BERLIN – In addition to the pain, motor and sensory impairments, and cognitive dysfunction that can stalk multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, for many, there’s also the challenge of an invisible, tough-to-quantify entity: fatigue.
“Approximately 80% of patients suffer from fatigue, so it’s an immense problem in MS. There’s no real clear relationship with disease severity,”, said at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. “Despite what a lot of people think, there’s no clear or strong relationship between fatigue and the amount of physical activity people undertake daily,” he noted.
“Patients all know what we are talking about when we ask about fatigue,” but there are a variety of definitions of fatigue used in research, a fact that has limited progress in the field, said Dr. de Groot.
Primary fatigue is related to the pathophysiology of MS itself, while secondary fatigue can result from MS symptoms, such as poor sleep from spasms. Secondary fatigue can also be a side effect of MS medications; baclofen, used for spasticity, is a good example, said Dr. de Groot. “We must not underestimate how many problems these drugs can give people.”
What’s the mechanism by which MS causes primary fatigue? “The simple answer is that we do not know,” said Dr. de Groot, a physiatrist and researcher at Vrije University, Amsterdam.
Though immune-mediated fatigue had been proposed as a factor for patients with MS, Dr. de Groot said that his own lab’s work has not found any connection between fatigue levels and any immune-related biomarkers. “So I don’t think the immune hypothesis has a lot of evidence.”
Similarly, though there might be mechanistic reasons to suspect the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis as a culprit for MS fatigue, no consistent association has been found between any markers for HPA axis disruption and fatigue ratings, Dr. de Groot said.
Newer theories center on MS-related disruptions in brain connectivity, with imaging studies now able to detect some of these disruptions in functional connectivity that correlate with fatigue. “Right now, I think this is the hypothesis to bet money on,” Dr. de Groot said.
Many factors come into play, including environmental and psychological factors, he said.
“What can we do to treat MS-related fatigue?” Though several drugs have been used, “if you carefully look at the systematic reviews, the evidence is very, very disappointing,” Dr. de Groot said. For both amantadine and modafinil, “there is no evidence that these drugs are effective,” he said, citing a systematic review and meta-analysis that found a pooled effect size of 0.07 (95% confidence interval, –0.22 to 0.37) for medications (Mult Scler Int. 2014 May;).
Only two trials have looked at multidisciplinary rehabilitation for MS-related fatigue, Dr. de Groot said. Two studies that looked at multidisciplinary strategies that pulled in a variety of disciplines to help develop tailored fatigue management strategies saw no between-group effect when the multidisciplinary intervention was compared with nurse-provided information or with non–fatigue-related rehabilitation.
In an effort to determine whether MS-related fatigue is truly refractory to treatment, Dr. de Groot said that he and his colleagues decided to take “three steps back” to look at the individual interventions that make up a multidisciplinary approach to tackling fatigue. “So, we looked at exercise therapy, energy conservation management, and cognitive-behavioral therapy,” beginning with a literature review, he said.
Members of his research group found that effect sizes ranged from small to moderate for the three approaches, but there were methodologic problems with many of the studies; in the case of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the effect size waned over time, Dr. de Groot said. A newer randomized, controlled trial showed a relatively robust effect size of 0.52 for Internet-delivered CBT, which may provide a promising and practical approach (J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018 Sep;89:970-6.).
Looking at fatigue and societal participation, Dr. de Groot and his colleagues examined what effect aerobic training, energy conservation management, and CBT had on the two outcome measures. The three interventions were studied in three stand-alone trials, he said.
Patients were assessed at baseline, and at 8, 16, 26, and 52 weeks. The assessments were performed by a blinded researcher and were the same across trials: For fatigue, researchers used the Checklist Individual Strength–fatigue (), and for societal participation, they administered the Impact on Participation and Autonomy ( ).
Each trial included 90 patients, randomized 1:1 to receive high- or low-intensity treatment. Patients had to have MS with no exacerbations within the prior 6 months and an Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 6 or less. However, the included patients had severe fatigue, with a CIS20R-fatigue subscore of 35 or higher, and the fatigue could not be attributable to such secondary causes as infection, depression, or thyroid or sleep problems. Finally, patients could not have been treated for fatigue in the 3 months prior to enrollment.
Those in the high-intensity treatment group received 12 sessions focused on the particular intervention over 4 months, provided by an expert therapist. Each type of intervention had a treatment protocol that was followed over the 4 months. Patients receiving low-intensity treatment saw an MS-specialized nurse three times over 4 months.
The aerobic training intervention had patients performing high-intensity exercise on a cycle ergometer for 30 minutes, three times weekly for 16 weeks. In addition to the 12 supervised sessions, patients also completed 36 home-based sessions. The level of intensity for each patient was personalized based on their baseline cardiopulmonary exercise test, Dr. de Groot said.
At the end of 1 year, patients in the high-intensity group and those in the low-intensity group reported virtually the same fatigue scores. Though there was an initial drop in fatigue for those in the high-intensity group, compared with baseline and with the low-intensity participants, values on the CIS20R never dropped below 35, the “severe fatigue” cutoff.
And, Dr. de Groot said, there was no effect on societal participation or in other fatigue scores. In sum, the effect size was barely significant at –0.54 (95% CI, –1.00 to –0.06), with a number needed to treat of 9.
Adherence to attempting the workouts was fairly good for participants in the high-intensity group; 74% completed the sessions, with 71% doing so at the prescribed workload. The median rate of perceived exertion on a 1-20 scale was 14.
However, the thrice-weekly exercise bouts didn’t improve aerobic fitness parameters: Neither V02peak, V02peak adjusted for body mass, nor anaerobic threshold changed for those in the high-intensity group. Peak power did increase by 11.7 watts (P = .048).
Energy conservation education, whether delivered in high- or low-intensity format, had almost no effect on fatigue scores, with a number needed to treat of 158 – a figure that is “neither significant nor clinically meaningful,” Dr. de Groot said. Other fatigue scores and societal participation levels also went unchanged.
However, CBT delivered in a series of 10 modules to address various beliefs and coping mechanisms about MS, fatigue, pain, and activity regulation did have a positive effect on fatigue. Here, the effect size was –0.79 (95% CI, –1.26 to –0.32). The number needed to treat was 3, and CIS20R values did dip below the “severe fatigue” threshold during treatment. A similar effect, Dr. de Groot said, was seen for other fatigue and quality of life measures, though societal participation scores didn’t change. No significant improvement was seen for the low-intensity CBT group.
“Severe MS-related fatigue can be reduced effectively with CBT in the short term. More research is needed on how to maintain this effect in the long term,” Dr. de Groot said. Still, “it’s currently the best treatment option,” he said.
The fact that patients reverted to their preintervention fatigue levels regardless of the intervention shows that effective treatment for MS-related fatigue should probably be ongoing, viewed more as a process than an occurrence, Dr. de Groot said.
To that end, Dr. de Groot and his colleagues are conducting a randomized, controlled trial that includes 166 MS patients with fatigue. The study has two arms: The first is a noninferiority trial comparing face-to-face CBT with e-learning delivery of the content, and the second looks at the efficacy of ongoing booster sessions after initial CBT.
An online database of randomized, controlled trials of rehabilitation for MS patients can be found at.
The study was funded by Fonds NutsOhra, a private Dutch foundation. Dr. de Groot reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: de Groot V. Mult Scler. 2018;24(S2):83, .