Category: Case Definition

Dutch Health Council Advisory Report on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Taking the Wrong Turn

Abstract:

Recently, the Dutch Health Council published their advisory report on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME)/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) which is meant to determine the medical policy with regard to ME in the Netherlands. The Health Council briefly discusses several diagnostic criteria and proposes to use new diagnostic criteria for “ME/CFS” in research and clinical practice in the future. The advisory report then summarizes organic abnormalities observed in the last decades and concludes that “ME/CFS” is a “serious, chronic, multisystem disease”.

According to the Health Council there are no curative treatments for “ME/CFS”, due to lack of knowledge, but specific medication could bring symptomatic relief. The Health Council recommends conducting more research, to (re)educate medical professionals about “ME/CFS”, to appoint three academic expertise centres, which will install a care network for patients, and to fairly judge the limitations (disability) of patients when they apply for a disability income, medical aid and care. The advisory report was welcomed by many patients, because it puts an end to the dominance of the (bio)psychosocial explanatory model and seems to offer a perspective of improving the situation of patients. However, the starting point of the advisory report, a new definition of “ME/CFS”, will have serious (long-lasting) consequences for patients and researchers.

Source: Twisk F. Dutch Health Council Advisory Report on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Taking the Wrong Turn. Diagnostics (Basel). 2018 May 16;8(2). pii: E34. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics8020034. http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/8/2/34 (Full article)

SEID diagnostic criteria applied on an adolescent cohort: evaluation of subgroup differences and prognostic utility

Systemic exertion intolerance disease diagnostic criteria applied on an adolescent chronic fatigue syndrome cohort: evaluation of subgroup differences and prognostic utility

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: Existing case definitions for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) all have disputed validity. The present study investigates differences between adolescent patients with CFS who satisfy the systemic exertion intolerance disease (SEID) diagnostic criteria (SEID-positive) and those who do not satisfy the criteria (SEID-negative).

METHODS: 120 adolescent patients with CFS with a mean age of 15.4 years (range 12-18 years) included in the NorCAPITAL project (ClinicalTrials ID: NCT01040429) were post-hoc subgrouped according to the SEID criteria based on a comprehensive questionnaire. The two subgroups were compared across baseline characteristics, as well as a wide range of cardiovascular, inflammatory, infectious, neuroendocrine and cognitive variables. Data from 30-week follow-up were used to investigate prognostic differences between SEID-positive and SEID-negative patients.

RESULTS: A total of 45 patients with CFS were SEID-positive, 69 were SEID-negative and 6 could not be classified. Despite the fact that clinically depressed patients were excluded in the NorCAPITAL project, the SEID-positive group had significantly higher score on symptoms suggesting a mood disorder (Mood and Feelings Questionnaire): 23.2 vs 13.4, difference 9.19 (95% CI 5.78 to 12.6). No other baseline characteristics showed any group differences. When accounting for multiple comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding cardiovascular, inflammatory, infectious, neuroendocrine and cognitive variables. Steps per day and Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire at week 30 showed no differences between the groups.

CONCLUSION: The findings question the discriminant and prognostic validity of the SEID diagnostic criteria in adolescent CFS, and suggest that the criteria tend to select patients with depressive symptoms.

Source: Asprusten TT, Sulheim D, Fagermoen E, Winger A, Skovlund E, Wyller VB. Systemic exertion intolerance disease diagnostic criteria applied on an adolescent chronic fatigue syndrome cohort: evaluation of subgroup differences and prognostic utility. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2018 Mar 16;2(1):e000233. doi: 10.1136/bmjpo-2017-000233. eCollection 2018.   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5887832/ (Full article)

Diagnosis and Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Abstract:

We present here the Japanese clinical diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) that were proposed in 2016 by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare study group. The clinical diagnosis criteria of ME/CFS were created to be used by healthcare agencies in charge of primary care practice. We also explain the current prognosis in ME/CFS and medical treatments used in major medical institutions in Japan.

Source: Kuratsune H. Diagnosis and Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Brain Nerve. 2018 Jan;70(1):11-18. doi: 10.11477/mf.1416200944.[Article in Japanese] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29348370

Differing case definitions point to the need for an accurate diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

Excerpt:

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is characterised by unexplained and persistent or recurrent incapacitating fatigue accompanied by a variety of symptoms and substantial reductions in previous levels of occupational, educational, social and/or personal activity [1, 2]. Given the absence of biomarkers for diagnosis, ME/CFS is defined by a combination of symptoms, most of which are non-specific and common to a number of diseases and conditions.

Over 20 case definitions have been proposed, leading to large variations in sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis. These diverse sets of diagnostic criteria and distinct ways in which they have been applied pose significant problems, as research results may vary considerably according to which definition is used. A particular problem occurs when overly inclusive criteria are used, since their lack of specificity may lead to considerable selection bias [3, 4]. Unfortunately, many studies, clinical trials in particular, have used broad case definitions such as the Oxford criteria [5], which requires little more than the presence of persistent significant fatigue for over 6 months and the exclusion of conditions that could explain symptoms, for a diagnosis to be made.

This problem has been highlighted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) review of evidence for the NIH Pathways to Prevention Workshop [4], which showed significant changes to the interpretation of evidence for treatment, when studies using broad case definitions, such as the Oxford criteria, are excluded from the analysis. The implications for clinical practice suggest that fit-for-all management approaches to ME/CFS, although more applicable to those who fit such broadly inclusive criteria, may be inadequate for patients who fulfil better targeted case definitions.

For patients selected using more restrictive definitions, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), graded exercise therapy (GET) and other forms of non-drug management approaches to ME/CFS, are most appropriate as adjunct therapies rather than restorative treatments, when provided by therapists with a good understanding of ME/CFS. These forms of behavioural intervention have been shown to support the well-being and rehabilitation of those suffering from many chronic and disabling conditions [6]. However, it is very important that the use of behaviourally based management strategies does not deter researchers, physicians, and other health professionals from the overarching goal of investigating the causes and pathophysiology of ME/CFS in various sub-groups and the development of specific treatments.

Source: Luis Nacul, PhD, Caroline C. Kingdon, MS, Erinna W Bowman, MSc, Hayley Curran, MS, and Eliana M Lacerda, PhD. Differing case definitions point to the need for an accurate diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome.Fatigue. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 Dec 14. Published in final edited form as: Fatigue. 2017; 5(1): 1–4. Published online 2017 Jan 8. doi: 10.1080/21641846.2017.1273863 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5730342/ (Full article)

Are current chronic fatigue syndrome criteria diagnosing different disease phenotypes?

Abstract:

Importance: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is characterised by a constellation of symptoms diagnosed with a number of different polythetic criteria. Heterogeneity across these diagnostic criteria is likely to be confounding research into the as-yet-unknown pathophysiology underlying this stigmatised and debilitating condition and may diagnose a disease spectrum with significant implications for clinical management. No studies to date have objectively investigated this possibility using a validated measure of CFS symptoms–the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ).

Objective: To examine whether current CFS diagnostic criteria are identifying different disease phenotypes using the DSQ.

Design: Case control study.

Setting: Clinical Research Facility of the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Participants: 49 CFS subjects and ten matched, sedentary community controls, excluded for co-morbid depression.

Main outcomes and measures: Self-reported autonomic and cognitive features were assessed with the Composite Autonomic Symptom Score (COMPASS) and Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (COGFAIL) respectively. Objective autonomic cardiovascular parameters were examined using the Task Force® Monitor and a battery of neuropsychological tests administered for objective cognitive assessment.

Results: Self-reported autonomic and cognitive symptoms were significantly greater in CFS subjects compared to controls. There were no statistically significant differences in objective autonomic measures between CFS and controls. There were clinically significant differences between DSQ subgroups on objective autonomic testing. Visuospatial memory, verbal memory and psychomotor speed were significantly different between DSQ subgroups.

Conclusions and relevance: The finding of no significant differences in objective autonomic testing between CFS and control subjects may reflect the inclusion of sedentary controls or exclusion for co-morbid depression. Consistent exclusion criteria would enable better delineation of these two conditions and their presenting symptoms. Findings across CFS subgroups suggest subjects have a different disease burden on subjective and objective measures of function, autonomic parameters and cognitive impairment when categorised using the DSQ. Different CFS criteria may at best be diagnosing a spectrum of disease severities and at worst different CFS phenotypes or even different diseases. This complicates research and disease management and may contribute to the significant stigma associated with the condition.

Source: Laura Maclachlan, Stuart Watson, Peter Gallagher, Andreas Finkelmeyer, Leonard A. Jason, Madison Sunnquist, Julia L. Newton. Are current chronic fatigue syndrome criteria diagnosing different disease phenotypes? PLoS ONE. Published: October 20, 2017https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186885   http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186885 (Full article)

The importance of a research case definition

Abstract:

All scientific activities with diseases rely on the selection of reliable and valid case definitions in order to accurately estimate prevalence rates, to identify biological markers, and to understand the outcomes of treatment trials. The failure to develop a consensus on which research case definition to use for defining Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) has had negative consequences for the scientific and patient community.

If case definition criteria inappropriately select patients with symptoms due to primary affective disorders, other fatiguing medical conditions, burnout, or over-committed lifestyle issues, the scientific consequences are serious. For example, a case definition that is too broad would include individuals with other illnesses and conditions, complicating the tasks of estimating prevalence rates or identifying effective treatment programs.

A consensus on a research case definition and its operationalization and assessment would enable investigators to select more homogenous samples that could expedite the identification of valid biological markers, and consequently reduce misperceptions regarding the role of psychogenic versus biomedical factors. Our editorial reviews the implications of previous research and clinical case definitions in CFS and ME domains.

Source: Leonard A. Jason, Pamela A. Fox & Kristen D. Gleason. The importance of a research case definition.  Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior. Pages 1-7 | Received 01 Aug 2017, Accepted 04 Oct 2017, Published online: 12 Oct 2017.    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21641846.2018.1389336?journalCode=rftg20 

How have selection bias and disease misclassification undermined the validity of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome studies?

Abstract:

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome has been a controversial diagnosis, resulting in tensions between patients and professionals providing them with care. A major constraint limiting progress has been the lack of a ‘gold standard’ for diagnosis; with a number of imperfect clinical and research criteria used, each defining different, though overlapping, groups of people with myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome. We review basic epidemiological concepts to illustrate how the use of more specific and restrictive case definitions could improve research validity and drive progress in the field by reducing selection bias caused by diagnostic misclassification.

Source: Nacul L, Lacerda EM, Kingdon CC, Curran H, Bowman EW. How have selection bias and disease misclassification undermined the validity of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome studies? J Health Psychol. 2017 Mar 1:1359105317695803. doi: 10.1177/1359105317695803. [Epub ahead of print] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28810428

A Comparison of Case Definitions for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Abstract:

Many professionals have described the clinical presentation of myalgic
encephalomyelitis (ME), but recent efforts have focused on the development of ME
criteria that can be reliably applied. The current study compared the symptoms and
functioning of individuals who met the newly-developed Institute of Medicine (IOM)
clinical criteria to a revised version of the London criteria for ME. While 76% of a
sample diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) met the IOM criteria, 44%
met the revised London criteria. The revised London criteria identified patients with
greater physical impairment. The results of this study indicate the need for a standard
case definition with specific guidelines for operationalization. The application of case
definitions has important implications for the number of individuals identified with ME,
the pattern of symptoms experienced by these individuals, and the severity of their
symptoms and functional limitations. Sample heterogeneity across research studies
hinders researchers from replicating findings and impedes the search for biological
markers and effective treatments.

Source: Madison Sunnquist, Leonard A. Jason, Pamela Nehrke, and Ellen M. Goudsmit. A Comparison of Case Definitions for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Journal of Chronic Diseases and Management. https://www.jscimedcentral.com/ChronicDiseases/chronicdiseases-2-1013.pdf (Full article)

 

Clinical criteria versus a possible research case definition in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis

Abstract:

Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recently developed clinical criteria for what had been known as chronic fatigue syndrome. Given the broad nature of the clinical IOM criteria, there is a need for a research definition that would select a more homogenous and impaired group of patients than the IOM clinical criteria. At the present time, it is unclear what will serve as the research definition.

Purpose: The current study focused on a research definition which selected homebound individuals who met the four IOM criteria, excluding medical and psychiatric co-morbidities.

Methods: Our research criteria were compared to those participants meeting the IOM criteria. Those not meeting either of these criteria sets were placed in a separate group defined by six or more months of fatigue. Data analyzed were from the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Due to unequal sample sizes and variances, Welch’s F tests and Games-Howell post-hoc tests were conducted.

Results: Using a large database of over 1000 patients from several countries, we found that those meeting a more restrictive research definition were even more impaired and more symptomatic than those meeting criteria for the other two groups.

Conclusion: Deciding on a particular research case definition would allow researchers to select more comparable patient samples across settings, and this would represent one of the most significant methodologic advances for this field of study.

 

Source: Leonard A. Jason, Stephanie McManimen, Madison Sunnquist, Julia L. Newton & Elin Bolle Strand. Clinical criteria versus a possible research case definition in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior. Published online: 06 Mar 2017

 

Case definitions integrating empiric and consensus perspectives

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: There has been considerable controversy regarding how to name and define the illnesses known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). The IOM report has proposed a new clinical criteria and name for this illness, but aspects of these recommendations have been scrutinized by patients and scientists.

PURPOSE: It is possible that both empiric and consensus approaches could be used to help settle some of these diagnostic challenges. Using patient samples collected in the United States, Great Britain, and Norway (N=556), the current study attempted to categorize patients using more general as well as more restricted case definitions.

RESULTS: Overall, the outcomes suggest that there might be four groupings of patients, with the broadest category involving those with chronic fatigue (N=62), defined by 6 or more months of fatigue which can be cannot be explained by medical or psychiatric conditions. A second category involves those patients that have chronic fatigue that can be explained by a medical or psychiatric condition (N=47). A third category involves more specific criteria that have been posited both by the IOM report, a Canadian Clinical Case criteria, a ME-ICC criteria and a more empiric approach. These efforts have specified domains of substantial reductions of activity, post-exertional malaise, neurocognitive impairment, and sleep dysfunction (N=346). Patients with these characteristics were more functionally impaired than those meeting just chronic fatigue criteria, p < .05. Finally, those meeting even more restrictive ME criteria proposed by Ramsay, identified a smaller and even more impaired group, p < .05.

DISCUSSION: The advantages of using such empirical and consensus approaches to develop reliable classification and diagnostic efforts are discussed.

 

Source: Jason LA, McManimen S, Sunnquist M, Brown A, Furst J, Newton JL, Strand EB. Case definitions integrating empiric and consensus perspectives. Fatigue. 2016;4(1):1-23. Epub 2016 Jan 19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4831204/ (Full article)