http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fneur.2015.00116/full?
Claudia Lukoschek1, Annette Sterr2,3,4, Dolores Claros-Salinas1,5, Rolf Gütler1 and Christian Dettmers1,5,6*
- 1Kliniken Schmieder Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
- 2University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
- 3University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany
- 4Department of Neurology, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
- 5Lurija Institute, Kliniken Schmieder Allensbach, Allensbach, Germany
- 6Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
Objectives: Fatigue is typically associated with
multiple sclerosis (MS), but recent studies suggest that it is also a
problem for patients with stroke. While a direct comparison of fatigue
in, e.g., Stroke and MS is desirable, it is presently not easily
possible because of different definitions and assessment tools used for
the two conditions. In the present study, we therefore assessed fatigue
in Stroke and MS using a generic, not disease-specific instrument to
allow transdiagnostic comparison.
Method: A total of 137 patients with MS and 102 patients with chronic
stroke completed the SF-36, a generic questionnaire assessing health
related quality of life. Fatigue was measured through the vitality scale
of the SF-36. The vitality scale consists of two positive items (“lot
of energy,” “full of life”) and two negative ones (“worn out,” “tired”).
The two negative ones were scaled in reverse order. The vitality scale
has been recommended as reciprocal index of fatigue.
Results: Normalized vitality scores in MS (35.3)
and stroke (42.1) were clearly lower than published reference values
from the SF-36 in age-matched healthy controls. The sum score of the
vitality items was lower in MS than in stroke patients. This difference
could not be explained by age, gender, or the Physical Functioning Scale
of the SF-36. Both patient groups showed no positive correlation
between fatigue and physical functioning. Fatigue – as determined with
the vitality scale of the SF-36 – correlated with the estimated working
capacity in MS patients, but not in stroke patients.
Conclusion: These findings confirm high fatigue in
MS and stroke patients with higher values in MS. Fatigue has a higher
impact on working capacity in MS than in stroke(really? have you talked to survivors?). Fatigue in both patient
groups is not a direct consequent of physical functioning/impairment.
Vitality score of the SF-36 is a suitable transdiagnostic measure for
the assessment of fatigue in stroke and MS.
Introduction
Fatigue is a prominent and frequent symptom in multiple sclerosis (MS), and affects 60–90% of patients (1, 2).
Fatigue is often experienced as the most disabling and limiting
symptom, and greatly contributes to the degradation of general
well-being, quality of life, and social participation (3, 4).
Moreover, the impact of fatigue in the workplace can be severe and
frequently triggers early retirement, even in the early phase of the
disease (5).
In contrast to the importance of fatigue for patients, treatment
options are limited and efficacy varies substantively across patients (6)
(see also Khan et al., this special issue). Understanding and
distinguishing different pathophysiological mechanisms might improve
individually tailored treatment options.
While fatigue is most prominent in MS, it is also
observed in other conditions. This is particularly for patients with
Stroke, where fatigue has been identified as “a major yet neglected
issue” (7). This perspective has spearheaded more research in this arena (8–10),
but the characteristics of fatigue in stroke have yet to be fully
determined. It is further unclear to what extent fatigue in MS and
Stroke share similarities in their impact on the individual, and whether
fatigue is equally prevalent in the two conditions.
Because fatigue is by far best characterized in MS,
benchmarking fatigue characteristics of other conditions against MS is
important. However, such comparisons are challenging because the
majority of assessment instruments, such as the Fatigue Severity Scale (11) and the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions (FSMC) (12),
have been specifically developed for MS, and might therefore not be
equally sensitive in other neurological conditions. Moreover, a recent
review on fatigue measures in neurological conditions concluded that the
FSMC and the Unidimensional Fatigue Impact Scale (13, 14)
are best suited for measuring fatigue in MS, while the Profile of Mood
States Fatigue subscale (POMS-F) is the optimal measure for stroke (15).
If fatigue characteristics and fatigue prevalence are
to be compared across neurological conditions, it is necessary to use a
generic, disease-unspecific measure, which allows the transdiagnostic
comparison of fatigue prevalence. Such a generic measure has been
derived from the vitality subscale of the short form SF-36 (15).
The SF-36 is a well-validated and accepted measure of health, which is
used in a wide range of health care settings and research (16). Its vitality subscale has already been used to assess fatigue in patients with myocardial infarction (17).
The present study therefore used the vitality subscale to contrast
fatigue in 137 MS and 102 Stroke patients. Based on the prevailing
notion that the fatigue affects the majority of MS patients, we
predicted a more severe manifestation and a higher impact on working
capacity in MS compared to Stroke.
More at link.
No comments:
Post a Comment