Evaluating Routine Blood Tests According to Clinical Symptoms and Diagnostic Criteria in Individuals with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

There is a lack of research regarding blood tests within individuals with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) and between patients and healthy controls. We aimed to compare results of routine blood tests between patients and healthy controls. Data from 149 patients diagnosed with ME/CFS based on clinical and psychiatric evaluation as well as on the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire, and data from 264 healthy controls recruited from blood donors were compared. One-way ANCOVA was conducted to examine differences between ME/CFS patients and healthy controls, adjusting for age and gender. Patients had higher sedimentation rate (mean difference: 1.38, 95% CI: 0.045 to 2.714), leukocytes (mean difference: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.248 to 0.932), lymphocytes (mean difference: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.145 to 0.395), neutrophils (mean difference: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.0 89 to 0.591), monocytes (mean difference: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.309 to 0.371), ferritin (mean difference: 28.13, 95% CI: -1.41 to 57.672), vitamin B12 (mean difference: 83.43, 95% CI: 62.89 to 124.211), calcium (mean difference: 0.02, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.06), alanine transaminase (mean difference: 3.30, 95% CI: -1.37 to -7.971), low-density lipoproteins (mean difference: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.104 to 0.796), and total proteins (mean difference: 1.53, 95% CI: -0.945 to 4.005) than control subjects. The patients had lower potassium levels (mean difference: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.056 to 0.164), creatinine (mean difference: 2.60, 95% CI: 0.126 to 5.074) and creatine kinase (CK) (mean difference: 37.57, 95% CI: -0.282 to 75.422) compared to the healthy controls. Lower CK and creatinine levels may suggest muscle damage and metabolic abnormalities in ME/CFS patients.

European Network on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (EUROMENE): Expert Consensus on the Diagnosis, Service Provision, and Care of People with ME/CFS in Europe.

Designed by a group of ME/CFS researchers and health professionals, the European Network on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (EUROMENE) has received funding from the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST)-COST action 15111-from 2016 to 2020. The main goal of the Cost Action was to assess the existing knowledge and experience on health care delivery for people with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) in European countries, and to enhance coordinated research and health care provision in this field. We report our findings and make recommendations for clinical diagnosis, health services and care for people with ME/CFS in Europe, as prepared by the group of clinicians and researchers from 22 countries and 55 European health professionals and researchers, who have been informed by people with ME/CFS.

Patients' experiences and effects of non-pharmacological treatment for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome - a scoping mixed methods review.

PURPOSE: The EU COST Action 15111 collaboration on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) aims to assess current research and identify knowledge gaps in Europe. Presently, our purpose is to map the effects of non-pharmacological therapies (NPTs) for ME/CFS, and what patients find important in the treatment process. METHODS: A scoping mixed methods literature review of European studies identified 16 papers fulfiling our inclusion criteria. The quantitative and qualitative studies were synthesized separately in tables. Additionally, extracts from the qualitative studies were subjected to translational analysis. RESULTS: Effect studies addressed cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT, n = 4), multimodal rehabilitation (n = 2) and activity-pacing (n = 2). CBT reduced fatigue scores more than usual care or waiting list controls. The effects of rehabilitation and activity-pacing were inconsistent. The contents, assessment methods and effects of rehabilitation and activity pacing studies varied. For patients, health professionals' recognition of ME/CFS and support were crucial, but they expressed ambiguous experiences of what the NPTs entail. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological differences make comparisons across NPTs impossible, and from a patient perspective the relevance of the specific contents of NPTs are unclear. Future well-designed studies should focus on developing NPTs tailored to patients' concerns and evaluation tools reflecting what is essential for patients.