BackgroundPatients with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME, also called chronic fatigue syndrome) may respond most favorably to frequent vitamin B12 injections, in vital combination with oral folic acid. However, there is no established algorithm for individualized optimal dosages, and rate of improvement may differ considerably between responders.ObjectiveTo evaluate clinical data from patients with ME, with or without fibromyalgia, who had been on B12 injections at least once a week for six months and up to several years.Methods38 patients were included in a cross-sectional survey. Based on a validated observer’s rating scale, they were divided into Good (n = 15) and Mild (n = 23) responders, and the two groups were compared from various clinical aspects.ResultsGood responders had used significantly more frequent injections (p<0.03) and higher doses of B12 (p<0.03) for a longer time (p<0.0005), higher daily amounts of oral folic acid (p<0.003) in good relation with the individual MTHFR genotype, more often thyroid hormones (p<0.02), and no strong analgesics at all, while 70% of Mild responders (p<0.0005) used analgesics such as opioids, duloxetine or pregabalin on a daily basis. In addition to ME, the higher number of patients with fibromyalgia among Mild responders was bordering on significance (p<0.09). Good responders rated themselves as “very much” or “much” improved, while Mild responders rated “much” or “minimally” improved.ConclusionsDose-response relationship and long-lasting effects of B12/folic acid support a true positive response in the studied group of patients with ME/fibromyalgia. It’s important to be alert on co-existing thyroid dysfunction, and we suspect a risk of counteracting interference between B12/folic acid and certain opioid analgesics and other drugs that have to be demethylated as part of their metabolism. These issues should be considered when controlled trials for ME and fibromyalgia are to be designed.

(-)-OSU6162 was found to be safe and well tolerated. When analysing the entire material (-)-OSU6162 was not found to differ significantly from placebo in alleviating fatigue in ME patients but was superior to placebo in counteracting fatigue in a subgroup of ME patients who received concomitant pharmacological treatment for depression.

In view of its good tolerability, (-)-OSU6162 may offer a new treatment option for alleviating mental fatigue, as well as depression, in MS. Larger, randomized double-blind controlled trials are warranted to confirm the present preliminary observations.

Objectives The purpose of the present study was to investigate the safety and tolerability of the monoaminergic stabilizer (‐)‐OSU6162 in patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). In addition, a potential therapeutic effect of (‐)‐OSU6162 in ME/CFS was evaluated by means of observer‐rated scales and self‐assessment rating scales. Materials and Methods In the current study using an open‐label single‐arm design ME/CFS patient received treatment with (‐)‐OSU6162 during 12 weeks. The patients received the following doses of (‐)‐OSU6162: 15 mg b.i.d. during the first 4‐week period, up to 30 mg b.i.d. during the second 4‐week period and up to 45 mg b.i.d. during the third 4‐week period, with follow‐up visits after 16 and 20 weeks. Results Out of 33 included patients, 28 completed the 12 weeks treatment period. (‐)‐OSU6162 was well tolerated; only one patient discontinued due to an adverse event. Vital signs and physical examinations showed no abnormal changes. Blood analyses showed an increase in serum prolactin. Therapeutically, improvements were seen on the Clinical Global Impression of Change scale, the FibroFatigue scale, the Mental Fatigue Scale, the Fatigue Severity Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, and the Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire. Conclusions (‐)‐OSU6162 is well tolerated in ME/CFS patients and shows promise as a novel treatment to mitigate fatigue and improve mood and health‐related quality of life in ME/CFS. Obviously, the present results need to be confirmed in future placebo‐controlled double‐blind trials.

No abstract