Tag: psychiatric disorders

A clinical study of chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: This study examines the hypothesis that more recently ill patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) might have different characteristics from more chronic patients in tertiary referral centres.

METHOD: Sixty-four patients who fulfilled strict diagnostic criteria for CFS had detailed medical, viral, immunological and psychiatric assessment. Patients were advised to remain within their energy limits. Patient and doctor monitored progress using a scoring system.

RESULTS: Using the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia, patients were placed into four groups: group A (no psychiatric disorder, 35 patients), group B (psychiatric disorder before onset of CFS, 7 patients), group C (coincident psychiatric disorder and CFS, 11 patients), and group D (psychiatric disorder after onset of CFS, 11 patients). There were no viral or immunological differences between the groups. Patients in groups B, C and D had more severe illness than those in group A (P < 0.05), but patients in group A had more muscle pain (P < 0.05) than patients in group C. Counselling resulted in 52 patients becoming better; nine remained the same and three became worse.

CONCLUSIONS: A lower incidence of psychiatric disorder may characterise patients who are more recently ill, as may the type of associated emotional disorder and better outcome.

Comment in: Chronic fatigue syndrome. [Br J Psychiatry. 1995]

 

Source: Shanks MF, Ho-Yen DO. A clinical study of chronic fatigue syndrome. Br J Psychiatry. 1995 Jun;166(6):798-801. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7663831

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome. Prevalence study overlooked

Comment on: Chronic fatigue syndrome: prevalence and outcome. [BMJ. 1994]

 

Editor,-It is sad that, in an issue in which Tony Delamothe considers biased reporting of the chronic fatigue syndrome, S M Lawrie and A J Pelosi’s editorial on the subject should be so one sided. The editorial’s title mentions the prevalence of the chronic fatigue syndrome, but the editorial fails to mention the most complete British study. In this study all general practices in two health boards were circulated with a questionnaire. There was a 91% response rate, with most respondents (71%) accepting the existence of the chronic fatigue syndrome when a strict definition was used. The doctors reported a prevalence among their patients of 1-3/1000 patients (range 0-3-2/1000 for the 10 areas surveyed). The higher prevalences were found in more populated areas.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2540208/pdf/bmj00440-0055a.pdf

 

Source: Ho-Yen DO, Shanks M. Chronic fatigue syndrome. Prevalence study overlooked. BMJ. 1994 May 14;308(6939):1299. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2540208/

 

NIH conference. Chronic fatigue syndrome research. Definition and medical outcome assessment

Abstract:

A workshop was held 18 to 19 March 1991 at the National Institutes of Health to address critical issues in research concerning the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Case definition, confounding diagnoses, and medical outcome assessment by laboratory and other means were considered from the perspectives of key medical specialties involved in CFS research.

It was recommended that published Centers for Disease Control (CDC) case-definition criteria be modified to exclude fewer patients from analysis because of a history of psychiatric disorder. Specific recommendations were made concerning the inclusion or exclusion of other major confounding diagnoses, and a standard panel of laboratory tests was specified for initial patient evaluation.

The workshop emphasized the importance of recognizing other conditions that could explain the patient’s symptoms and that may be treatable. It was viewed as essential for the investigator to screen for psychiatric disorder using a combination of self-report instruments followed by at least one structured interview to identify patients who should be excluded from studies or considered as a separate subgroup in data analysis.

Because CFS is not a homogeneous abnormality and because there is no single pathogenic mechanism, research progress may depend upon delineation of these and other patient subgroups for separate data analysis. Despite preliminary data, no physical finding or laboratory test was deemed confirmatory of the diagnosis of CFS.

For assessment of clinical status, investigators must rely on the use of standardized instruments for patient self-reporting of fatigue, mood disturbance, functional status, sleep disorder, global well-being, and pain. Further research is needed to develop better instruments for quantifying these domains in patients with CFS.

 

Source: Schluederberg A, Straus SE, Peterson P, Blumenthal S, Komaroff AL, Spring SB, Landay A, Buchwald D. NIH conference. Chronic fatigue syndrome research. Definition and medical outcome assessment. Ann Intern Med. 1992 Aug 15;117(4):325-31. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1322076