Long COVID Is Not a Functional Neurologic Disorder

Abstract:

Long COVID is a common sequela of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data from numerous scientific studies indicate that long COVID involves a complex interaction between pathophysiological processes. Long COVID may involve the development of new diagnosable health conditions and exacerbation of pre-existing health conditions. However, despite this rapidly accumulating body of evidence regarding the pathobiology of long COVID, psychogenic and functional interpretations of the illness presentation continue to be endorsed by some healthcare professionals, creating confusion and inappropriate diagnostic and therapeutic pathways for people living with long COVID.

The purpose of this perspective is to present a clinical and scientific rationale for why long COVID should not be considered as a functional neurologic disorder. It will begin by discussing the parallel historical development of pathobiological and psychosomatic/sociogenic diagnostic constructs arising from a common root in neurasthenia, which has resulted in the collective understandings of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and functional neurologic disorder (FND), respectively. We will also review the case definition criteria for FND and the distinguishing clinical and neuroimaging findings in FND vs. long COVID.

We conclude that considering long COVID as FND is inappropriate based on differentiating pathophysiologic mechanisms and distinguishing clinical findings.

Source: Davenport TE, Blitshteyn S, Clague-Baker N, Davies-Payne D, Treisman GJ, Tyson SF. Long COVID Is Not a Functional Neurologic Disorder. J Pers Med. 2024 Jul 29;14(8):799. doi: 10.3390/jpm14080799. PMID: 39201991. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/14/8/799 (Full text)

Neurasthenia: Modern Malady or Historical Relic?

Abstract:

Neurasthenia was a popular diagnosis from 1869 through 1930. Despite being discarded, the core symptoms of neurasthenia can still be found throughout modern society. The present article reviews the symptoms, common course, proposed causes, and common treatments for neurasthenia. Similarities are seen in several familiar diagnoses, including depression, chronic fatigue syndrome, and fibromyalgia. Through reviewing the trends of neurasthenia, modern doctors may learn more about the subtleties of the diagnostic process, as well as the patient-physician relationship. The goal is to learn from the past as it relates to current problems that may be related to the stress of modern living. The history of neurasthenia is presented as it relates to problems that may remain today.

Source: Overholser JC, Beale EE. Neurasthenia: Modern Malady or Historical Relic? J Nerv Ment Dis. 2019 Sep;207(9):731-739. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000943. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31464984

Chronic fatigue syndrome: The male disorder that became a female disorder

Previously long-term fatigue was considered a male disorder caused by societal pressures. Today women comprise the majority of ME patients, and they feel that their condition is their own fault.

Throughout history some people have suffered from a lack of energy and long-term, physical fatigue. Today these symptoms are classified as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) or chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).

It is commonly thought that chronic fatigue has mainly psychological causes and that it affects perfectionistic women who cannot live up to their own unreasonably high standards.

This has not always been the case. Just over 100 years ago it was primarily upper class men in intellectual professions who were affected. “Neurasthenia,” as the condition was called at the time, was a physical diagnosis with high status.

No longer legitimate

“The medical understanding of long-term fatigue has changed. Previously the condition was viewed as a typically male disorder; now it is perceived as a typically female disorder. The diagnosis of neurasthenia, which has a male connotation, was changed to the ME diagnosis, which has a female connotation,” explains Olaug S. Lian, a sociologist and professor at UiT The Arctic University of Norway.

Together with Hilde Bondevik of the University of Oslo, Lian has studied how the view of women and perceptions of the body, gender and femininity in two different historical periods have been manifested in the medical understanding of long-term chronic fatigue.

“Long-term fatigue was viewed as a legitimate disorder, a result of the heroic efforts of the upper class male. Today, it is a stigmatizing disorder, understood as an expression of women’s lack of ability to cope with their lives, a kind of breach of character,” says Lian.

Not only has the fatigued patient changed gender. Previously doctors believed that long-term fatigue was a neurological, physical disorder, while today it is categorized primarily as psychological in nature. And while in the past, society was thought to be the cause of the disorder, today the individual is supposedly to blame.

What happened to cause this change?

Upper class diagnosis

At the end of the 1800s neurasthenia was the most widespread diagnosis for long-term fatigue. Neurologists believed the condition was caused by a physical, neurological disease that affected the entire body, causing intense, long-term fatigue.

Although women were also diagnosed with the disorder, the typical patient was a man, and not just any kind of man. He was “civilized, refined, and educated, rather than of the barbarous and low-born and untrained,” according to neurologist George Beard.

Society was to blame

Doctors at the time believed that the cause of the disorder could be found in a rapidly changing society — urbanization, industrialization and women’s entry into working life.

Quite simply, modern civilization ran roughshod over the nervous system of upper class men, who were overstimulated by too much pressure and activity and too little sleep and rest.

“It was regarded as both legitimate and understandable that even the ‘great men’ could fall apart as a result of long-term, difficult intellectual work. It was viewed as positive that the body sent signals when the burden was too great. The body was viewed as an electrical fuse box and the thinking was that it was better for one fuse to burn out rather than for the house to catch on fire,” says Lian.

Different genders, different causes

The comments about the diagnosis also revealed past understandings of biological gender differences. Women could get neurasthenia from sexual frustration, while men could get it from excessive sexual activity, including masturbation.

Moreover, there was a connection between gender and class.

“To simplify a bit, we can say that it was mainly middle class men and working class women whose diagnosis of neurasthenia was explained by overwork. For working class men it was due to sexual escapades, and for middle class women the cause given was heredity or ‘women’s issues’,” explains Lian.

The fall of neurasthenia

Neurasthenia lost its popularity as a diagnosis in the early 1900s. One reason for this was that psychiatry became a medical field in its own right.

“Psychiatry took neurasthenia with it and changed its definition from a physical to a psychological condition. Since women were regarded as psychologically weaker and therefore more disposed to mental illness, the disorder became a female problem,” says Lian.

Fight over definitions

Today ME is the most common name for the disorder, defined as long-term, intense fatigue that cannot be directly linked to a well-defined illness and that does not disappear with rest. The condition is chronic, it cannot be cured with medical treatment and there is disagreement as to the cause.

“The lack of scientifically generated findings, medical explanations and effective treatment make ME a diagnosis with low status and low legitimacy within the medical community,” says Lian.

Currently the main theory is that ME results from an inability to handle stress and that perfectionistic people — the “good girls” — are especially at risk. The debate about how ME should be understood and explained is highly polarized, between those who believe that it is an illness caused by infections or vaccination and those who believe that ME has mainly psychological causes.

“I would like to see some humility about what we actually know about the disorder and not present value judgments as facts. Doctors must also be honest and acknowledge that we have very little hard-and-fast knowledge about this condition,” states Lian.

Blame and shame

The two historical periods have almost identical depictions of the phenomenon of long-term fatigue, although the names are different. But there is one important difference: the disorder is no longer regarded as a legitimate, anticipated outcome of overwork.

“Today the medical community is searching for explanations of ME at the individual level. The ME patient is depicted as a woman with five-star goals and four-star abilities — with character traits that make it hard for them to cope with their own lives,” says Lian.

“When the entire problem is seen as the patient’s fault, the person experiences blame and shame because it is the patient, not society, who is the cause of the illness. It is therefore the individual who is responsible for coping with the illness, such as by changing her own thought patterns,” says Lian.

Wrong kind of tired

She points out that the ability to cope with one’s own life is an important value in Western culture. Mental disorders, however, are associated with weakness. The current understanding of long-term fatigue is also linked to how we think about tiredness, according to Lian.

“There are strong norms for when you are allowed to be tired and worn out and how you are supposed to show tiredness in daily life. If you have been awake all night with a sick infant, you have a good reason to be tired at work. Other reasons are less legitimate. Workplace reports of absence never state that someone is at the psychologist, while it is completely acceptable to say that someone is at the dentist.”

“Being tired for the wrong reasons is seen as a sign of weakness, which must be overcome and hidden. It is in this context that we must understand the medical theories on a lack of coping ability and the objections of ME patients to these theories,” says Lian.

She believes such norms often make ME patients feel that the psychological explanation is a burden, although doctors do not necessarily mean for it to have this affect.

“What is it about the ME debate that makes the opposing sides so obstinate?”

“The doctors and patients talk past each other. The doctors think that an ME diagnosis is value neutral, but the patient hears ‘it’s my fault that I am sick and it’s my responsible to get better’. But although most people feel that mental disorders have lower value than somatic disorders, it is not a given that the doctors do,” says Lian.

Gendered explanation disappeared?

Although about three of four people who are diagnosed with ME today are women, the explicit, biology-based gendered explanations have disappeared from the debate, according to Lian.

“This may simply be because today we put greater focus on gender equality — which makes it less legitimate to claim that women are naturally inferior to men,” says Lian.

However, she believes that the ME diagnosis embodies a view of women that has long historical roots.

“The profile of the upper class woman from the 1800s who cannot cope with pressure and stress both inside and outside the home is still with us today,” says Lian.

Cultural bias

“How can your analysis contribute to the current debate about ME?”

“We show how the medical understanding of fatigue and lack of energy is impacted by the norms and values of society at large, for example, that medical knowledge reflects the view of women in our culture. Norms and values combine with biomedical knowledge in a way that makes it difficult to see what is what,” says Lian.

 

Source: KILDEN – Information Centre for Gender Research in Norway. (2014, February 20). Chronic fatigue syndrome: The male disorder that became a female disorder. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 4, 2017 from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220083145.htm

 

Medical constructions of long-term exhaustion, past and present

Abstract:

Culture and history affect the ways in which medical knowledge is shaped, sustained and changed. The less knowledge we have, the larger the space for the cultural imprint becomes. Based on these assumptions, we ask: how have medical constructions of long-term exhaustion changed over time, and how are changing constructions related to societal change? To discuss these questions we conducted a comparative study of medical texts from two historical periods: 1860-1930 and 1970-2013.

Our data are limited to two diagnoses: neurasthenia and encephalomyelitis. After comparing the two periods by identifying diverging and converging aspects, we interpreted observed continuities and interruptions in relation to historical developments. We found that in the medical literature, long-term exhaustion became transformed from a somatic ailment bred by modern civilisation to a self-inflicted psychiatric ailment. At the same time, it changed from being a male-connoted high-status condition to a female-connoted low-status condition. We interpret these changes as contingent upon culturally available modes of interpretations. Medical knowledge thereby becomes infused with cultural norms and values which give them a distinct cultural bias. The historical controversies surrounding this medically contested condition neatly display the socially contingent factors that govern the social construction of medical knowledge.

© 2015 The Authors. Sociology of Health & Illness published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Foundation for SHIL.

 

Source: Lian OS, Bondevik H. Medical constructions of long-term exhaustion, past and present. Sociol Health Illn. 2015 Jul;37(6):920-35. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12249. Epub 2015 Apr 24. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25912053

 

Significance of the chronic fatigue syndrome in rehabilitation medicine–status and perspectives

Abstract:

It appears that from a clinical point of view chronic exhaustion or fatigue is an important factor in rehabilitation. This is, however, first of all a phenomenon that can be described as a function in accordance with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (JCF), caused by chronic illnesses or chronic excessive stress. The clinical and sociomedical ranking of chronic fatigue or exhaustion in respect of rehabilitation was discussed in the framework of a Workshop at the 12th Rehabilitation Science Colloquium, 2003 from the viewpoints of psychiatric rehabilitation, methodology, sociology and practical rehabilitation, and conclusions for future research were drawn. The definition of chronic fatigue is first of all mainly based on the feeling of chronic tiredness but also on phenomena of disturbed concentration, physical discomfort, headache and disorders of “drive” and mood.

A psychiatric diagnosis linked with symptoms of chronic fatigue is neurasthenia, which is arrived at according to precisely defined criteria. Depressive disorder is one of the most important differential diagnoses in this sphere. Examinations by general practitioners revealed that about 90 % of the patients who had been diagnosed as suffering from psychovegetative disorders completely agreed with the diagnosis of neurasthenia. Neurasthenia resulted more often in work disability periods than disorders of somatisation and other psychosomatic diagnoses. Basing on the “IRES” scale “vital exhaustion”, singular of even serious changes become evident in about 50 % to 90 % of the patients undergoing rehabilitation, depending on their individual range of indications. As was to be expected, the majority of pathologic findings concerns patients undergoing psychosomatic rehabilitation, since in such cases there is an overlapping with symptoms of psychosomatic diseases.

It is, however, remarkable that also in somatically oriented orthopaedic rehabilitation symptoms of fatigue are seen in up to 50 % of the patients. Preliminary studies have shown that these symptoms can be definitely ameliorated within the rehabilitation framework, although pathological signs are still abundantly apparent in follow-up examinations. Markedly severe degrees of “vital exhaustion” and “vocational exhaustion” are also seen in rheumatology patients undergoing somatic rehabilitation. This agrees with case history details related by many female and male patients.

Hence, it appears necessary to adapt rehabilitative intervention to both the psychovegetative and the medical behavioural aspects of this symptom. Scientific classification of the entire sphere of chronic fatigue in respect of rehabilitation requires classification of the relevant functions within the ICF framework. To this end it would be necessary to conduct patient inquiries within cross-sectional studies on the one hand and, on the other, a systematic consensus process among experts would have to be used for allocation to the relevant functions. This is the basis for development of suitable assessment tools for use in prospective studies in order to systematically evaluate the impact on functions and especially their effects on activities and participation.

 

Source: Gutenbrunner C, Linden M, Gerdes N, Ehlebracht-König I, Grosch E. [Significance of the chronic fatigue syndrome in rehabilitation medicine–status and perspectives]. Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2005 Jun;44(3):176-85. [Article in German] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15933954

 

Heresies in textbook on psychiatry

In journal no. 5/2004( 1 ) reported Textbook of Psychiatry by Ulrik Fredrik Malt et al ( 2 ). This book contains erroneous information relating to the description of neurasthenia. The authors classify chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), post-viral fatigue syndrome (PVFS) and myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) as neurasthenia, diagnosis code F48.0, and has thus reclassified suffering from a neurological condition to be a psychiatric condition. This was done in Malts first textbook of psychiatry, published in 1994.

WHO has since 1969 classified Thurs the 1st as neurological disease and is not going to change that in the upcoming revision. The English psychiatrists Simon Wessely, Michael Sharpe and their counterparts, often called Wessely School, has spent countless publications in more than a decade trying to to psychiatric ME / CFS, which in part has been internationally condemned.

Leading Norwegian psychiatrists are influenced by Wessely School doctrine, and this doctrine has been continued in Textbook of Psychiatry ( 2 ). In WHO’s Guide to mental health in primary care , which Wessely has helped to develop, is ME / CFS wrongly classified under mental disorders, F48.0. Wrong classification has been debated in the British House several times. WHO were involved and confirmed that ME / CFS should continue to be classified under G93.3 and that no disease can be classified in more than one category. According to ICD-10 is to be post-viral fatigue syndrome specifically excluded before the diagnosis neurasthenia set. Secretary of State for the UK Department of Health, Lord Warner, had in the House of Lords regret their statements in support of Wessely misclassification.

Director of WHO’s Collaborating Centre at King’s College London, Professor Rachel Jenkins has had to bow and accept the WHO’s official position, namely that ME / CFS should be classified under G93.3. The book is stopped and will come in a revised edition. When a country has accepted WHO’s regulations, it is mandatory to follow ICDs classification.

Malt and employee classification of ME / CFS in Textbook of Psychiatry ( 2 ) is contrary to the WHO system. It is highly regrettable that new generations healthcare are taught in heresy by reading the chapter on psychosomatic disorders in this book. In my view, the discussion of ME / CFS is removed, the book withdrawn and come out in a revised edition.

A consensus panel of medical experts has developed new clinical criteria for ME / CFS ( 3 ) These criteria provide a more accurate description of reality.

You can read the full letter herehttp://tidsskriftet.no/article/1015463

 

Source: E. Stormorken. Heresies in textbook on psychiatry. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2004 May 6;124(9):1277; author reply 1277. [Article in Norwegian] http://tidsskriftet.no/article/1015463 (Full article)

 

Unloading the trunk: neurasthenia, CFS and race

Abstract:

The aetiologies of both chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and its predecessor neurasthenia, have been linked to technological advances in ‘developed’ countries. This paper discusses how this has led to a form of race thinking within discussions about fatigue which has persisted for more than a century. We review the historical development of this race thinking from neurasthenia to CFS and describe how it is manifested in both the lay- and medical literature. We also review the epidemiological literature on CFS and ethnicity to better understand the relatively low percentage of non-white patients seen in tertiary referral clinics for CFS. The aim of this paper is to act as a starting point for a debate on race and CFS.

 

Source: Luthra A, Wessely S. Unloading the trunk: neurasthenia, CFS and race. Soc Sci Med. 2004 Jun;58(11):2363-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15047091

 

Mark Twain and his family’s health: Livy Clemens’ neurasthenia in the gilded age and chronic fatigue syndrome of today

Abstract:

Our purpose is to compare and contrast the 19th century diagnosis and disease neurasthenia with the contemporary illness known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. The health of Mark Twain’s wife, Olivia (Livy) Clemens, will then be discussed and evaluated with respect to these two medical conditions.

 

Source: Arcari R, Crombie HD. Mark Twain and his family’s health: Livy Clemens’ neurasthenia in the gilded age and chronic fatigue syndrome of today. Conn Med. 2003 May;67(5):293-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12802844

 

On the history of the concept neurasthenia and its modern variants chronic-fatigue-syndrome, fibromyalgia and multiple chemical sensitivities

Abstract:

This article deals with the history of the terminological and nosological development of the concept neurasthenia introduced in 1869 by George Miller Beard and in particular with its reappearance in western medicine in the 1980 s. Beginning with its predecessors in antiquity and continuing with hypochondria, which became a fashionable disease in the 18 th century, the concept neurasthenia reached a high point and world-wide medical acceptance at the end of the 19 th/beginning of the 20 th century. However, between the 1930 s and 1960 s it declined in popularity and gradually disappeared until finally it only had a rudimentary nosological role in the term “pseudoneurasthenia”. In the countries of the Far East, on the contrary, the concept of neurasthenia has been in continual use since its importation in the first decades of the last century. In the 1980 s, when an interest in the symptoms of chronic fatigue was reawakened in western medicine, the concept neurasthenia reappeared, this time to define the particular form of a neurotic disorder.

Parallel to these developments increasing importance was attached to clinical descriptions of illnesses which on account of their similarity to the symptoms of neurasthenia could be termed modern variants of the concept neurasthenia. These are “Chronic-Fatigue-Syndrome”, “Fibromyalgia” and “Multiple Chemical Sensitivities” which have more or less adopted the organic inheritance of Beard’s former concept of neurasthenia, despite the fact that so far the question of organicity could not be decisively answered in a single case. In order to clarify possible influences on the development of the concept neurasthenia and its variants, the theories and ideas of E. Shorter, medical historian at the University of Toronto, are discussed in the final part of the article, whereby the particular cultural background in each case has a decisive influence on the manifestation of the psychosomatic symptoms.

 

Source: Schäfer ML. On the history of the concept neurasthenia and its modern variants chronic-fatigue-syndrome, fibromyalgia and multiple chemical sensitivities. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2002 Nov;70(11):570-82. [Article in German] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12410427

 

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)