A review of the definitional criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The research community has for more than three decades tried to unravel the diagnostic mystery that is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). This has resulted in considerable amounts of time and money being invested in attempts aimed at establishing the aetiology and pathogenesis of CFS. All of this investment has produced evidence of an interesting variety of endocrine, immune, infectious, muscular and neurological abnormalities in CFS; however, the cause remains elusive. The absence of a known causative agent or diagnostic test for CFS has resulted in the development of a number of CFS case definitions. As such, the main objectives of this paper are to provide a critical review of the similarities and differences between the varying approaches to CFS case definition. The conflicts and controversies that have emerged as a result of the differing definitional criterion for CFS are highlighted and the potential impact on future research is identified.

METHODS, RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents a critical review of the most frequently used case definitions in CFS. There are currently five case definitions of CFS; however, the most prominent and widely used of these definitions is the 1994 Centre for Disease Control and Prevention Case Definitions. However, the pre-eminence of this definition over the others has never been substantiated and it has been widely criticized for its lack of specificity. Furthermore, none of the above case definitions have produced evidence to demonstrate their accuracy or precision at defining cases of CFS. A summary description of the symptom profile included in each of the case definitions is provided. The inconsistencies that have emerged in CFS research as a consequence of differing approaches to case definition are also highlighted and discussed.

© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

 

Source: Christley Y, Duffy T, Martin CR. A review of the definitional criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012 Feb;18(1):25-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01512.x. Epub 2010 Oct 4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21029269

 

The HPA axis in the pathogenesis of chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a clinical syndrome characterized by profound disabling chronic fatigue associated with a wide array of other physical symptoms. Its etiology is currently unknown. Among the various hypotheses, considerable interest has been placed in the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis as a possible target of the pathogenesis of CFS. This article reviews the available scientific evidence about a role of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in the pathogenesis of chronic fatigue syndrome.

 

Source: Ursini F, Succurro E, Grembiale A, Gagliardi DA, Arturi F. The HPA axis in the pathogenesis of chronic fatigue syndrome. Clin Ter. 2010;161(5):461-4. [Article in Italian] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20949245

 

Daily physical activity of patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To give an overview of the physical activity level of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome in comparison with asymptomatic controls.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Picarta, the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register that is included in the Cochrane Library and reference tracking.

REVIEW METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted focusing on studies concerning physical activity levels of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome compared to controls. A meta-analysis was performed to pool data of the studies.

RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included with 22 different comparisons between patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and controls. Fourteen studies, including 18 comparisons, showed lower physical activity levels in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome as compared to controls. Four studies, including four comparisons, showed no differences between both groups. The meta-analysis included seven studies and showed a daily physical activity level in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome of only 68% of the physical activity level observed in control subjects. The pooled mean coefficient of variation in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome was higher as compared to control subjects (34.3% versus 31.5%), but this difference did not reach significance.

CONCLUSION: Patients with chronic fatigue syndrome appear to be less physically active compared with asymptomatic controls. There is no difference in variation of physical activity levels between patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and healthy control subjects, but the validity and reliability of some methods of measuring physical activity is questionable or unknown.

 

Source: Evering RM, van Weering MG, Groothuis-Oudshoorn KC, Vollenbroek-Hutten MM. Daily physical activity of patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2011 Feb;25(2):112-33. doi: 10.1177/0269215510380831. Epub 2010 Oct 13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20943713

 

Review part 2: Human herpesvirus-6 in central nervous system diseases

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a debilitating chronic illness [Fukuda et al., 1994] that often begins suddenly with a “flu-like” illness. Patients with CFS have great functional impairment [Komaroff et al., 1996]. The cost to the U.S. economy from lost productivity alone (not including medical care costs) is $9 billion annually [Reynolds et al., 2004].

While the pathogenesis of CFS is unknown, there is abundant evidence of an underlying biological process. In comparison to various health and disease control groups, patients with CFS have abnormal findings in the CNS and autonomic nervous system, evidence of chronic activation of various parts of the immune system, and disordered energy metabolism.

CNS abnormalities have been found using MRI [Buchwald et al., 1992; Schwartz et al., 1994a; Lange et al., 2001; de Lange et al., 2005], functional MRI [Tanaka et al., 2006], SPECT [Schwartz et al., 1994b; Schmaling et al., 2003], and positron-emission tomography (PET) [Yamamoto et al., 2004]. Neuroendocrine studies reveal hypofunction of corticotropin releasing hormone (CRH) neurons in the hypothalamus [Demitrack et al., 1991], disruption of both serotonergic and noradrenergic hypothalamic pathways [Demitrack et al., 1992; Cleare et al., 1995], and of growth hormone secretion [Moorkens et al., 2000]. Typically, these abnormalities are in patterns opposite to those seen in major depression. Cognitive testing has revealed abnormalities [Tiersky et al., 1997; Daly et al., 2001; Deluca et al., 2004] that are not explained by concomitant mood disorders [Marcel et al., 1996]. Autonomic nervous system testing has found abnormalities—particularly postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, neurally mediated hypotension, and heart rate variability during head-up tilt testing [Bou-Holaigah et al., 1995; Freeman and Komaroff, 1997; Stewart, 2000; Naschitz et al., 2002].

The immunological findings described most commonly in CFS are impaired function of natural killer cells, increased numbers of CD8+ cytotoxic T cells that bear antigenic markers of activation on their cell surface, and increased production of various pro-inflammatory and TH2 cytokines [Komaroff, 2006]. Many of these cytokines can produce symptoms characteristic of CFS: fatigue, fevers, adenopathy, myalgias, arthralgias, sleep disorders, cognitive impairment, and mood disorders.

Many recent studies of patients with CFS have identified disorders of energy metabolism [Myhill et al., 2009], increased allostatic load [Maloney et al., 2009], and increased oxidative and nitrosative stress [Maes and Leunis, 2008].

Cases of CFS can follow in the wake of well-documented infection with several infectious agents, and may be more likely when the symptoms of acute infection were most severe [Hickie et al., 2006]. The first large study on the possible role of HHV-6 in CFS included 259 patients with a “CFS-like” illness (the case definition had not yet been developed) and age- and gender-matched healthy control subjects. Primary culture of lymphocytes showed active replication of HHV-6 in 70% of the patients versus 20% of the control subjects (P < 10 −8) [Buchwald et al., 1992].

Some subsequent studies have employed only serological techniques that do not distinguish active from latent infection. The results have been mixed: a slight preponderance has showed an association between CFS and HHV-6 infection [Ablashi et al., 2000; Reeves et al., 2000; Hickie et al., 2006].

In contrast, other studies have employed assays that can detect active infection: PCR of serum or plasma, IgM early antigen antibodies, and primary cell culture. Most of these studies have shown an association between CFS and active HHV-6 infection [Patnaik et al., 1995; Secchiero et al., 1995; Wagner et al., 1996; Zorzenon et al., 1996; Ablashi et al., 2000; Nicolson et al., 2003], whereas a few have not [Koelle et al., 2002; Reeves et al., 2000]. The number of patients in the studies that have found an association between CFS and active HHV-6 infection (N = 717) is much larger than the number in studies that have failed to find an association (N = 48).

Several observations, summarized above, together suggest that active infection with HHV-6 may cause some cases of CFS. First, active infection with HHV-6 is present in a substantial fraction of patients with CFS. Second, HHV-6 is tropic for the nervous system and immune system cells, and CFS is characterized by neurological and immunological abnormalities. Clinical studies with antiviral drugs that have in vitro activity against HHV-6 could provide strong evidence in favor of, or against, the hypothesis that HHV-6 may trigger and perpetuate some cases of CFS.

You can read the full article here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4758195/

 

Source: Yao K, Crawford JR, Komaroff AL, Ablashi DV, Jacobson S. Review part 2: Human herpesvirus-6 in central nervous system diseases.J Med Virol. 2010 Oct;82(10):1669-78. doi: 10.1002/jmv.21861. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4758195/ (Full article)

 

The genetics and epigenetics of fatigue

Abstract:

Fatigue is a common symptom and includes both physical and mental components. It can be associated with a variety of different syndromes and diseases, but in many cases is not associated with other comorbid conditions. Most humans have experienced acute fatigue in relation to different stressors. Acute fatigue typically decreases as the effect of the triggering factor is reduced and a normal homeostatic balance is restored. Fatigue that persists for 6 months or more is termed chronic fatigue. Chronic fatigue (CF) in combination with a minimum of 4 of 8 symptoms and the absence of diseases that could explain these symptoms, constitute the case definition for chronic fatigue syndrome. In spite of its prevalence, the biology of fatigue is relatively poorly understood and biological markers have not yet been identified.

This literature search was performed in PubMed to identify research on the genetics and epigenetics of fatigue. Publications were included if fatigue was a major topic and the topic was combined with genetic and/or epigenetic measurements in adult humans. A total of 40 publications were identified.

Although altered functioning in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, the serotonergic system, and associations with infectious agents have been identified, the search for genetic or epigenetic markers of fatigue, either in the context of CF or chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) has been relatively unproductive or, in the case of epigenetics, nonexistent. Although several studies, both hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating, have been performed to search for biomarkers, they have mostly been underpowered, restricted by the heterogeneity of the phenotype, or limited by an unsystematic study design.

To be able to confirm the hypothesis that risk for, or levels of, fatigue are influenced by the genetic or epigenetic background of an individual, studies need to be based on larger sample sizes with a more clearly defined phenotype. Studies need to focus not only on the influence of a single aspect such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) or differential gene expression on disease risk or state, but also on the systems biology behind the disease in combination with information on environmental influences and validation of findings in functional studies.

Copyright (c) 2010 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

 

Source: Landmark-Høyvik H, Reinertsen KV, Loge JH, Kristensen VN, Dumeaux V, Fosså SD, Børresen-Dale AL, Edvardsen H. The genetics and epigenetics of fatigue. PM R. 2010 May;2(5):456-65. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.04.003. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20656628

 

Perspectives on fatigue from the study of chronic fatigue syndrome and related conditions

Abstract:

Fatigue is a symptom whose causes are protean and whose phenotype includes physical, mood, and behavioral components. Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is an illness that has strong biological underpinnings and no definite etiology. Diagnostic criteria established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have helped classify CFS as an overlap of mood, behavioral, and biological components. These include the presence of fatigue for more than 6 months associated with a diminution of functional activity and somatic symptoms, and pain not attributable to a specific diagnosis or disease. Four of the following criteria need to be present: sore throat, impaired memory or cognition, unrefreshing sleep, postexertional fatigue, tender glands, aching stiff muscles, joint pain, and headaches.

Many researchers have observed that CFS shares features in common with other somatic syndromes, including irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, and temporomandibular joint dysfunction. Correlations between inflammation and infection, augmented sensory processing, abnormalities of neurotransmitters, nerve growth factors, low levels of serotonin and norepinephrine, abnormalities of homeostasis of the stress system, and autonomic dysfunction may be hallmarks of CFS. The relative contributions of each of these abnormalities to the profound fatigue associated with CFS need to be explored further to better evaluate and treat the syndrome.

Copyright (c) 2010 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

 

Source: Clauw DJ. Perspectives on fatigue from the study of chronic fatigue syndrome and related conditions. PM R. 2010 May;2(5):414-30. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.04.010. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20656623

 

Neuroendocrine and immune contributors to fatigue

Abstract:

Central fatigue, a persistent and subjective sense of tiredness, generally correlates poorly with traditional markers of disease. It is frequently associated with psychosocial factors, such as depression, sleep disorder, anxiety, and coping style, which suggest that dysregulation of the body’s stress systems may serve as an underlying mechanism in the maintenance of chronic fatigue (CF).

This article addresses the endocrine, neural, and immune factors that contribute to fatigue and describes research regarding the role of these factors in chronic fatigue syndrome as a model for addressing the biology of CF. In general, hypoactivity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, autonomic nervous system alterations characterized by sympathetic overactivity and low vagal tone, as well as immune abnormalities, may contribute to the expression of CF. Noninvasive methods for evaluating endocrine, neural, and immune function are also discussed.

Simultaneous evaluation of neuroendocrine and immune systems with noninvasive techniques will help elucidate the underlying interactions of these systems, their role in disease susceptibility, and progression of stress-related disorders.

Copyright (c) 2010 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

 

Source: Silverman MN, Heim CM, Nater UM, Marques AH, Sternberg EM. Neuroendocrine and immune contributors to fatigue. PM R. 2010 May;2(5):338-46. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.04.008. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933136/ (Full article)

 

What is fatigue? Pathological and nonpathological fatigue

Abstract:

Aid in understanding issues surrounding the construct validity of fatigue including the distinction between pathological versus nonpathological fatigue. Fatigue is a universal symptom reported by individuals in the general population as well as by those suffering from different medical and psychological illnesses, including cancer, multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, depression, and anxiety. Chronic fatigue is a significant problem in many primary care settings, and the debilitating and prolonged nature of fatigue can pose significant economic consequences for society. Researchers have struggled to better assess and understand the etiology and classification of fatigue within different illness groups.

Copyright (c) 2010 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

 

Source: Jason LA, Evans M, Brown M, Porter N. What is fatigue? Pathological and nonpathological fatigue. PM R. 2010 May;2(5):327-31. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.03.028. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20656613

 

The central role of cognitive processes in the perpetuation of chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is considered to be one of the functional somatic syndromes (FSS). Cognitions and behavior are thought to perpetuate the symptoms of CFS. Behavioral interventions based on the existing models of perpetuating factors are quite successful in reducing fatigue and disabilities. The evidence is reviewed that cognitive processes, particularly those that determine the perception of fatigue and its effect on behavior, play a central role in the maintenance of symptoms.

METHOD: Narrative review.

RESULTS: Findings from treatment studies suggest that cognitive factors mediate the positive effect of behavioral interventions on fatigue. Increased fitness or increased physical activity does not seem to mediate the treatment response. Additional evidence for the role of cognitive processes is found in studies comparing the subjective beliefs patients have of their functioning with their actual performance and in neurobiological research.

CONCLUSION: Three different cognitive processes may play a role in the perpetuation of CFS symptoms. The first is a general cognitive representation in which fatigue is perceived as something negative and aversive and CFS is seen as an illness that is difficult to influence. The second process involved is the focusing on fatigue. The third element is formed by specific dysfunctional beliefs about activity and fatigue.

Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

 

Source: Knoop H, Prins JB, Moss-Morris R, Bleijenberg G. The central role of cognitive processes in the perpetuation of chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res. 2010 May;68(5):489-94. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.022. Epub 2010 Mar 16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20403509

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome: Is it one discrete syndrome or many? Implications for the “one vs. many” functional somatic syndromes debate

Abstract:

There is a current debate as to whether “functional somatic syndromes” (FSSs) are more similar to or different from each other. While at the same time, there is evidence of heterogeneity within single syndromes. So, it could be that these syndromes are all part of one big process/illness, are discrete in their own right, or that they are heterogeneous collections of different illnesses lumped together by common symptoms but separated by uncommon pathophysiologies. The example of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is instructive. There is evidence to support all three models of understanding. Three recent large studies have suggested that FSSs are both similar and dissimilar at the same time. The solution to the debate is that we need to both “lump” and “split.” We need to study both the similarities between syndromes and their dissimilarities to better understand what we currently call the FSSs.

Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

 

Source: White PD. Chronic fatigue syndrome: Is it one discrete syndrome or many? Implications for the “one vs. many” functional somatic syndromes debate. J Psychosom Res. 2010 May;68(5):455-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.008. Epub 2010 Mar 17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20403504