Category: Psychiatry/Psychology

The measurement of fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis. A multidimensional comparison with patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and healthy subjects

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To provide a multidimensional characterization of fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

DESIGN: Cross-sectional design. Fifty patients with clinically definite MS were compared on the dimensions of fatigue with 51 patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and 53 healthy subjects.

RESULTS: Fourty-six percent of the patients with MS reported fatigue to be present at least once a week. Patients with MS and patients with CFS had significantly higher subjective fatigue severity scores than healthy subjects. Patients with MS and patients with CFS had significantly higher scores on measures of psychological well-being than healthy subjects. Patients with MS had scores similar to those of patients with CFS, except that patients with CFS had significantly higher somatization scores. High somatization scores reflect strong focusing on bodily sensations. Both groups of patients were significantly less active than the healthy subjects. The Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Beck Depression Inventory scores were not related to subjective fatigue severity. In patients with MS and in patients with CFS, subjective fatigue severity was related to impairment in daily life, low sense of control over symptoms, and strong focusing on bodily sensations. In CFS, but not in MS, evidence was found for a relationship between low levels of physical activity and attributing symptoms to a physical cause and between subjective fatigue severity and physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MS experienced significant fatigue, which had a significant impact on daily functioning and was not related to depression on Expanded Disability Status Scale score. Psychological factors, such as focusing on bodily sensations and low sense of control play a role in the experience of fatigue in MS and CFS.

 

Source: Vercoulen JH, Hommes OR, Swanink CM, Jongen PJ, Fennis JF, Galama JM, van der Meer JW, Bleijenberg G. The measurement of fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis. A multidimensional comparison with patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and healthy subjects. Arch Neurol. 1996 Jul;53(7):642-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8929171

 

Neurobiology of chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

1. Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is characterized by a new onset of significant fatigue for a period of six months or longer usually following an infection, injury or period of high stress.

2. The exact etiology of CFS is not known and a diagnostic test is not available. Hence, the diagnosis is made by exclusion of other explanations for the patient’s symptoms and by meeting the CDC research case definitions. Early studies supported an infectious or immune dysregulation hypothesis for the pathophysiology of CFS.

3. Subsequent studies documented that neurological, affective and cognitive symptoms also occur at high rates in CFS patients. Neuropsychological, neuroendocrine studies and brain imaging have now confirmed the occurrence of neurobiological abnormalities in most patients with CFS.

4. In this article, the authors review these findings in relation to the clinical neurobiology of CFS and their potential relevance to biological psychiatry.

 

Source: Gonzalez MB, Cousins JC, Doraiswamy PM. Neurobiology of chronic fatigue syndrome. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 1996 Jul;20(5):749-59. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8870062

 

Chronic fatigue in the community: ‘a question of attribution’

Abstract:

Thirty-eight subjects identified in a large community survey were found to attribute their fatigue to ‘myalgic encephalomyelitis’ (ME). They were matched randomly to two other groups of subjects who attributed their fatigue to either psychological or social factors. All three groups were followed up 18 months later and were asked to complete a series of questionnaires that examined fatigue, psychological distress, number of symptoms, attributional style and levels of disability.

At onset the ‘ME’ group were found to be more fatigued, had been tired for longer but were less psychologically distressed than the other two groups. At follow-up the ‘ME’ group were more handicapped in relation to home, work, social and private leisure activities, even when controlling for both duration of fatigue and fatigue at time 1, but were less psychologically distressed.

The relationships between psychological distress, specific illness attributions, attributional style and their effect on the experience of illness and its prognosis are discussed. Attributing fatigue to social reasons appears to be most protective.

 

Source: Chalder T, Power MJ, Wessely S. Chronic fatigue in the community: ‘a question of attribution’. Psychol Med. 1996 Jul;26(4):791-800. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8817714

 

Depression in fatiguing illness: comparing patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis and depression

Abstract:

Because depression is commonly observed in the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), the present study sought to determine whether the symptom pattern is similar to that seen in clinically depressed subjects (DEP). Individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) were chosen as an additional comparison group because MS is a fatiguing illness of known organic etiology. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) was used to compare categories of depressive symptomatology.

Absolute scores on the BDI were higher for the depressed group on mood and self-reproach symptoms, but were not higher than the CFS group on somatic and vegetative items. Analysis of symptoms as a percentage of total BDI score revealed no significant differences in mood or vegetative items among the three groups. The CFS and MS groups exhibited a significantly lower percentage of self-reproach symptoms than DEP, whereas the DEP group showed a lower percentage of somatic symptoms than the CFS and MS groups.

 

Source: Johnson SK, DeLuca J, Natelson BH. Depression in fatiguing illness: comparing patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis and depression. J Affect Disord. 1996 Jun 20;39(1):21-30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8835650

 

Chronic fatigue and minor psychiatric morbidity after viral meningitis: a controlled study

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses that patients exposed to viral meningitis would be at an increased risk of developing chronic fatigue syndrome and would have an excess of neurological symptoms and physical impairment.

METHODS: Eighty three patients were followed up 6-24 months after viral meningitis and a postal questionnaire was used to compare outcome with 76 controls who had had non-enteroviral, non-CNS viral infections.

RESULTS: For the 159 patients and controls the prevalence of chronic fatigue syndrome was 12.6%, a rate higher than previously reported from primary care attenders, suggesting that moderate to severe viral infections may play a part in the aetiology of some fatigue states. Those with a history of meningitis showed a slight, non-significant increase in prevalence of chronic fatigue syndrome (OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.5-3.6) which disappeared when logistic regression and analysis was used to correct for age, sex, and duration of follow up (OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.3-2.8). Controls showed marginally higher psychiatric morbidity measured on the general health questionnaire-12 (adjusted OR 0.6; 95% CI 0.3-1.3) Both groups had similar rates of neurological symptoms and physical impairment. The best predictor of chronic fatigue was a prolonged duration time of off work after the illness (OR 4.93, 95% CI 1.3-18.8). The best predictor of severe chronic fatigue syndrome diagnosed by Center for Disease Control criteria was past psychiatric illness (OR 7.82, 95% CI 1.8-34.3). Duration of viral illness, as defined by days in hospital, did not predict chronic fatigue syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS: (1) The prevalence of chronic fatigue syndrome is higher than expected for the range of viral illnesses examined; (2) enteroviral infection is unlikely to be a specific risk factor for its development; (3) onset of chronic fatigue syndrome after a viral infection is predicted by psychiatric morbidity and prolonged convalescence, rather than by the severity of the viral illness itself.

 

Source: Hotopf M, Noah N, Wessely S. Chronic fatigue and minor psychiatric morbidity after viral meningitis: a controlled study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996 May;60(5):504-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC486361/ (Full article)

 

Neuropsychological deficits in chronic fatigue syndrome: artifact or reality?

Chronic fatigue syndrome is an illness characterised by extreme fatigue of uncertain origin which has been present for at least six months. The fatigue should have a sudden onset and be severe enough to substantially reduce the patient’s day to day activities. A number of other symptoms are associated with chronic fatigue syndrome including complaints of impaired memory, difficulty making decisions, poor attention, and reduced concentration. Many patients complain that it is these cognitive symptoms which cause them the greatest frustration and disability.

You can read the rest of this article here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC486357/pdf/jnnpsyc00017-0004.pdf

 

Source: Moss-Morris R, Petrie KJ, Large RG, Kydd RR. Neuropsychological deficits in chronic fatigue syndrome: artifact or reality? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996 May;60(5):474-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC486357/

 

Neuroimaging in chronic fatigue syndrome

The link between viral infection, the brain, and fatiguing illnesses has a long history. This combination forced itself on the medical imagination after events in Austria in the winter of 1916-17. A virulent form of influenza was noted, characteristically, to produce lethargy and later, to leave a host of neurological deficits in its wake. By the spring of 1918 several English cases of encephalitis lethargica had been reported and in the next year the disease was notifiable. The peak of the epidemic occurred in 1924 in the United Kingdom, at which time the Board of Control reported that many cases had been admitted to hospital with psychiatric disturbances.1 Hence the notion that apparent psychiatric illnesses may be misdiagnosed manifestations of a postinfectious cerebral disease began; it refuses to disappear.23

You can read the rest of this article here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC486356/pdf/jnnpsyc00017-0001.pdf

 

Source: Cope H, David AS. Neuroimaging in chronic fatigue syndrome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996 May;60(5):471-3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC486356/

 

Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Patients’ beliefs about their illness were probably not a major factor

Comment on: Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. [BMJ. 1996]

 

EDITOR,-Michael Sharpe and colleagues’ study confirms that the best medical advice for patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome is not “nothing can be done” or that “the disease will burn itself out.”‘ The study produced improvement in 73% of the patients, which is comparable to the 80% improvement produced by my management techniques.2 3 Interestingly, my approach seems to be fundamentally different from that of Sharpe and colleagues.

You can read the full comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350897/pdf/bmj00539-0053d.pdf

 

Source: Ho-Yen DO. Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Patients’ beliefs about their illness were probably not a major factor. BMJ. 1996 Apr 27;312(7038):1097-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8616430

 

Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Essential elements of the treatment must be identified

Comment on: Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. [BMJ. 1996]

 

EDITOR,-We have several practical and theoretical concerns about Michael Sharpe and colleagues’ study of cognitive behaviour therapy in the chronic fatigue syndrome.’ The authors managed to obtain almost 100% uptake of treatment and compliance among patients who were attending an infectious diseases clinic and were strongly convinced that their chronic fatigue had a physical cause. We would struggle to engage our patients similarly, even with two hours for an initial appointment, and we could not offer them anything approaching an hour of treatment a week for four months. The difference between what was provided in the study and what clinicians can routinely offer their patients makes it important to identify the essential elements of the treatment.

The package given included cognitive techniques such as “question[ing] a simple disease explanation,” “strategies to reduce excessive perfectionism and self criticism,” and a problem solving approach of “gradual and consistent increases in activity.” The continuing improvement after the end oftreatment is unusual for the cognitive psychotherapies and suggests that the behavioural component was most effective. We find it puzzling, therefore, that the authors attribute the beneficial effects of treatment to “a specific effect on illness perpetuating beliefs and coping behaviour,” particularly as these attitudes did not change substantially. The patients would inevitably report less avoidance of exercise if they were complying with the study. After treatment at least half of the patients still believed that the illness was physical (from tables 2 and 5), and the vast majority still applied the damaging label of “myalgic encephalomyelitis”2 to their condition.

You can read the full comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350875/pdf/bmj00539-0053b.pdf

 

Source: Lawrie SM. Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Cognitive behavior therapy. Essential elements of the treatment must be identified. BMJ. 1996 Apr 27;312(7038):1097; author reply 1098. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350875/

 

Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Cognitive behavior therapy should be compared with placebo treatments

Comment on: Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. [BMJ. 1996]

 

EDITOR,-Lest Michael Sharpe and colleagues’ paper lends respectability to the notion that the chronic fatigue syndrome is a diagnostic entity or suggests that cognitive behaviour therapy has any value specific to the condition,1 I wish to make three points.

Firstly, the disorder that the authors treated is heterogeneous, the only defining criteria used being fatigue, impaired daily activities, and the absence of signs of physical disease or “severe depression.” Claims for a specific effect in any diffuse symptom complex are dangerous. Quinine is effective in many cases of cramp, but neither the symptom nor the benefit is specific.

Secondly, cognitive behaviour therapy and any comparable substitute were denied the control patients, who were therefore matched only on pretreatment criteria regarding their clinical state and not controlled in respect of a comparable treatment. Despite the authors’ claim for a “specificity of treatment effect” the benefits shown are consistent with the provision of much attention, encouragement, and a positive attitude to the nature of the illness and the strategies to counter it.’

You can read the full comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350872/pdf/bmj00539-0053c.pdf

 

Source: Pearce J. Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Cognitive behavior therapy should be compared with placebo treatments. BMJ. 1996 Apr 27; 312(7038): 1097–1098. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8616428