Evaluation of patient-perceived fatigue in multiple sclerosis utilizing the Finnish MS registry.

Päivi Hämäläinen, Matias Viitala, Merja Soilu-Hänninen, Hanna Kuusisto, Marja Niiranen, Sari Avikainen, Juha Puustinen, Juhani Ruutiainen, Mervi Ryytty, Henrik Ahvenjärvi, Carl Björkholm, Annika Hulten
Author Information
  1. Päivi Hämäläinen: StellarQ Ltd, Turku, Finland. ORCID
  2. Matias Viitala: StellarQ Ltd, Turku, Finland. ORCID
  3. Merja Soilu-Hänninen: Turku University Hospital Neurocenter and Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. ORCID
  4. Hanna Kuusisto: Tampere University Hospital, Department of Neurology, Tampere, Finland. ORCID
  5. Marja Niiranen: Neuro Center, Neurology, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.
  6. Sari Avikainen: Department of Neurology, Nova hospital in Central Finland, Jyväskylä, Finland.
  7. Juha Puustinen: Satasairaala Central Hospital, Unit of Neurology, Satakunta Wellbeing Services County, Pori, Finland.
  8. Juhani Ruutiainen: Finnish Neuro Society, Masku, Finland.
  9. Mervi Ryytty: Medical Research Center and Neurocenter, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
  10. Henrik Ahvenjärvi: Research Unit of Clinical Medicine, Neurology, University of Oulu, Finland. ORCID
  11. Carl Björkholm: Janssen-Cilag AB Sweden.
  12. Annika Hulten: Janssen-Cilag Oy Finland.

Abstract

Objectives: To characterize patient-perceived Fatigue by using the Finnish multiple sclerosis (MS) registry data.
Materials & Methods: Fatigue was assessed with the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions (FSMC), and the Visual Analogue Scale-Fatigue. Disease severity was evaluated with the Expanded Disability Status Scale and symptoms with the Visual Analogue Scales. patient reported outcomes (PROs) included the multiple sclerosis Neuropsychological Questionnaire, the Euro Quality of Life - 5 dimensions, the 15 D, and the multiple sclerosis Impact Scale. For the purposes of the study, patients were classified to those without (FSS ≤ 4) and those with (FSS ≥ 5) Fatigue. The FSS scores were correlated with the results of other PROs.
Results: Based on the 512 FSS scores, 47% of the patients reported Fatigue (FSS ≥ 5). Fatigue was related to higher disability, lower education, and smoking. FSS correlated significantly with other measures of Fatigue, cognitive, and mood symptoms, and was associated with lower Quality of Life.
Conclusions: As an invisible and debilitating symptom Fatigue should be evaluated systematically. In the screening, it is important to recognize the characteristics of the different scales. Whereas the FSS may serve as an overall screen, the FSMC may help to identify aspects of cognitive and motor Fatigue separately.

Keywords

References

  1. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020 Dec;199:106265 [PMID: 33038658]
  2. Curr Opin Neurol. 2020 Jun;33(3):295-299 [PMID: 32324704]
  3. Arch Neurol. 1989 Oct;46(10):1121-3 [PMID: 2803071]
  4. Mult Scler. 2003 Feb;9(1):95-101 [PMID: 12617275]
  5. Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444-52 [PMID: 6685237]
  6. Front Neurol. 2016 Aug 02;7:122 [PMID: 27531990]
  7. Acta Neurol Scand. 2019 Nov;140(5):303-311 [PMID: 31271648]
  8. BMC Neurol. 2021 Dec 2;21(1):468 [PMID: 34856949]
  9. Eur J Health Econ. 2006 Sep;7 Suppl 2:S5-13 [PMID: 17310344]
  10. Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):328-36 [PMID: 11491191]
  11. Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208 [PMID: 10109801]
  12. Neurol Ther. 2021 Jun;10(1):75-98 [PMID: 33877583]
  13. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2021 Aug 31;36(6):908-917 [PMID: 33316071]
  14. Mult Scler. 2018 Apr;24(5):579-586 [PMID: 28279128]
  15. Int J MS Care. 2024 Oct 7;26(Q4):273-280 [PMID: 39386272]
  16. Mult Scler. 2019 Apr;25(5):740-749 [PMID: 29663869]
  17. Mult Scler. 2009 Dec;15(12):1509-17 [PMID: 19995840]
  18. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019 Jan;27:171-178 [PMID: 30384204]
  19. Brain Behav. 2017 May 17;7(7):e00725 [PMID: 28729932]
  20. Brain Behav. 2017 Jun 09;7(7):e00743 [PMID: 28729945]
  21. Mult Scler. 2003 Oct;9(5):509-14 [PMID: 14582778]
  22. Brain Behav. 2021 Jun;11(6):e02087 [PMID: 33960700]
  23. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2022 Aug;64:103954 [PMID: 35716477]
  24. BMC Med. 2016 May 31;14:81 [PMID: 27246898]
  25. Brain. 2001 May;124(Pt 5):962-73 [PMID: 11335698]
  26. Mult Scler. 2006 Aug;12(4):367-8 [PMID: 16900749]
  27. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2023 Sep;77:104861 [PMID: 37442075]
  28. Front Immunol. 2022 Mar 29;13:844461 [PMID: 35422797]
  29. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019 Jun;90(6):642-651 [PMID: 30683707]
  30. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018 Jan;19:153-160 [PMID: 29241142]
  31. Acta Neurol Scand. 2017 Aug;136(2):116-121 [PMID: 27796033]
  32. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2021 Mar 18;7(1):2055217321999826 [PMID: 33796331]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0fatigueFSSFatigueScaleMultipleSclerosisregistrydatareportedpatient-perceivedFinnishMSFSMCVisualAnalogueevaluatedsymptomsoutcomesPROsQualityLifepatientsFSS ≥ 5scorescorrelatedlowercognitivemaymultiplesclerosispatientObjectives:characterizeusingMaterials&Methods:assessedSeverityMotorCognitiveFunctionsScale-FatigueDiseaseseverityExpandedDisabilityStatusScalesPatientincludedNeuropsychologicalQuestionnaireEuro-5dimensions15DImpactpurposesstudyclassifiedwithoutFSS ≤ 4resultsResults:Based51247%relatedhigherdisabilityeducationsmokingsignificantlymeasuresmoodassociatedConclusions:invisibledebilitatingsymptomsystematicallyscreeningimportantrecognizecharacteristicsdifferentscalesWhereasserveoverallscreenhelpidentifyaspectsmotorseparatelyEvaluationutilizingdigitalmonitoringpatient-generated

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.