Search

Background: Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a complex, heterogenous disease. It has been suggested that subgroups of people with ME/CFS exist, displaying a specific cluster of symptoms. Investigating symptom-based clusters may provide a better understanding of ME/CFS. Therefore, this study aimed to identify clusters in people with ME/CFS based on the frequency and severity of symptoms. Methods: Members of the Dutch ME/CFS Foundation completed an online version of the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire version 2. Self-organizing maps (SOM) were used to generate symptom-based clusters using severity and frequency scores of the 79 measured symptoms. An extra dataset (n = 252) was used to assess the reproducibility of the symptom-based clusters. Results: Data of 337 participants were analyzed (82% female; median (IQR) age: 55 (44–63) years). 45 clusters were identified, of which 13 clusters included ≥ 10 patients. Fatigue and PEM were reported across all of the symptom-based clusters, but the clusters were defined by a distinct pattern of symptom severity and frequency, as well as differences in clinical characteristics. 11% of the patients could not be classified into one of the 13 largest clusters. Applying the trained SOM to validation sample, resulted in a similar symptom pattern compared the Dutch dataset. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that in ME/CFS there are subgroups of patients displaying a similar pattern of symptoms. These symptom-based clusters were confirmed in an independent ME/CFS sample. Classification of ME/CFS patients according to severity and symptom patterns might be useful to develop tailored treatment options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study evaluates to what extent symptoms are present before, during, and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, and to evaluate how the symptom burden and quality of Life (QoL) compares to those with a negative PCR test. Participants from the Dutch Lifelines COVID-19 Cohort Study filled-out as of March 2020 weekly, later bi-weekly and monthly, questions about demographics, COVID-19 diagnosis and severity, QoL, and symptoms. The study population included those with one positive or negative PCR test who filled out two questionnaires before and after the test, resulting in 996 SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive and 3978 negative participants. Nearly all symptoms were more often reported after a positive test versus the period before the test (p < 0.05), except fever. A higher symptom prevalence after versus before a test was also found for nearly all symptoms in negatives (p < 0.05). Before the test, symptoms were already partly present and reporting of nearly all symptoms before did not differ between positives and negatives (p > 0.05). QoL decreased around the test for positives and negatives, with a larger deterioration for positives. Not all symptoms after a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test might be attributable to the infection and symptoms were also common in negatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To date, it remains unknown which patients report a clinically-relevant improvement in fatigue following pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). The purpose of this study was to identify and characterize these responders. Demographics, lung function, anxiety (anxiety subscale of the 90-item symptom checklist (SCL-90-A)), depression (Beck depression inventory for primary care (BDI-PC)), exercise tolerance (six-minute walking distance test (6MWD)), and health status (Nijmegen clinical screening instrument (NCSI)) were assessed before and after a 12-week PR programme. Fatigue was assessed using the checklist individual strength (CIS)-Fatigue. Patients with a decline ≥ 10 points (minimally clinically important difference, MCID) on the CIS-Fatigue were defined as responders. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients (n = 446, 61 ± 9 years, 53% male, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 43% ± 18% predicted, 75% severe fatigue) were included. Mean change in fatigue after PR was 10 ± 12 points (p < 0.01) and exceeded the MCID. In total, 56% were identified as fatigue responders. Baseline CIS-Fatigue (45 ± 7 vs. 38 ± 9 points, respectively, p < 0.001) and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL; p < 0.001) were different between responders and non-responders. No differences were found in demographics, baseline anxiety, depression, lung function, 6MWD, and dyspnoea (p-values > 0.01). Responders on fatigue reported a greater improvement in anxiety, depression, 6MWD, dyspnoea (all p-values < 0.001), and most health status parameters. PR reduces fatigue in COPD. Responders on fatigue have worse fatigue and HRQoL scores at baseline, and are also likely to be responders on other outcomes of PR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Symptoms and quality of life before, during, and after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive or negative test: data from Lifelines" published in Scientific Reports. The correction states that H. Marike Boezen, one of the authors, is deceased. Additionally, there was an error in the Consortium list, where Judith G. M. Rosmalen was incorrectly listed as an author. The correction has been made to the original article. The authors of the article are Yvonne M. J. Goërtz, Martijn A. Spruit, Maarten Van Herck, Nicole Dukers-Muijrers, H. Marike Boezen, Jochen O. Mierau, H. Lude Franke, Jackie Dekens, Patrick Deelen, Pauline Lanting, Judith M. Vonk, Ilja Nolte, Anil P. S. Ori, Annique Claringbould, Floranne Boulogne, Marjolein X. L. Dijkema, Henry H. Wiersma, Robert Warmerdam, Soesma A. Jankipersadsing, Irene van Blokland, Geertruida H. de Bock, Cisca Wijmenga, Carla J. H. van der Kallen, Chris Burtin, and Daisy J. A. Janssen. [Extracted from the article]

The 2018 update of the Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention does not mention fatigue-related symptoms. Nevertheless, patients with asthma frequently report tiredness, lack of energy, and daytime sleepiness. Quantitative research regarding the prevalence of fatigue in asthmatic patients is lacking. This retrospective cross-sectional study of outpatients with asthma upon referral to a chest physician assessed fatigue (Checklist Individual Strength-Fatigue (CIS-Fatigue)), lung function (spirometry), asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)), dyspnea (Medical Research Council (MRC) scale), exercise capacity (six-minute walk test (6MWT)), and asthma-related Quality-of-Life (QoL), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) during a comprehensive health-status assessment. In total, 733 asthmatic patients were eligible and analyzed (47.4 ± 16.3 years, 41.1% male). Severe fatigue (CIS-Fatigue ≥ 36 points) was detected in 62.6% of patients. Fatigue was not related to airflow limitation (FEV1, ρ = −0.083); was related moderately to ACQ (ρ = 0.455), AQLQ (ρ = −0.554), and MRC (ρ = 0.435; all p-values < 0.001); and was related weakly to 6MWT (ρ = −0.243, p < 0.001). In stepwise multiple regression analysis, 28.9% of variance in fatigue was explained by ACQ (21.0%), MRC (6.5%), and age (1.4%). As for AQLQ, 42.2% of variance was explained by fatigue (29.8%), MRC (8.6%), exacerbation rate (2.6%), and age (1.2%). Severe fatigue is highly prevalent in asthmatic patients; it is an important determinant of disease-specific QoL and a crucial yet ignored patient-related outcome in patients with asthma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lingering symptoms after acute COVID-19 present a major challenge to ambulatory care services. Since there are reservations regarding their optimal management, we aimed to collate all available evidence on the effects of rehabilitation treatments applicable in ambulatory care for these patients. Methods: On 9 May 2022, we systematically searched articles in COVID-19 collections, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycArticles, PEDro, and EuropePMC. References were eligible if they reported on the clinical effectiveness of a rehabilitation therapy applicable in ambulatory care for adult patients with persisting symptoms continuing 4 weeks after the onset of COVID-19. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the CASP cohort study checklist and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Summary of Findings tables were constructed and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. Results: We included 38 studies comprising 2,790 participants. Physical training and breathing exercises may reduce fatigue, dyspnoea, and chest pain and may improve physical capacity and quality of life, but the evidence is very weak (based on 6 RCTs and 12 cohort studies). The evidence underpinning the effect of nutritional supplements on fatigue, dyspnoea, muscle pain, sensory function, psychological well-being, quality of life, and functional capacity is very poor (based on 4 RCTs). Also, the evidence-base is very weak about the effect of olfactory training on sensory function and quality of life (based on 4 RCTs and 3 cohort studies). Multidisciplinary treatment may have beneficial effects on fatigue, dyspnoea, physical capacity, pulmonary function, quality of life, return to daily life activities, and functional capacity, but the evidence is very weak (based on 5 cohort studies). The certainty of evidence is very low due to study limitations, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision. Conclusions: Physical training, breathing exercises, olfactory training and multidisciplinary treatment can be effective rehabilitation therapies for patients with persisting symptoms after COVID-19, still with high uncertainty regarding these effects. These findings can guide ambulatory care practitioners to treat these patients and should be incorporated in clinical practice guidelines. High-quality studies are needed to confirm our hypotheses and should report on adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) To evaluate the prevalence of severe and chronic fatigue in subjects with and without chronic disease; (2) to assess to which extent multi-morbidity contributes to severe and chronic fatigue; and (3) to identify predisposing and associated factors for severe and chronic fatigue and whether these are disease-specific, trans-diagnostic, or generic. The Dutch Lifelines cohort was used, including 78,363 subjects with (n = 31,039, 53 ± 12 years, 33% male) and without (n = 47,324, 48 ± 12 years, 46% male) ≥ 1 of 23 chronic diseases. Fatigue was assessed with the Checklist Individual Strength-Fatigue. Compared to participants without a chronic disease, a higher proportion of participants with ≥ 1 chronic disease were severely (23% versus 15%, p < 0.001) and chronically (17% versus 10%, p < 0.001) fatigued. The odds of having severe fatigue (OR [95% CI]) increased from 1.6 [1.5–1.7] with one chronic disease to 5.5 [4.5–6.7] with four chronic diseases; for chronic fatigue from 1.5 [1.5–1.6] to 4.9 [3.9–6.1]. Multiple trans-diagnostic predisposing and associated factors of fatigue were found, explaining 26% of variance in fatigue in chronic disease. Severe and chronic fatigue are highly prevalent in chronic diseases. Multi-morbidity increases the odds of having severe and chronic fatigue. Several trans-diagnostic factors were associated with fatigue, providing a rationale for a trans-diagnostic approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An increasing number of subjects are recovering from COVID-19, raising the need for tools to adequately assess the course of the disease and its impact on functional status. We aimed to assess the construct validity of the Post-COVID-19 Functional Status (PCFS) Scale among adult subjects with confirmed and presumed COVID-19.Methods: Adult subjects with confirmed and presumed COVID-19, who were members of an online panel and two Facebook groups for subjects with COVID-19 with persistent symptoms, completed an online survey after the onset of infection-related symptoms. The number and intensity of symptoms were evaluated with the Utrecht Symptom Diary, health-related quality of life (HrQoL) with the 5-level EQ-5D questionnaire, impairment in work and activities with the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire and functional status with the PCFS Scale.Results: 1939 subjects were included in the analyses (85% women, 95% non-hospitalized during infection) about 3 months after the onset of infection-related symptoms. Subjects classified as experiencing 'slight', 'moderate' and 'severe' functional limitations presented a gradual increase in the number/intensity of symptoms, reduction of HrQoL and impairment in work and usual activities. No differences were found regarding the number and intensity of symptoms, HrQoL and impairment in work and usual activities between subjects classified as experiencing 'negligible' and 'no' functional limitations. We found weak-to-strong statistical associations between functional status and all domains of HrQoL (r: 0.233-0.661). Notably, the strongest association found was with the 'usual activities' domain of the 5-level EQ-5D questionnaire.Conclusion: We demonstrated the construct validity of the PCFS Scale in highly-symptomatic adult subjects with confirmed and presumed COVID-19, 3 months after the onset of symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on quality of life appears to be highly underestimated, especially in patients who have not been admitted to the hospital. Therefore, our aim was to assess respiratory-specific quality of life in addition to generic quality of life in former patients with confirmed/suspected COVID-19 who have never been admitted to the hospital. Members of an online Belgian social support group for patients with confirmed/suspected COVID-19 with persistent complaints, completed an online survey. The five-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) were used to assess generic and respiratory-specific quality of life, respectively. Data of 210 non-hospitalized patients (88% women, 45 ± 11 years, 79 ± 17 days after symptom onset) were included in the analyses. Mean EQ-5D index and visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) score was 0.62 ± 0.19 and 50.71 ± 18.87, respectively, with 40% of the patients demonstrating an EQ-5D index that was below the fifth percentile of normative values, indicating poor generic quality of life. The mean CCQ score was 2.01 ± 0.98 points, while 123 respondents (59%) had a total score ≥1.9 points, indicating poor respiratory-specific quality of life. The correlation between EQ-5D index score/EQ-VAS score and CCQ total score was moderate (r = −0.524 and r = −0.374; both p < 0.001). In conclusion, both generic and respiratory-specific quality of life are affected in non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19, approximately three months after the onset of symptoms. The combined use of the EQ-5D and the CCQ could identify the broad impact of COVID-19 on quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A large sample of "mild" COVID-19 patients still experience multiple symptoms months after being infected. These persistent symptoms are associated with many clinically relevant outcomes, including poor health status and impaired functional status. To date, no information is available about care dependency. Therefore, we aimed to explore the level of care dependency and the need for assistance with personal care in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: Members of two Facebook groups for COVID-19 patients with persistent complaints in The Netherlands and Belgium, and from a panel of people who registered at a website of the Lung Foundation Netherlands, were assessed for demographics, pre-existing comorbidities, health status, and symptoms. In addition, patients were asked about their dependence on others for personal care before and after the infection. The level of care dependency was assessed with the Care Dependency Scale (CDS) in members of the Belgian Facebook group (n = 210). Results: The data of 1837 non-hospitalized patients (86% women; median (IQR) age: 47 (38–54)) were analyzed. Only a small proportion of patients needed help with personal care before COVID-19, but the care need increased significantly after the infection (on average 79 ± 17 days after the onset of symptoms; 7.7% versus 52.4%, respectively; p < 0.05). The patients had a median (IQR) CDS score of 72 (67–75) points, and 31% of the patients were considered as care-dependent (CDS score ≤ 68 points). Conclusions: COVID-19 has an important impact on care dependency in non-hospitalized patients. About three months after the onset of symptoms, a considerable proportion of non-hospitalized patients were to some degree dependent on others for personal care. This indicates that the impact of COVID-19 on patients' daily lives is tremendous, and more attention is needed to identify optimal treatment strategies to restore patients' independency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]