Tag: CDC case definition

The prevalence of chronic fatigue syndrome/ myalgic encephalomyelitis: a meta-analysis

Abstract:

PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis to examine variability among prevalence estimates for CFS/ME, according to the method of assessment used.

METHODS: Databases were systematically searched for studies on CFS/ME prevalence in adults that applied the 1994 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) case definition.1 Estimates were categorized into two methods of assessment: self-reporting of symptoms versus clinical assessment of symptoms. Meta-analysis was performed to pool prevalences by assessment using random effects modeling. This was stratified by sample setting (community or primary care) and heterogeneity was examined using the I (2) statistic.

RESULTS: Of 216 records found, 14 studies were considered suitable for inclusion. The pooled prevalence for self-reporting assessment was 3.28% (95% CI: 2.24-4.33) and 0.76% (95% CI: 0.23-1.29) for clinical assessment. High variability was observed among self-reported estimates, while clinically assessed estimates showed greater consistency.

CONCLUSION: The observed heterogeneity in CFS/ME prevalence may be due to differences in method of assessment. Stakeholders should be cautious of prevalence determined by the self-reporting of symptoms alone. The 1994 CDC case definition appeared to be the most reliable clinical assessment tool available at the time of these studies. Improving clinical case definitions and their adoption internationally will enable better comparisons of findings and inform health systems about the true burden of CFS/ME.

 

Source: Johnston S, Brenu EW, Staines D, Marshall-Gradisnik S. The prevalence of chronic fatigue syndrome/ myalgic encephalomyelitis: a meta-analysis. Clin Epidemiol. 2013;5:105-10. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S39876. Epub 2013 Mar 26. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3616604/ (Full article)

 

An examination of the working case definition of chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

PURPOSE: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) currently is defined by a working case definition developed under the leadership of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) based on a consensus among experienced clinicians. We analyzed the experience from one large center to examine the adequacy of the case definition.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Predefined clinical and laboratory data were collected prospectively from 369 patients with debilitating fatigue, of whom 281 (76%) met the major criteria of the original CDC case definition for CFS: (1) fatigue of at least 6 months’ duration, seriously interfering with the patient’s life; and (2) without evidence of various organic or psychiatric illnesses that can produce chronic fatigue. The same clinical data were obtained from 311 healthy control subjects and two comparison groups with diseases that can present in a similar fashion; relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (n = 25) and major depression (n = 19).

RESULTS: All of the minor criteria symptoms from the original CDC case definition distinguished patients with debilitating chronic fatigue from healthy control subjects, and many distinguished the patients with chronic fatigue from the comparison groups with multiple sclerosis and depression: myalgias, postexertional malaise, headaches, and a group of infectious-type symptoms (ie, chronic fever and chills, sore throat, swollen glands in the neck or underarm areas). In addition, two other symptoms not currently part of the case definition discriminated the chronic fatigue patients from the control/comparison groups: anorexia and nausea. Physical examination criteria only infrequently contributed to the diagnosis. Patients meeting the CDC major criteria for CFS also met the minor criteria in 91% of cases.

CONCLUSION: Patients meeting the major criteria of the current CDC working case definition of CFS reported symptoms that were clearly distinguishable from the experience of healthy control subjects and from disease comparison groups with multiple sclerosis and depression. Eliminating three symptoms (ie, muscle weakness, arthralgias, and sleep disturbance) and adding two others (ie, anorexia and nausea) would appear to strengthen the CDC case definition of CFS.

 

Source: Komaroff AL, Fagioli LR, Geiger AM, Doolittle TH, Lee J, Kornish RJ, Gleit MA, Guerriero RT. An examination of the working case definition of chronic fatigue syndrome. Am J Med. 1996 Jan;100(1):56-64. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8579088

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome: point and counterpoint

Abstract:

Two clinical investigators with divergent views on chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) were invited to debate their positions at the 1993 annual meeting of The Infectious Disease Society of America. Major points of the discourse focused on the value of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention case definition of CFS, the potential roles of infectious and allergic problems in the syndrome, the confounding problem of concurrent psychiatric problems, and the utility of diagnostic tests.

 

Source: Straus SE, Komaroff AL, Wedner HJ. Chronic fatigue syndrome: point and counterpoint. J Infect Dis. 1994 Jul;170(1):1-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8014482

 

A comparison of case definitions of chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

We compared three case definitions of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) applied to patients followed in CFS clinics at two institutions. All patients had debilitating fatigue without apparent etiology; patients with medical conditions associated with chronic fatigue and with major psychiatric disorders were stratified and presented separately. Patients were classified according to whether they met case definitions developed by a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Working Group, a British group, or an Australian group. When findings for 805 patients followed at the two clinics were combined, 61% met the CDC criteria, 55% met the British criteria, and 56% met the Australian criteria; these proportions were relatively similar at both sites. In addition, similar laboratory abnormalities were found for all case groups and for fatigued patients who met none of the three case definitions. These data suggest that more inclusive case definitions may be superior.

 

Source: Bates DW, Buchwald D, Lee J, Kith P, Doolittle TH, Umali P, Komaroff AL. A comparison of case definitions of chronic fatigue syndrome. Clin Infect Dis. 1994 Jan;18 Suppl 1:S11-5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8148436

 

Prevalence of fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome in a primary care practice

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Our goals were to determine the prevalence of unusual, debilitating fatigue and the frequency with which it was associated with the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) or other physical or psychological illness in an outpatient clinic population.

METHODS: We prospectively evaluated a cohort of 1000 consecutive patients in a primary care clinic in an urban, hospital-based general medicine practice. The study protocol included a detailed history, physical examination, and laboratory and psychiatric testing.

RESULTS: Five patients who came because of CFS studies were excluded. Of the remaining 995, 323 reported fatigue, and 271 (27%) complained of at least 6 months of unusual fatigue that interfered with their daily lives. Of the 271, self-report or record review revealed a medical or psychiatric condition that could have explained the fatigue in 186 (69%). Thus, 85 (8.5%) of 995 patients had a debilitating fatigue of at least 6 months’ duration, without apparent cause. Of these patients, 48 refused further evaluation, and 11 were unavailable for follow-up; 26 completed the protocol. Three of the 26 were hypothyroid, and one had a major psychiatric disorder. Of the remaining 22 patients, three met Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for CFS, four met British criteria, and 10 met the Australian case definition. The point prevalences of CFS were thus 0.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0% to 0.6%), 0.4% (95% CI, 0% to 0.8%), and 1.0% (95% CI, 0.4% to 1.6%) using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, British, and Australian case definitions, respectively. These estimates were conservative, because they assumed that none of the patients who refused evaluation or were unavailable for follow-up would meet criteria for CFS.

CONCLUSIONS: While chronic, debilitating fatigue is common in medical outpatients, CFS is relatively uncommon. Prevalence depends substantially on the case definition used.

 

Source: Bates DW, Schmitt W, Buchwald D, Ware NC, Lee J, Thoyer E, Kornish RJ, Komaroff AL. Prevalence of fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome in a primary care practice. Arch Intern Med. 1993 Dec 27;153(24):2759-65. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8257251

 

Treatment of the chronic fatigue syndrome. A review and practical guide

Abstract:

The chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was formally defined in 1988 to describe a syndrome of severe and disabling fatigue of uncertain aetiology associated with a variable number of somatic and/or psychological symptoms. CFS has been reported in most industrialised countries and is most prevalent in women aged between 20 and 50 years.

Despite occasional claims to the contrary, the aetiology of CFS remains elusive. Although abnormalities in tests of immune function and cerebral imaging have been described in variable numbers of CFS patients, such findings have been inconsistent and cannot be relied upon, either to establish or exclude the diagnosis. Thus, diagnosis rests on fulfillment of the Centers for Disease Control case definition which was revised in 1992. This case definition remains somewhat controversial, largely due to its subjectiveness.

The mainstay of treatment is establishing the diagnosis and educating the patient about the illness. An empathetic clinician can stop further consultations elsewhere (‘doctor shopping’) and subsequent excessive investigations, which frequently occur in such patients.

Most patients should undertake a trial of antidepressant therapy, even if major depression is not present. The choice of antidepressant drug should tailor the tolerability profile to relief of particular CFS symptoms, such as insomnia or hypersomnia. Failure to improve within 12 weeks warrants an alternative antidepressant agent of another class. Many other drugs have been reported anecdotally to be beneficial, but no therapy has been demonstrated to be reproducibly useful in double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials with an adequate duration of follow-up.

 

Source: Blondel-Hill E, Shafran SD. Treatment of the chronic fatigue syndrome. A review and practical guide. Drugs. 1993 Oct;46(4):639-51. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7506650

 

Human herpesvirus 6 and chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

The cause of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is still enigmatic. Using indirect immunofluorescence testing for measuring antibody against human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6), this study investigated the association of CFS with infection by HHV-6. Seventeen patients (group A) fulfilling the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) definition for CFS were compared with eight patients (group B) with chronic fatigue but not meeting the CDC criteria.

No significant difference was found between the two groups for 30 parameters including sex, age, exposure to children and serology for Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex virus, and toxoplasma. Univariate analysis showed that patients in group A complained more frequently of a sore throat, headache and of recurrent type of fatigue.

These three parameters are discriminant in identifying patients who will meet the CDC case definition of CFS. The titre of antibody against HHV-6 in group A (1:99) was significantly higher than in group B (1:15) (P=0.007). Elevated HHV-6 titres suggests that this virus could be a cofactor in the pathogenesis of CFS.

 

Source: Eymard D, Lebel F, Miller M, Turgeon F. Human herpesvirus 6 and chronic fatigue syndrome. Can J Infect Dis. 1993 Jul;4(4):199-202. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250792/  (Full article)

 

Information processing efficiency in chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple sclerosis

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cognitive performance of subjects with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), multiple sclerosis (MS), and healthy controls. All subjects were matched for age, education, and verbal intelligence, as previous neuropsychological studies of CFS had not used appropriate control groups.

DESIGN: Case-control design. All subjects were given a neuropsychological battery and the test scores were compared among the groups.

SETTING: Subjects with CFS and subjects with MS were recruited from private and institutional practice and from the community. Healthy subjects were recruited from the community.

PATIENTS/OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Twelve subjects (all female) with CFS participated in the study. Chronic fatigue syndrome was diagnosed in these patients in accordance with the requirements outlined by the Centers for Disease Control as modified subsequently to not exclude patients with concurrent depression and/or anxiety. All subjects with CFS were referred for a neuropsychological examination to assess persistent cognitive complaints. Eleven subjects (10 female, one male) with the diagnosis of clinically stable MS were chosen from clinics and the community because of complaints of mild to moderate cognitive impairment. The subjects with MS and 11 healthy volunteers (10 female, one male) were matched to the group with CFS by age, education, and estimated verbal intelligence (based on the Vocabulary subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised). The subjects with MS had a mean Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 4.95 (SD, 1.95; range, 2.0 to 7.5). As a result of the matching procedure, there were no differences among the three groups in age (F[2,31] = 0.32), education (F[2,31] = 0.80), and verbal intelligence (F[2,31] = 0.31).

INTERVENTIONS: None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: These measures included the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT), Digit Span Test, and the Similarities Test of Verbal Abstract Reasoning.

RESULTS: The mean number of correctly identified responses collapsed across the four PASAT trials was significantly different across groups (F[2,31] = 4.03; P < .05). While the CFS and MS groups did not differ from each other, subjects with CFS (SEM, 124.2 +/- 6.4) and subjects with MS (SEM, 112.9 +/- 10.9) scored significantly below controls (SEM, 146.4 +/- 6.4) (Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Difference test; P < .05). There were significant differences among the three groups on mean Digit Span Test performance (F[2,31] = 5.5; P < .01). While the CFS and MS group did not differ significantly from each other, only the CFS group was significantly lower than control (Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Difference test; P < .05). Mean performance on the Similarities test did not differ among the three groups (F = 0.58). In addition, there were significant differences among the three groups in mean BDI scores (F[2,31] = 7.6; P < .01). The CFS and MS groups did not differ significantly from each other, and both groups showed a statistically significantly elevated mean BDI score relative to the control group (Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Difference test; P < .05). No significant correlations were found between BDI scores and PASAT total scores (CFS, r = -.21; MS, r = .13; control, r = .27), or between BDI and Digit Span Test (CFS, r = -.32; MS, r = -.40; control, r = -.19). Results of the PASAT and Digit Span Test were significantly correlated in the CFS group (r = .71; P < .01), but not in the MS (r = .06) or control groups (r = .49).

CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that subjects with CSF and subjects with MS show significant impairment on a test of complex concentration when compared with appropriate controls. The data suggest that subjects with CFS and subjects with MS have difficulty on tasks that require the simultaneous processing of complex cognitive information. Selective impairment in information processing efficiency may lie at the root of other cognitive complaints made by patients with CFS.

 

Source: DeLuca J, Johnson SK, Natelson BH. Information Processing Efficiency in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Multiple Sclerosis.Arch Neurol. 1993;50(3):301-304. doi:10.1001/archneur.1993.00540030065016. http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=592247

 

Taking exception to chronic fatigue syndrome prevalence findings by Price, et al.

Comment on: Estimating the prevalence of chronic fatigue syndrome and associated symptoms in the community. [Public Health Rep. 1992]

 

We would like to address some serious methodological issues in the article, “Estimating the Prevalence of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Associated Symptoms in the Community,” by Rumi K. Price, et al., published in the September-October issue of Public Health Reports. We believe that because of the deficiencies in the design of this research, the authors’ conclusions are totally illogical and invalid.

In this article, the authors conclude that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), as defined by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Diagnostic Criteria, might be “quite rare” in the general population, as only 1 of 13,538 individuals studied was deemed to have CFS. The official CDC Diagnostic Criteria, however, were not utilized to diagnose cases of CFS. Instead, the researchers reviewed interview questionnaire data collected between 1981 and 1984 for a purpose unrelated to diagnosing CFS. In fact, the CDC Diagnostic Criteria were not formulated and published until 1988.

You can read the rest of this comment as well as the rely from the authors here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1403345/pdf/pubhealthrep00069-0137c.pdf

 

Source: Robin R, Lipkin DM, Hume GW. Taking exception to chronic fatigue syndrome prevalence findings by Price, et al. Public Health Rep. 1993 Jan-Feb;108(1):135-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1403345/