Germany and biomarkers associated with symptom severity.
Nat Commun [Internet]., 13 (2022),
Copyright © 2024. Sociedad Española de Enfermería Neurológica
Descargar PDF
Opciones de artículo
Herramientas
Material suplementario
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos