Case Definition – Page 4 – American ME and CFS Society

Replacing Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome with Systemic Exercise Intolerance Disease Is Not the Way forward

Abstract:

Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), described in the medical literature since 1938, is characterized by distinctive muscular symptoms, neurological symptoms, and signs of circulatory impairment. The only mandatory feature of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), introduced in 1988 and redefined in 1994, is chronic fatigue, which should be accompanied by at least four or more out of eight “additional” symptoms.

The use of the abstract, polythetic criteria of CFS, which define a heterogeneous patient population, and self-report has hampered both scientific progress and accurate diagnosis. To resolve the “diagnostic impasse” the Institute of Medicine proposes that a new clinical entity, systemic exercise intolerance disease (SEID), should replace the clinical entities ME and CFS. However, adopting SEID and its defining symptoms, does not resolve methodological and diagnostic issues.

Firstly, a new diagnostic entity cannot replace two distinct, partially overlapping, clinical entities such as ME and CFS. Secondly, due to the nature of the diagnostic criteria, the employment of self-report, and the lack of criteria to exclude patients with other conditions, the SEID criteria seem to select an even more heterogeneous patient population, causing additional diagnostic confusion. This article discusses methodological and diagnostic issues related to SEID and proposes a methodological solution for the current “diagnostic impasse”.

Source: Twisk FN. Replacing Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome with Systemic Exercise Intolerance Disease Is Not the Way forward. Diagnostics (Basel). 2016 Feb 5;6(1). pii: E10. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics6010010. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4808825/ (Full article)

Unintended Consequences of not Specifying Exclusionary Illnesses for Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease

Abstract:

The Institute of Medicine recently proposed a new case definition for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), as well as a new name, Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease (SEID). Contrary to the Fukuda et al.’s CFS case definition, there are few exclusionary illnesses specified for this new SEID case definition.

The current study explored this decision regarding exclusionary illnesses using the SEID criteria with four distinct data sets involving patients who had been identified as having CFS, as well as healthy controls, community controls, and other illness groups. The findings indicate that many individuals from major depressive disorder illness groups as well as other medical illnesses were categorized as having SEID. The past CFS Fukuda et al. prevalence rate in a community based sample of 0.42 increased by 2.8 times with the new SEID criteria. The consequences for this broadening of the case definition are discussed.

Source: Jason LA, Sunnquist M, Kot B, Brown A. Unintended Consequences of not Specifying Exclusionary Illnesses for Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease. Diagnostics (Basel). 2015 Jun 23;5(2):272-86. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics5020272. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4666441/ (Full article)

A new case definition of Neuro-Inflammatory and Oxidative Fatigue (NIOF), a neuroprogressive disorder, formerly known as chronic fatigue syndrome or Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: results of multivariate pattern recognition methods and external validation by neuro-immune biomarkers

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) or Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) is characterized by neuro-psychiatric (e.g. depression, irritability, sleep disorders, autonomic symptoms and neurocognitive defects) and physio-somatic (fatigue, a flu-like malaise, hyperalgesia, irritable bowel, muscle pain and tension) symptoms. New ME/CFS case definitions based on consensus criteria among experts are largely inadequate, e.g. those of the US Institute of Medicine .

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to delineate a new case definition of ME/CFS based on pattern recognition methods and using neuro-immune, inflammatory, oxidative and nitrosative stress (neuro-IO&NS) biomarkers as external validating criteria.

METHODS: We measured the 12-item Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Rating (FF) Scale in 196 subjects with CFS (CDC criteria) and 83 with chronic fatigue. The “Neuro-IO&NS” biomarkers were: IgM / IgA responses against LPS of gut commensal bacteria (leaky gut), IgM responses to O&NS modified neoepitopes, autoimmunity to serotonin, plasma interleukin-1 (IL-1) and serum neopterin.

RESULTS: Cluster analysis showed the presence of two well-separated clusters with highly significant differences in symptoms and biomarkers. The cluster with higher scores on all FF items was externally validated against all IO&NS biomarkers and therefore this diagnostic group was labeled “Neuro-IO&NS Fatigue” or “Neuro-Inflammatory and Oxidative Fatigue” (NIOF). An algorithm was constructed which defined NIOF as chronic fatigue and 4 or more of the following 6 symptoms: muscle tension, memory disturbances, sleep disorders, irritable bowel, headache or a flu-like malaise. There was a significant overlap between NIOF and CFS although NIOF criteria were much more restrictive. Factor analysis showed two factors, the first a fatigue-hyperalgesia (fibromyalgic complaints) and the second a fatigue-depression factor.

Source: Maes M. A new case definition of Neuro-Inflammatory and Oxidative Fatigue (NIOF), a neuroprogressive disorder, formerly known as chronic fatigue syndrome or Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: results of multivariate pattern recognition methods and external validation by neuro-immune biomarkers. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2015;36(4):320-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26454487

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome versus Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine has recommended a change in the name and criteria for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), renaming the illness Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease (SEID). The new SEID case definition requires substantial reductions or impairments in the ability to engage in pre-illness activities, unrefreshing sleep, post-exertional malaise, and either cognitive impairment or orthostatic intolerance.

PURPOSE: In the current study, samples were generated through several different methods and were used to compare this new case definition to previous case definitions for CFS, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME-ICC), Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), as well as a case definition developed through empirical methods.

METHODS: We used a cross-sectional design with samples from tertiary care settings, a biobank sample, and other forums. 796 patients from the US, Great Britain, and Norway completed the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire.

RESULTS: Findings indicated that the SEID criteria identified 88% of participants in the samples analyzed, which is comparable to the 92% that met the Fukuda criteria. The SEID case definition was compared to a four item empiric criteria, and findings indicated that the four item empiric criteria identified a smaller, more functionally limited and symptomatic group of patients.

CONCLUSION: The recently developed SEID criteria appears to identify a group comparable in size to the Fukuda et al. criteria, but a larger group of patients than the Canadian ME/CFS and ME criteria, and selects more patients who have less impairment and fewer symptoms than a four item empiric criteria.

Source: Jason LA, Sunnquist M, Brown A, Newton JL, Strand EB, Vernon SD. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome versus Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease. Fatigue. 2015 Jul;3(3):127-141. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4556426/ (Full article)

Reflections on the Institute of Medicine’s systemic exertion intolerance disease

Abstract:

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) in the United States has recently proposed that the term systemic exertion intolerance disease (SEID) replace chronic fatigue syndrome. In addition, the IOM proposed a new case definition for SEID, which includes substantial reductions or impairments in the ability to engage in pre illness activities, unrefreshing sleep, postexertional malaise, and either cognitive impairment or orthostatic intolerance.

Unfortunately, these recommendations for a name change were not vetted with patient and professional audiences, and the new criteria were not evaluated with data sets of patients and controls. A recent poll suggests that the majority of patients reject this new name. In addition, studies have found that prevalence rates will dramatically increase with the new criteria, particularly due to the ambiguity revolving around exclusionary illnesses. Findings suggest that the new criteria select more patients who have less impairment and fewer symptoms than several other criteria. The implications of these findings are discussed in the current review.

Source: Jason LA, Sunnquist M, Brown A, McManimen S, Furst J. Reflections on the Institute of Medicine’s systemic exertion intolerance disease. Pol Arch Med Wewn. 2015;125(7-8):576-81. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4826027/ (Full article)

Diagnostic Methods for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Systematic Review for a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is based on clinical criteria, yet there has been no consensus regarding which set of criteria best identifies patients with the condition. The Institute of Medicine has recently proposed a new case definition and diagnostic algorithm.

PURPOSE: To review methods to diagnose ME/CFS in adults and identify research gaps and needs for future research.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases (January 1988 to September 2014); clinical trial registries; and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies describing methods of diagnosis of ME/CFS and their accuracy.

DATA EXTRACTION: Data on participants, study design, analysis, follow-up, and results were extracted and confirmed. Study quality was dual-rated by using prespecified criteria, and discrepancies were resolved through consensus.

DATA SYNTHESIS: Forty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Eight case definitions have been used to define ME/CFS; a ninth, recently proposed by the Institute of Medicine, includes principal elements of previous definitions. Patients meeting criteria for ME represent a more symptomatic subset of the broader ME/CFS population. Scales rating self-reported symptoms differentiate patients with ME/CFS from healthy controls under study conditions but have not been evaluated in clinically undiagnosed patients to determine validity and generalizability.

LIMITATIONS: Studies were heterogeneous and were limited by size, number, applicability, and methodological quality. Most methods were tested in highly selected patient populations.

CONCLUSION: Nine sets of clinical criteria are available to define ME/CFS, yet none of the current diagnostic methods have been adequately tested to identify patients with ME/CFS when diagnostic uncertainty exists. More definitive studies in broader populations are needed to address these research gaps.

Source: Haney E, Smith ME, McDonagh M, Pappas M, Daeges M, Wasson N, Nelson HD. Diagnostic Methods for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Systematic Review for a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jun 16;162(12):834-40. doi: 10.7326/M15-0443. http://annals.org/aim/article/2322800/diagnostic-methods-myalgic-encephalomyelitis-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-systematic-review-national (Full article)

Comments

Ellen M Goudsmit 2015 Dec 02

Sad to note today that the journal chose to publish letters, favouring opinion above the correction of factual errors. How can science progress if editors collude in the perpetuation of inaccuracies and myths? Who will know that there ARE research criteria for ME as described by Ramsay? That there are helpful alternatives to CBT and GET?

Postscript 2016. The editors decided not to publish the comment as a letter in the journal as they rejected the view that there were factual errors. Thus while I was not a co-author of the criteria cited in the article, and I’m not named in the reference given, listing me as a co-author is not a ‘factual error’ in their eyes. Nor is the claim that a trial I discussed selected patients using two sets of criteria, not just the one referred to in the article. In my view, this failure to correct errors and misleading information is inconsistent with good science.
Ellen M Goudsmit 2015 Jul 17
As someone who has studied myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) since the 1980s, I appreciate the work completed by The National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshops on what is now known as ME/CFS. Unfortunately, some of the information in the two reviews is inaccurate, incomplete and misleading (1,2). For example, in the report on diagnostic methods, the reviewers included the London criteria for ME but gave details in the table based on a version written by a layperson, rather than the four individuals cited in their reference (3). Moreover, they did not consider the updated criteria for ME (4), although one of the authors had emailed the panel on two separate occasions during the consultation phase to alert them to their existence.

The second review (2) encourages further research on subgroups and outcomes other than fatigue and function but did not identify one of the few controlled studies which had employed such a design (5). For instance, in the Appendix, Table 1 lists the programme evaluated by Goudsmit and colleagues under ‘counseling and behavioural therapies’, and describes the treatment as ‘counseling’. It also states that patients were selected using the Oxford criteria, that the duration of follow-up was six months and that the outcomes were function and fatigue.

In fact, the trial evaluated a physician-led multi-component programme comprising medical care, information on the illness, diet and relaxation, as well as advice on activity management and some counselling (5). It was conducted in the naturalistic setting of an NHS hospital clinic, patients were diagnosed using criteria for post-viral fatigue syndrome as well as the Oxford criteria, and data were available for a number of symptoms including cognitive impairment, as well as other variables. Fatigue improved as noted in the review but the latter did not convey that 82% of the patients rated themselves as ‘better’, that 23% were well enough to be discharged at six months and that the improvements were maintained at 1 year. Given the missing details, the study’s rating as ‘poor’ is understandable.

The reviewers concluded that “more definitive studies comparing participants meeting different case definitions, including ME… are needed to fill research gaps”. It was therefore disappointing that they did not recognise the positive aspects of a study that used a different case definition and assessed a range of symptoms, not just fatigue.
1. Haney E, Smith MEB, McDonagh M, Pappas M, Daeges M, Wasson N, et al. Diagnostic methods for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: A systematic review for a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162: 834-40. [PMID: 26075754] doi:10.7326/M15-0443
2. Smith MEB, Haney E, McDonagh M, Pappas M, Daeges M, Wasson N, et al. Treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: A systematic review for a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:841-
3. [PMID: 26075755] doi:10.7326/M15-0114
4. Dowsett E, Goudsmit E, Macintyre A, Shepherd C. London Criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis. In: Report from The National Task Force on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome (PVFS), Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME). Westcare. 1994. 96-98. Available from: http://www.actionforme.org.uk/Resources/Action for ME/Documents/get-informed/national task force.pdf
5. Goudsmit E, Shepherd C, Dancy CP, Howes S. ME: Chronic fatigue syndrome or a distinct clinical entity? Health Psychol Update. 2009;18(1):26-33. Available from: http://shop.bps.org.uk/publications/publications-by-subject/health/health-psychology-update-vol-18-no-1-2009.html
6. Goudsmit EM, Ho-Yen DO, Dancey CP. Learning to cope with chronic illness. Efficacy of a multi-component treatment for people with chronic fatigue syndrome. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77:231–6. [PMID: 19576714 ] doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.05.015
Ellen M Goudsmit PhD FBPsS

Comment also on Annals of Internal Medicine website under Haney et al.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: Toward An Empirical Case Definition

Abstract:

Current case definitions of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) have been based on consensus methods, but empirical methods could be used to identify core symptoms and thereby improve the reliability. In the present study, several methods (i.e., continuous scores of symptoms, theoretically and empirically derived cut off scores of symptoms) were used to identify core symptoms best differentiating patients from controls. In addition, data mining with decision trees was conducted. Our study found a small number of core symptoms that have good sensitivity and specificity, and these included fatigue, post-exertional malaise, a neurocognitive symptom, and unrefreshing sleep. Outcomes from these analyses suggest that using empirically selected symptoms can help guide the creation of a more reliable case definition.

Source: Jason LA, Kot B, Sunnquist M, Brown A, Evans M, Jantke R, Williams Y, Furst J, Vernon SD. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: Toward An Empirical Case Definition. Health Psychol Behav Med. 2015;3(1):82-93. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4443921/ (Full article)

A critical analysis of the proposal of the Institute of Medicine to replace myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome by a new diagnostic entity called systemic exertion intolerance disease

Abstract:

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recently published their report in response to an assignment “to define diagnostic criteria for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME)/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), to propose a process for reevaluation of these criteria in the future, and to consider whether a new name for this disease is warranted”.

The basic pre-assumption of the IOM committee for the development of evidence-based diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS was that ME and CFS denote conditions with similar symptoms, hence ME/CFS. The IOM committee recommends: (1) that ME/CFS will be renamed ‘systemic exertion intolerance disease’ (SEID); and that a new code should be assigned to SEID in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), replacing the existing codes for ME (a neurological disease: G93.3) and CFS (‘signs, symptoms, and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified’: R53.82); (2) that a diagnosis of SEID should be made if the new diagnostic criteria are met; (3) that the Department of Health and Human Services develops a toolkit appropriate for screening and diagnosing patients; and (4) that a multidisciplinary group re-examines the new diagnostic criteria when necessary.

This editorial reviews the working procedure of the IOM and two of the outcomes: the recommendation to introduce a new clinical entity (SEID) and new diagnostic criteria. Based upon the contents of the report, and the arguments of the IOM, a search of PubMed and the archive of the Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome using the search terms ME (and old synonyms) and CFS, and a search of PubMed related to the five core symptoms of SEID was conducted.

Reviewing the working method and the recommendations, it is concluded that the new diagnostic criteria for SEID are based upon important methodological shortcomings and that the introduction of SEID to replace both ME and CFS has several profound negative consequences outweighing the advantages.

Source: Twisk FN. A critical analysis of the proposal of the Institute of Medicine to replace myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome by a new diagnostic entity called systemic exertion intolerance disease. Curr Med Res Opin. 2015;31(7):1333-47. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2015.1045472. Epub 2015 May 29. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25912615 (Full article)

Study findings challenge the content validity of the Canadian Consensus Criteria for adolescent chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

AIM: The 2003 Canadian Consensus Criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) are often assumed to suggest low-grade systemic inflammation, but have never been formally validated. This study explored the content validity of the Criteria in a sample of adolescents with CFS selected according to a wide case definition.

METHODS: A total of 120 patients with CFS with a mean age of 15.4 years (range 12-18 years) included in the NorCAPITAL project were post hoc subgrouped according to the Canadian Consensus Criteria. Those who satisfied the criteria (Criteria positive) and those who did not (Criteria negative) were compared across a wide range of disease markers and markers of prognosis.

RESULTS: A total of 46 patients were classified as Criteria positive, 69 were classified as Criteria negative, and five could not be classified. All disease markers were equal across the two groups, except the digit span backward test of cognitive function, which showed poorer performance in the Criteria-positive group. Also, the prognosis over a 30-week period was equal between the groups.

CONCLUSION: This study questions the content validity of the Canadian Consensus Criteria, as few differences were found between adolescent patients with CFS who did and did not satisfy the Criteria.

Source: Asprusten TT, Fagermoen E, Sulheim D, Skovlund E, Sørensen Ø, Mollnes TE, Wyller VB. Study findings challenge the content validity of the Canadian Consensus Criteria for adolescent chronic fatigue syndrome. Acta Paediatr. 2015 May;104(5):498-503. doi: 10.1111/apa.12950. Epub 2015 Mar 23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25640602

Chronic fatigue syndrome versus sudden onset myalgic encephalomyelitis

Abstract:

A revised sudden onset case definition for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) has been developed (Jason, Damrongvachiraphan, et al., 2012 ) based on past case definitions. In a prior study, Jason, Brown, and colleagues ( 2012 ) compared patients recruited using the 1994 case definition of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) to contrast those meeting criteria for the revised ME criteria.

They found that this revised ME case definition identified patients with more functional impairments and physical, mental, and cognitive problems than those meeting the CFS criteria. The study by Jason, Brown, et al. ( 2012 ) only selected individuals who first met the CFS criteria, and it only relied on one Chicago-based data set. The current study replicated this comparison with two distinct data sets with different case ascertainment methods. Results indicate that the ME criteria identified a group of patients with more functional disabilities as well as more severe post-exertional malaise symptoms.

Source: Jason LA, Evans M, Brown A, Sunnquist M, Newton JL. Chronic fatigue syndrome versus sudden onset myalgic encephalomyelitis. J Prev Interv Community. 2015;43(1):62-77. doi: 10.1080/10852352.2014.973233. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4295655/ (Full article)