Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing Reveals Functional Limitations and Work Disability in Severe Post-COVID-19 and ME/CFS Patients, 2026, Tomaskovic+

forestglip

Moderator
Staff member
Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing Reveals Functional Limitations and Work Disability in Severe Post-COVID-19 and ME/CFS Patients

Tomaskovic, Aleksandar; Weber, Vincent; Ochmann, David T.; Hillen, Barlo; Neuberger, Elmo W. I.; Brahmer, Alexandra; Lachtermann, Ella; Lieb, Klaus; Simon, Perikles

Background
Patients severely affected by post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) often experience long-term work incapacity, contributing to a growing economic burden. Organ-centered clinical diagnostics frequently fail to explain their work disability.

Objectives
We aimed to objectively assess physical work ability using cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in a cohort of long-standing and severely affected PCC patients. We hypothesized: (1) patients with ME/CFS exhibit lower peak oxygen uptake (VO₂ peak [mL/min/kg]) and peak power output (PPO [W/kg]) than those without; (2) most patients demonstrate objective work disability, closely aligned with subjective perception of disability; (3) oxygen pulse (O 2 pulse [mL/bpm]) is reduced in ME/CFS, independent of comorbidity.

Methods
The study was conducted in the Department of Sports Medicine, Prevention and Rehabilitation at Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz (Mainz, Germany). Between July 31, 2023, and March 31, 2025, a total of 92 PCC patients with suspected occupational disease underwent symptom-limited CPET and completed the Canadian Consensus Criteria, Bell Disability Scale (Bell-Score), and DePaul Symptom Questionnaire (Post-Exertional Malaise) Short Form (DSQ-PEM).

Results
Nearly half of the patients (49%) met ME/CFS criteria and 79% screened positive on the DSQ-PEM. ME/CFS patients showed significantly lower VO₂ peak (13.0 ± 3.1 vs. 15.4 ± 4.9, p = 0.012), PPO (0.9 ± 0.3 vs. 1.1 ± 0.5, p = 0.014), and O₂ pulse (7.7 ± 2.0 vs. 8.5 ± 1.9, p = 0.047) compared to those without ME/CFS.

Overall, 66% of patients met objective thresholds for work disability (VO₂ peak < 15 mL/min/kg or PPO < 1 W/kg).

Forty-five patients (51%) had a Bell-Score ≤ 30 and 82% from those had VO₂ peak < 15 and/or PPO < 1. VO₂ peak and PPO significantly correlated with Bell-Score (r = 0.3, p = 0.005 and r = 0.3, p = 0.003) and were the lowest among patients on medical sick leave (13.3 ± 3.3 and 0.9 ± 0.3), compared to those in occupational reintegration (16.0 ± 3.9, p = 0.04 and 1.2 ± 0.5, p = 0.024) or currently working (18.0 ± 7.1, p = 0.036 and 1.2 ± 0.5, p = 0.015).

Conclusions
Severely affected PCC patients exhibit objective work disability, particularly those with ME/CFS. VO₂ peak and PPO are associated with subjective disability and occupational status.

Therefore, early integration of CPET into clinical and occupational evaluations can inform individualized therapy planning and return-to-work decisions.

Trial registration
DRKS, DRKS00032394. Registered 28 July 2023, https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00032394

Web | DOI | PDF | Sports Medicine - Open | Open Access
 
This is really bad.

The first study like this and I hope it will be the last.

All in the name of wanting proof before disability can be given.

The German drill-sergeant-rehabs are at it again.

79% screened positive on DSQ-PEM and they still went ahead.
Payed for by Berufsgenossenschaft für Gesundheitsdienst ubd Wohlfahrtspflege. Occipation club for Health and Welfare Care (my translation)

@dave30th the german patients need you.
 

Competing Interests​

Aleksandar Tomaskovic, Vincent Weber, David T. Ochmann, Barlo Hillen, Elmo W.I. Neuberger, Alexandra Brahmer, Ella Lachtermann, Klaus Lieb, and Perikles Simon declare that they have no competing interests.
Perikles has said in a public presentation that he initially encountered LC patients when he was contacted by an insurance company to assess their ability to work.

That sounds like a conflict of interests to me.
 
Right--I meant would the results help overall to give credibility to the notion that people are actually seriously disabled. Not to the idea that people should have to get CPETs in each case to prove it.
Thanks for explaining.
I got my disability because of CPET, but even the chance that some patients could get even more disabled because of CPET is horrible.
The authors seem to want to use CPET earlier on, that sounds to me on all patients.
 
I don’t have enough juice to read the study but just wanted to add a thought that if this study doesn’t address PEM (it doesn’t sound like it is) then it’s missing one the of the defining features of ME.

Even if they did a two CPETs 24hrs apart, it could miss those whose PEM hits after 2 or 3 days.
 
Back
Top Bottom