International Consensus Criteria – American ME and CFS Society

Systematic review of fatigue severity in ME/CFS patients: insights from randomized controlled trials

Abstract:

Background: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a debilitating illness medically unexplained, affecting approximately 1% of the global population. Due to the subjective complaint, assessing the exact severity of fatigue is a clinical challenge, thus, this study aimed to produce comprehensive features of fatigue severity in ME/CFS patients.

Methods: We systematically extracted the data for fatigue levels of participants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) targeting ME/CFS from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL throughout January 31, 2024. We normalized each different measurement to a maximum 100-point scale and performed a meta-analysis to assess fatigue severity by subgroups of age, fatigue domain, intervention, case definition, and assessment tool, respectively.

Results: Among the total of 497 relevant studies, 60 RCTs finally met our eligibility criteria, which included a total of 7088 ME/CFS patients (males 1815, females 4532, and no information 741). The fatigue severity of the whole 7,088 patients was 77.9 (95% CI 74.7-81.0), showing 77.7 (95% CI 74.3-81.0) from 54 RCTs in 6,706 adults and 79.6 (95% CI 69.8-89.3) from 6 RCTs in 382 adolescents. Regarding the domain of fatigue, ‘cognitive’ (74.2, 95% CI 65.4-83.0) and ‘physical’ fatigue (74.3, 95% CI 68.3-80.3) were a little higher than ‘mental’ fatigue (70.1, 95% CI 64.4-75.8). The ME/CFS participants for non-pharmacological intervention (79.1, 95% CI 75.2-83.0) showed a higher fatigue level than those for pharmacological intervention (75.5, 95% CI 70.0-81.0). The fatigue levels of ME/CFS patients varied according to diagnostic criteria and assessment tools adapted in RCTs, likely from 54.2 by ICC (International Consensus Criteria) to 83.6 by Canadian criteria and 54.2 by MFS (Mental Fatigue Scale) to 88.6 by CIS (Checklist Individual Strength), respectively.

Conclusions: This systematic review firstly produced comprehensive features of fatigue severity in patients with ME/CFS. Our data will provide insights for clinicians in diagnosis, therapeutic assessment, and patient management, as well as for researchers in fatigue-related investigations.

Source: Park JW, Park BJ, Lee JS, Lee EJ, Ahn YC, Son CG. Systematic review of fatigue severity in ME/CFS patients: insights from randomized controlled trials. J Transl Med. 2024 Jun 3;22(1):529. doi: 10.1186/s12967-024-05349-7. PMID: 38831460; PMCID: PMC11145935. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11145935/ (Full text)

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS): Investigating care practices pointed out to disparities in diagnosis and treatment across European Union

Abstract:

ME/CFS is a chronic, complex, multisystem disease that often limits the health and functioning of the affected patients. Diagnosing patients with ME/CFS is a challenge, and many different case definitions exist and are used in clinical practice and research. Even after diagnosis, medical treatment is very challenging. Symptom relief and coping may affect how patients live with their disease and their quality of life. There is no consensus on which diagnostic criteria should be used and which treatment strategies can be recommended for patients.

The purpose of the current project was to map the landscape of the Euromene countries in respect of national guidelines and recommendations for case definition, diagnosis and clinical approaches for ME/CFS patients. A 23 items questionnaire was sent out by email to the members of Euromene. The form contained questions on existing guidelines for case definitions, treatment/management of the disease, tests and questionnaires applied, and the prioritization of information for data sampling in research. We obtained information from 17 countries. Five countries reported having national guidelines for diagnosis, and five countries reported having guidelines for clinical approaches.

For diagnostic purposes, the Fukuda criteria were most often recommended, and also the Canadian Consensus criteria, the International Consensus Criteria and the Oxford criteria were used. A mix of diagnostic criteria was applied within those countries having no guidelines. Many different questionnaires and tests were used for symptom registration and diagnostic investigation. For symptom relief, pain and anti-depressive medication were most often recommended. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Graded Exercise treatment were often recommended as disease management and rehabilitative/palliative strategies.

The lack of consistency in recommendations across European countries urges the development of regulations, guidance and standards. The results of this study will contribute to the harmonization of diagnostic criteria and treatment for ME/CFS in Europe.

Source: Strand EB, Nacul L, Mengshoel AM, Helland IB, Grabowski P, Krumina A, Alegre-Martin J, Efrim-Budisteanu M, Sekulic S, Pheby D, Sakkas GK, Sirbu CA, Authier FJ; European Network on ME/CFS (EUROMENE). Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS): Investigating care practices pointed out to disparities in diagnosis and treatment across European Union. PLoS One. 2019 Dec 5;14(12):e0225995. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225995. eCollection 2019. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225995 (Full article)

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis or What? The International Consensus Criteria

Abstract:

Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) is a neuromuscular disease with two distinctive types of symptoms (muscle fatigability or prolonged muscle weakness after minor exertion and symptoms related to neurological disturbance, especially of sensory, cognitive, and autonomic functions) and variable involvement of other bodily systems. Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), introduced in 1988 and re-specified in 1994, is defined as (unexplained) chronic fatigue accompanied by at least four out of eight listed (ill-defined) symptoms. Although ME and CFS are two distinct clinical entities (with partial overlap), CFS overshadowed ME for decades.

In 2011, a panel of experts recommended abandoning the label CFS and its definition and proposed a new definition of ME: the International Consensus Criteria for ME (ME-ICC). In addition to post-exertional neuroimmune exhaustion (PENE), a mandatory feature, a patient must experience at least three symptoms related to neurological impairments; at least three symptoms related to immune, gastro-intestinal, and genitourinary impairments; and at least one symptom related to energy production or transportation impairments to meet the diagnosis of ME-ICC.

A comparison between the original definition of ME and the ME-ICC shows that there are some crucial differences between ME and ME-ICC. Muscle fatigability, or long-lasting post-exertional muscle weakness, is the hallmark feature of ME, while this symptom is facultative for the diagnosis under the ME-ICC. PENE, an abstract notion that is very different from post-exertional muscle weakness, is the hallmark feature of the ME-ICC but is not required for the diagnosis of ME. The diagnosis of ME requires only two type of symptoms (post-exertional muscle weakness and neurological dysfunction), but a patient has to experience at least eight symptoms to meet the diagnosis according to the ME-ICC. Autonomic, sensory, and cognitive dysfunction, mandatory for the diagnosis of ME, are not compulsory to meet the ME-ICC subcriteria for ‘neurological impairments’.

In conclusion, the diagnostic criteria for ME and of the ME-ICC define two different patient groups. Thus, the definitions of ME and ME-ICC are not interchangeable.

Source: Twisk, F. Myalgic Encephalomyelitis or What? The International Consensus Criteria. Diagnostics 2019, 9, 1. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/9/1/1/htm (Full article)

The adoption of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis case definitions to assess prevalence: a systematic review

Abstract:

PURPOSE: Prevalence estimates have been based on several case definitions of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). The purpose of this work is to provide a rigorous overview of their application in prevalence research.

METHODS: A systematic review of primary studies reporting the prevalence of CFS since 1990 was conducted. Studies were summarized according to study design, prevalence estimates, and case definition used to ascertain cases.

RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were retrieved, and eight different case definitions were found. Early estimates of CFS prevalence were based on the 1988 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Australian, and Oxford. The 1994 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, has been adopted internationally, as a general standard. Only one study has reported prevalence according to the more recent, Canadian Consensus Criteria. Additional estimates were also found according to definitions by Ho-Yen, the 2005 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention empirical definition, and an epidemiological case definition.

CONCLUSIONS: Advances in clinical case definitions during the past 10 years such as the Canadian Consensus Criteria have received little attention in prevalence research. Future assessments of prevalence should consider adopting more recent developments, such as the newly available International Consensus Criteria. This move could improve the surveillance of more specific cases found within CFS.

Source: Johnston S, Brenu EW, Staines DR, Marshall-Gradisnik S. The adoption of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis case definitions to assess prevalence: a systematic review. Ann Epidemiol. 2013 Jun;23(6):371-6. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.04.003. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23683713

Diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis: where are we now?

Abstract:

INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization has classified myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) as a neurological disease since 1969 considering chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) as a synonym used interchangeably for ME since 1969. ME and CFS are considered to be neuro-immune disorders, characterized by specific symptom profiles and a neuro-immune pathophysiology. However, there is controversy as to which criteria should be used to classify patients with “chronic fatigue syndrome.”

AREAS COVERED: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria consider chronic fatigue (CF) to be distinctive for CFS, whereas the International Consensus Criteria (ICC) stresses the presence of post-exertion malaise (PEM) as the hallmark feature of ME. These case definitions have not been subjected to rigorous external validation methods, for example, pattern recognition analyses, instead being based on clinical insights and consensus.

EXPERT OPINION: Pattern recognition methods showed the existence of three qualitatively different categories: (a) CF, where CF evident, but not satisfying full CDC syndrome criteria. (b) CFS, satisfying CDC criteria but without PEM. (c) ME, where PEM is evident in CFS. Future research on this “chronic fatigue spectrum” should, therefore, use the above-mentioned validated categories and novel tailored algorithms to classify patients into ME, CFS, or CF.

Comment in: Comment and reply on: ME is a distinct diagnostic entity, not part of a chronic fatigue spectrum. [Expert Opin Med Diagn. 2013]

Source: Maes M, Anderson G, Morris G, Berk M. Diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis: where are we now? Expert Opin Med Diagn. 2013 May;7(3):221-5. doi: 10.1517/17530059.2013.776039. Epub 2013 Feb 27. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23480562

Response to ‘A controversial consensus’; by the International Consensus Panel

Dear Sir,First and foremost, we would like to thank Drs van der Meer and Lloyd [1] for their careful and thorough review of the International Consensus Criteria (ICC) paper [2]. We support this type of open discussion and strongly agree that only in this way will the basic and clinical science of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) evolve soundly. This being said the content of their feedback also leads us to believe that several elements have been taken out of context or that we may not have articulated these components as well as we had hoped. As a result, we fully appreciate this opportunity to rectify any such miscommunication.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02499.x/full

Comment on: A controversial consensus–comment on article by Broderick et al. [J Intern Med. 2012]

Source: Broderick G. Response to ‘A controversial consensus’; by the International Consensus Panel. J Intern Med. 2012 Feb;271(2):213-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02499.x. Epub 2011 Dec 30. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02499.x/full (Full article)

Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria

Abstract:

The label ‘chronic fatigue syndrome’ (CFS) has persisted for many years because of the lack of knowledge of the aetiological agents and the disease process. In view of more recent research and clinical experience that strongly point to widespread inflammation and multisystemic neuropathology, it is more appropriate and correct to use the term ‘myalgic encephalomyelitis’ (ME) because it indicates an underlying pathophysiology. It is also consistent with the neurological classification of ME in the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD G93.3).

Consequently, an International Consensus Panel consisting of clinicians, researchers, teaching faculty and an independent patient advocate was formed with the purpose of developing criteria based on current knowledge. Thirteen countries and a wide range of specialties were represented. Collectively, members have approximately 400 years of both clinical and teaching experience, authored hundreds of peer-reviewed publications, diagnosed or treated approximately 50 000 patients with ME, and several members coauthored previous criteria. The expertise and experience of the panel members as well as PubMed and other medical sources were utilized in a progression of suggestions/drafts/reviews/revisions.

The authors, free of any sponsoring organization, achieved 100% consensus through a Delphi-type process. The scope of this paper is limited to criteria of ME and their application. Accordingly, the criteria reflect the complex symptomatology. Operational notes enhance clarity and specificity by providing guidance in the expression and interpretation of symptoms. Clinical and research application guidelines promote optimal recognition of ME by primary physicians and other healthcare providers, improve the consistency of diagnoses in adult and paediatric patients internationally and facilitate clearer identification of patients for research studies.

Comment in: A controversial consensus–comment on article by Broderick et al. [J Intern Med. 2012]

Source: Carruthers BM, van de Sande MI, De Meirleir KL, Klimas NG, Broderick G, Mitchell T, Staines D, Powles AC, Speight N, Vallings R, Bateman L, Baumgarten-Austrheim B, Bell DS, Carlo-Stella N, Chia J, Darragh A, Jo D, Lewis D, Light AR, Marshall-Gradisbik S, Mena I, Mikovits JA, Miwa K, Murovska M, Pall ML, Stevens S. Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. J Intern Med. 2011 Oct;270(4):327-38. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02428.x. Epub 2011 Aug 22. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427890/ (Full article)