Tag: IOM criteria

Orthostatic intolerance and neurocognitive impairment in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS)

Abstract:

Objectives: The Institute of Medicine (IOM 2015. Beyond Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Redefining an Illness. Washington: The National Academies Press) suggested new criteria for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), which requires an endorsement of either neurocognitive impairment or orthostatic intolerance (OI) in addition to other core symptoms. While some research supports the inclusion of OI as a core symptom, others argue that overlap with neurocognitive impairment does not justify the either/or option. The current study assessed methods of operationalizing OI using items from the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ-1 and -2) as a part of the IOM criteria. Evaluating the relationship between OI and neurocognitive symptoms may lead to a better understanding of diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS.

Methods: Two-hundred and forty-two participants completed the DSQ. We examined how many participants met the IOM criteria while endorsing different frequencies and severities of various OI symptoms.

Results: Neurocognitive impairment was reported by 93.4% of respondents. OI without concurrent neurocognitive symptoms only allowed for an additional 1.7–4.5% of participants to meet IOM criteria.

Conclusions: Neurocognitive symptoms and OI overlap in ME/CFS, and our results do not support the IOM’s inclusion of neurocognitive impairment and OI as interchangeable symptoms. Furthermore, our findings highlight the need for a uniform method of defining and measuring OI via self-report in order to accurately study OI as a symptom of ME/CFS.

Source: Gaglio, Caroline L., Islam, Mohammed F., Cotler, Joseph and Jason, Leonard A.. “Orthostatic intolerance and neurocognitive impairment in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS)” Epidemiologic Methods, vol. 11, no. 1, 2022, pp. 20210033. https://doi.org/10.1515/em-2021-0033

Solving the ME/CFS criteria and name conundrum: the aftermath of IOM

Abstract:

In 2015, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) proposed a new name and set of clinical criteria for what had previously been referred to as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS). This committee recommended the adoption of the term systemic exertion intolerance disease (SEID) and clinical criteria that required specific symptoms such as post-exertional malaise and unrefreshing sleep.

This article reviews efforts to evaluate the revised criteria as well as reactions to the new criteria and name. Since these recommendations have been made, the proposed name change has not been widely adopted by the scientific or patient community. Even though the IOM’s proposed criteria were intended to be a clinical rather than a research case definition, over the past few years, an increasing number of studies have employed these criteria for research purposes. One unwitting consequence of the IOM criteria, which excludes few other illnesses, is the broadening of the number of individuals who are diagnosed and included in research studies.

There is still a need to implement the IOM’s recommendation to form a multidisciplinary committee to review research and policy changes following the release of the new criteria. We conclude by presenting a possible roadmap for overcoming barriers in order to make progress on developing a consensus for a name and criteria.

Source: Leonard A. Jason & Madeline Johnson (2020) Solving the ME/CFS criteria and name conundrum: the aftermath of IOM, Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior, DOI: 10.1080/21641846.2020.1757809 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21641846.2020.1757809?journalCode=rftg20

Clinical criteria versus a possible research case definition in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis

Abstract:

Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recently developed clinical criteria for what had been known as chronic fatigue syndrome. Given the broad nature of the clinical IOM criteria, there is a need for a research definition that would select a more homogenous and impaired group of patients than the IOM clinical criteria. At the present time, it is unclear what will serve as the research definition.

Purpose: The current study focused on a research definition which selected homebound individuals who met the four IOM criteria, excluding medical and psychiatric co-morbidities.

Methods: Our research criteria were compared to those participants meeting the IOM criteria. Those not meeting either of these criteria sets were placed in a separate group defined by six or more months of fatigue. Data analyzed were from the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Due to unequal sample sizes and variances, Welch’s F tests and Games-Howell post-hoc tests were conducted.

Results: Using a large database of over 1000 patients from several countries, we found that those meeting a more restrictive research definition were even more impaired and more symptomatic than those meeting criteria for the other two groups.

Conclusion: Deciding on a particular research case definition would allow researchers to select more comparable patient samples across settings, and this would represent one of the most significant methodologic advances for this field of study.

 

Source: Leonard A. Jason, Stephanie McManimen, Madison Sunnquist, Julia L. Newton & Elin Bolle Strand. Clinical criteria versus a possible research case definition in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior. Published online: 06 Mar 2017