Diagnosis – Page 13 – American ME and CFS Society

An approach to chronic fatigue syndrome in adults

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The neurologist is often asked to evaluate patients with a chief complaint of fatigue. Many neurologists do not believe in the pathologically based disease known as chronic fatigue syndrome, yet as a group, neurologists are well suited to guide the diagnostic work up of such patients to pinpoint treatable disorders in the realm of neurology, general medicine, and psychiatry.

REVIEW SUMMARY: Every patient should be carefully evaluated for certain medical, psychiatric, and neurologic disease that can cause fatigue as the most prominent symptom. This is most pressing because new work in virology, immunology, and imaging holds promise but still does not provide any diagnostic test or a mechanism for the production of these symptoms. Only a few treatments meet with even modest success in CFS. The goal of this paper is to provide the clinical neurologist with a framework for the investigation and management of this challenging group of patients.

CONCLUSIONS: Neurologists are typically also trained in psychiatry and general medicine, and this is a strong position to evaluate the patient with fatigue. Because no presently available test can make the diagnosis of CFS, the assessment is vital to seek out more treatable illnesses.

Source: Sabin TD. An approach to chronic fatigue syndrome in adults. Neurologist. 2003 Jan;9(1):28-34. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12801429

The head-up tilt test for diagnosing chronic fatigue syndrome

Comment on: The head-up tilt test with haemodynamic instability score in diagnosing chronic fatigue syndrome. [QJM. 2003]

Sir,

The recent paper by Naschitz et al. on the use of the head‐up tilt test with haemodynamic instability score (HIS) in the diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) provides additional insight about the role of dysautonomia in the pathogenesis of CFS. We would like to raise some points regarding the patient group studied.

The enrolment of clinically‐diagnosed CFS patients and the awareness of diagnosis by technicians prior to performing the tilt test, could result in selection bias. Additionally, generalizing the result of the study, whose population was rich in patients with CFS (40/349, or 11%) to the general population (prevalence of CFS 0.07–0.2%) could be misleading. Using their results of a sensitivity of 90.3% and specificity of 84.5% for a cutoff of HIS >−0.98, a positive head‐up tilt test in a patient presenting with fatigue in the general population would have a positive predictive value of only 0.37–1.15. This result, taken with the fact that around one‐fifth of the patients developed a presyncopal or syncopal episode, would make the test less appealing to patients. However, in a patient presenting with fatigue where clinical diagnosis remained unclear despite lengthy evaluation, the head‐up tilt test could be useful for narrowing down the range of diagnoses.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/5/379.2.long

Source: Ghosh AK, Ghosh K. The head-up tilt test for diagnosing chronic fatigue syndrome. QJM. 2003 May;96(5):379-80. http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/5/379.2.long (Full article)

Differential diagnosis for chronic fatigue syndrome

Comment on: Chronic fatigue syndrome: evaluation and treatment. [Am Fam Physician. 2002]

To the Editor: I have just read the recent article on chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). While the authors present an excellent framework for the evaluation and management of patients with chronic fatigue, they have overlooked a differential diagnosis. Celiac disease, also known as gluten-sensitive enteropathy (GSE), may present as CFS and is highly treatable.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2003/0115/p252.html

Source: Nelsen DA Jr. Differential diagnosis for chronic fatigue syndrome. Am Fam Physician. 2003 Jan 15;67(2):252; author reply 252 http://www.aafp.org/afp/2003/0115/p252.html (Full article)

Hemodynamics instability score in chronic fatigue syndrome and in non-chronic fatigue syndrome

Erratum in: Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2003 Apr;32(5):343. Madelain, Fields [corrected to Fields, Madeline]; Hillel, Isseroff [corrected to Isseroff, Hillel].

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: In studying patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) we developed a method that confers numerical expression to the degree of blood pressure and heart rate lability, ie, the ‘hemodynamic instability score’ (HIS). The HIS in CFS patients differed significantly from healthy subjects. The present investigation compares the HIS in CFS, non-CFS chronic fatigue and patients with recurrent syncope.

METHODS: Patients with CFS (n = 21), non-CFS chronic fatigue (n = 24), syncope of unknown cause (n = 44), and their age and sex-matched healthy controls (n = 21) were evaluated with a standardized head-up tilt test (HUTT). Abnormal reactions (endpoints) on HUTT were classified ‘clinical outcomes’ (cardioinhibitory or vasodepressor reaction, orthostatic hypotension, postural tachycardia syndrome) and ‘HIS endpoint’, i.e. HIS >-0.98.

RESULTS: The highest incidence of endpoints was noted in patients with CFS (79%), followed by patients with syncope of unknown cause (46%), non-CFS chronic fatigue (35%), and healthy subjects (14%). Presyncope or syncope during tilt occurred in 38% of CFS patients, 21% of patients with non-CFS chronic fatigue, and 43% of patients with recurrent syncope. The average HIS values were: CFS = +2.02 (SD 4.07), non-CFS chronic fatigue = -2.89 (SD 3.64), syncope = -3.2 (SD 3.0), healthy = -2.48 (4.07). The odds ratios for CFS patients to have HIS >-0.98 was 8.8 compared with non-CFS chronic fatigue patients, 14.6 compared with recurrent syncope patients, and 34.8 compared with healthy subjects.

CONCLUSION: The cardiovascular reactivity in patients with CFS has certain features in common with the reactivity in patients with recurrent syncope or non-CFS chronic fatigue, such as the frequent occurrence of vasodepressor reaction, cardioinhibitory reaction, and postural tachycardia syndrome. Apart from to these shared responses, the large majority of CFS patients exhibit a particular abnormality which is characterized by HIS values >-0.98. Thus, HIS >-0.98 lends objective criteria to the assessment of CFS.

Source: Naschitz JE, Sabo E, Naschitz S, Rosner I, Rozenbaum M, Fields M, Isseroff H, Priselac RM, Gaitini L, Eldar S, Zukerman E, Yeshurun D. Hemodynamics instability score in chronic fatigue syndrome and in non-chronic fatigue syndrome. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2002 Dec;32(3):141-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12528078

Chronic fatigue syndrome. More and more differential diagnoses suggest a new view of this syndrome

Abstract:

The diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) requires a number of symptoms beyond chronic fatigue, according to the criteria developed in 1994 by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) International CFS Study Group. CFS is thus no synonym for chronic fatigue but rather an unusual syndrome afflicting no more than 0.1% of the population. Several CFS definitions have been developed over the years, and it is common for investigators to erroneously compare studies based on different definitions, which nevertheless all use the term CFS. Much of our “understanding” of CFS does not apply to the small group of patients who fulfill the current (1994) CDC definition (above). Recent studies have shown that a number of somatic diseases can present with CFS symptoms and thus be misdiagnosed as CFS. This review presents a list of such differential diagnoses, mainly chronic infections, endocrine diseases, and allergies. In view of these differential diagnoses (1) investigation and therapy must be individualized, and (2) we should offer rehabilitation where different specialists work as a coordinated team.

Comment in:

Chronic fatigue syndrome is a condition still without medical explanation. [Lakartidningen. 2002]

Chronic fatigue belongs to the emotional life’s domains. [Lakartidningen. 2002]

Research on chronic fatigue syndrome face to face with a paradigm shift. [Lakartidningen. 2002]

Source: Merz S. Chronic fatigue syndrome. More and more differential diagnoses suggest a new view of this syndrome. Lakartidningen. 2002 Aug 22;99(34):3282-7. [Article in Swedish] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12362846

Fractal analysis and recurrence quantification analysis of heart rate and pulse transit time for diagnosing chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

This study aimed to develop a method to distinguish between the cardiovascular reactivity in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and other patient populations.

Patients with CFS (n = 23), familial Mediterranean fever (n = 15), psoriatic arthritis (n = 10), generalized anxiety disorder (n = 12), neurally mediated syncope (n = 20), and healthy subjects (n = 20) were evaluated with a shortened head-up tilt test (HUTT). A 10-minute supine phase of the HUTT was followed by recording 600 cardiac cycles on tilt, i. e., 5 to 10 minutes. Beat-to-beat heart rate (HR) and pulse transit time (PTT) were acquisitioned. Data were processed by recurrence plot and fractal analysis. Fifty-two variables were calculated in each subject.

On multivariate analysis, the best predictors of CFS were HR-tilt-R/L, PTT-tilt-R/L, HR-supine-DET, PTT-tilt-WAVE, and HR-tilt-SD. Based on these predictors, the ‘Fractal & Recurrence Analysis-based Score’ (FRAS) was calculated: FRAS = 76.2 + 0.04*HR-supine-DET – 12.9*HR-tilt-R/L – 0.31*HR-tilt-SD – 19.27*PTT-tilt-R/L – 9.42* PTT-tilt-WAVE. The best cut-off differentiating CFS from the control population was FRAS = + 0.22. FRAS > + 0.22 was associated with CFS (sensitivity 70 % and specificity 88 %). The cardiovascular reactivity received mathematical expression with the aid of the FRAS. The shortened HUTT was well tolerated. The FRAS provides objective criteria which could become valuable in the assessment of CFS.

Comment in: Chronic fatigue syndrome and hidden happenings of the heartbeat. [Clin Auton Res. 2002]

Source: Naschitz JE, Sabo E, Naschitz S, Rosner I, Rozenbaum M, Priselac RM, Gaitini L, Zukerman E, Yeshurun D. Fractal analysis and recurrence quantification analysis of heart rate and pulse transit time for diagnosing chronic fatigue syndrome. Clin Auton Res. 2002 Aug;12(4):264-72. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12357280

Chronic fatigue syndrome or neurasthenia?

Comment on: Neurasthenia: prevalence, disability and health care characteristics in the Australian community. [Br J Psychiatry. 2002]

The interesting study reported by Hickie et al (2002) draws attention to the prevalence of ICD-10 neurasthenia (World Health Organization, 1992) in a large sample of the Australian general population. The authors’ findings are of the utmost importance for clinicians concerned with the disabling effects of fatigue but also provide food for thought in the wake of the CFS/ME Working Group (2002) report to the Chief Medical Officer. In this report, the term chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is used as an ‘umbrella term’ because of the ‘need for patients and clinicians to agree a satisfactory term as a means of communication’ but the concept of neurasthenia is not used. The report’s authors state that CFS is ‘widely used among clinicians’ and seem to consider it to be a disorder more physical than psychiatric. Equally, CFS/ME is not included in DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) or ICD-10. On the other hand, neurasthenia as defined in the ICD-10 is a psychiatric disorder whose main feature is ‘persistent and distressing complaints of increased fatigue after mental effort, or persistent and distressing complaints of bodily weakness and exhaustion after minimal effort’. This fatigue could be associated with muscular aches, dizziness, tension headaches, sleep disturbances, irritability, dyspepsia and inability to relax. Neurasthenia includes ‘fatigue syndrome’ but excludes ‘post viral fatigue syndrome’. Using ICD-10 criteria in the general population, Hickie et al (2002) found that 1.5% of the 10 641 people who participated in the study met the criteria for neurasthenia in the past year. For females aged between 18 and 24 years, the 12-month prevalence rises to 2.4%.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/181/4/350.2.long

Source: Bailly L. Chronic fatigue syndrome or neurasthenia? Br J Psychiatry. 2002 Oct;181:350-1. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/181/4/350.2.long (Full article)

Physicians’ diagnoses of psychiatric disorders for people with chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To examine rates of psychiatric diagnoses given by patients’ primary or regular physicians to persons with chronic fatigue syndrome(CFS), persons with psychiatrically explained fatigue, and a control group. Physicians’ psychiatric diagnosis and participants’ self-reported psychiatric diagnoses were compared to lifetime psychiatric diagnoses as measured by a structured psychiatric interview.

METHOD: Participants were recruited as part of a community-based epidemiology study of chronic fatigue syndrome. Medical records of 23 persons with chronic fatigue syndrome, 25 persons with psychiatrically explained chronic fatigue, and 19 persons without chronic fatigue (controls) were examined to determine whether their physician had given a diagnosis of mood, anxiety, somatoform, or psychotic disorder. Lifetime psychiatric status was measured using the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV (SCID). Participants’ self reports of specific psychiatric disorders were assessed as part of a detailed medical questionnaire.

RESULTS: Physicians’ diagnosis of a psychiatric illness when at least one psychiatric disorder was present ranged from 40 percent in the psychiatrically explained group, 50 percent in the control group, and 64.3 percent in the CFS group. Participants in the psychiatrically explained group were more accurate than physicians in reporting the presence of a psychiatric disorder, and in accurately reporting the presence of a mood or anxiety disorder.

CONCLUSIONS: The present investigation found underrecognition of psychiatric illness by physicians, with relatively little misdiagnosis of psychiatric illness. Physicians had particular difficulty assessing psychiatric disorder in those patients whose chronic fatigue was fully explained by a psychiatric disorder. Results emphasized the importance of using participant self report as a screening for psychiatric disorder.

Source: Torres-Harding SR, Jason LA, Cane V, Carrico A, Taylor RR. Physicians’ diagnoses of psychiatric disorders for people with chronic fatigue syndrome. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2002;32(2):109-24. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12269593

Physical performance and prediction of 2-5A synthetase/RNase L antiviral pathway activity in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

The elevated RNase L enzyme activity observed in some Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) patients may be linked to the low exercise tolerance and functional impairment that typify this disease. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if specific indicators of physical performance can predict abnormal RNase L activity in CFS patients. Seventy-three CFS patients performed a graded exercise test to voluntary exhaustion. Forty-six patients had elevated RNase L levels. This measure was employed as the dependent variable in a discriminant function analysis, with peak V02, exercise duration and Karnofsky Performance Scores (KPS) serving as the independent variables. All three variables entered the single significant function (p < 0.001). The elevated RNase L group had a lower peak V02 and duration than the normal group, but a higher KPS. The results suggest that both exercise testing and the RNase L biomarker have potential to aid in the diagnosis of CFS.

Source: Snell CR, Vanness JM, Strayer DR, Stevens SR. Physical performance and prediction of 2-5A synthetase/RNase L antiviral pathway activity in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. In Vivo. 2002 Mar-Apr;16(2):107-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12073768

Generation of classification criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome using an artificial neural network and traditional criteria set

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: The definition of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is still disputed and no validated classification criteria have been published. Artificial neural networks (ANN) are computer-based models that can help to evaluate complex correlations. We examined the utility of ANN and other conventional methods in generating classification criteria for CFS compared to other diseases with prominent fatigue, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and fibromyalgia syndrome (FMA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-nine case patients with CFS, 41 patients with SLE and 58 with FMA were recruited from a generalist outpatient population. Clinical symptoms were documented with help of a predefined questionnaire. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. One group (n = 158) served to derive classification criteria sets by two-fold cross-validation, using a) unweighted application of criteria, b) regression coefficients, c) regression tree analysis, and d) artificial neural networks in parallel. These criteria were validated with the second group (n = 40).

RESULTS: Classification criteria developed by ANN were found to have a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 85%. ANN achieved a higher accuracy than any of the other methods.

CONCLUSION: We present validated criteria for the classification of CFS versus SLE and FMA, comparing different classification approaches. The most accurate criteria were derived with the help of ANN. We therefore recommend the use of ANN for the classification of syndromes with complex interrelated symptoms like CFS.

Sour ce: Linder R, Dinser R, Wagner M, Krueger GR, Hoffmann A. Generation of classification criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome using an artificial neural network and traditional criteria set. In Vivo. 2002 Jan-Feb;16(1):37-43. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11980359