The chronic fatigue syndrome: what do we know?

Abnormally persistent or recurrent fatigue is a feature of many disorders. Recently, particular attention has been devoted to people whose life is dominated by protracted and disabling fatigue. Such cases are now usually categorised as the chronic fatigue syndrome, the postviral fatigue syndrome, or myalgic encephalomyelitis. Two recent publications bring together current ideas on the topic.

The historical background is important. Although the chronic fatigue syndrome has been advanced as a malaise of the latter part of this century, such cases are not a new phenomenon: they were particularly common during the latter part of the last century. The New York physician George Beard applied the label “neurasthenia” to them although the term was more widely used. After becoming an exceedingly common diagnosis it waned at the time of the first world war.

This first wave in the history of chronic fatigue was followed by a second wave, which can be dated to 1934. Nevertheless, cases of chronic fatigue did not simply disappear in the intervening period. The “effort syndrome” had a considerable vogue at that time. “Fibrositis,” a term introduced by Sir William Gowers in 1894 to designate the occurrence of diffuse muscle aching and pain without detectable explanation, evolved into “fibromyalgia.” This currently popular diagnosis has many overlapping features with the chronic fatigue syndrome, as did the effort syndrome.

You can read the rest of this article here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1677985/pdf/bmj00024-0007.pdf

 

Comment in:

Functional hypoglycaemia postulated as cause of chronic fatigue syndrome. [BMJ. 1993]

Chronic fatigue syndrome. [BMJ. 1993]

 

Source: Thomas PK. The chronic fatigue syndrome: what do we know? BMJ. 1993 Jun 12;306(6892):1557-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1677985/

 

Chronic fatigue in historical perspective

Abstract:

Chronic fatigue as a presenting complaint, in the absence of other evident organic illness, was seldom reported historically before the second half of the 19th century. Its first eruption was the so-called ‘bed cases’ or ‘sofa cases’ among middle-class females in the period from 1860 to about 1910. ‘Neurasthenia’ does not necessarily represent an early forerunner of chronic fatigue.

Many patients receiving that diagnosis did not complain of fatigue. Others with functional fatigue did not receive the diagnosis ‘neurasthenia’. Both medical-anecdotal and quantitative sources make it clear that by the time of the First World War, chronic fatigue was a common complaint in Europe and North America.

Medical concepts of chronic fatigue since the 1930s have run along four separate lines: (1) ‘postinfectious neuromyasthenia’, going back to an atypical ‘poliomyelitis’ epidemic in 1934; (2) ‘chronic Epstein-Barr virus’ infection, an illness attribution that increased in frequency after the discovery in 1968 that this virus caused mononucleosis; (3) ‘myalgic encephalomyelitis’, dating from an epidemic at the Royal Free Hospital in London in 1955; and (4) ‘fibrositis’, or ‘fibromyalgia’, used as a rheumatological description since the turn of the century. Recently, these four separate paths have tended to converge into the diagnosis of ‘chronic fatigue syndrome’.

 

Source: Shorter E. Chronic fatigue in historical perspective. Ciba Found Symp. 1993;173:6-16; discussion 16-22. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8491107

 

Epidemic myalgic encephalomyelitis

The letter below, “Epidemic myalgic encephalomyelitis,” was published in the British Medical Journal in 1978. In it, the authors maintain that ME is an organic illness that exists as a distinct clinical entity with recognizable signs and symptoms. The authors propose that the cause may be “a persistent viral infection.

 

Epidemic myalgic encephalomyelitis

Outbreaks of the paralytic disease known as epidemic myalgic encephalomyelitis have puzzled doctors all over the world in the past 30 years. One of the best known of these epidemics was that at the Royal Free Hospital in London in 1955, which affected more than 300 people. (1) Most outbreaks tend to occur in the summer, young adults are predominantly affected, and the incidence is higher in women. The evidence suggests that infection is spread by personal contact, and young hospital personnel seem particularly at risk. The features common to every epidemic include headache, unusual muscular pains (which may be severe), lymphadenopathy-often of the posterior cervical lymph nodes-and low-grade fever.(2, 3) In a minority of cases frank neurological signs can be detected by careful clinical examination: there may be nystagmus, diplopia, myoclonus, bulbar weakness, motor weakness, increased or decreased tendon reflexes, disturbances of the sphincters, and extensor plantar responses.(2-7) Fasciculations, cranial nerve lesions, and extrapyramidal signs have also been reported. Most patients complain of paraesthesiae, and sensory loss is common.”(4) One characteristic feature of the disease is exhaustion, any effort producing generalised fatigue. Often there are psychiatric abnormalities, especially emotional lability and lack of concentration.(1- 3, 4) The clinical outcome may take any of three courses: some patients recover completely, some follow a relapsing course, and some are permanently incapacitated.(3)

At a symposium held recently at the Royal Society of Medicine to discuss the disease and plan research there was clear agreement that myalgic encephalomyelitis is a distinct nosological entity. Other terms that have been used to describe the disease were rejected as unsatisfactory for various reasons: the cardinal clinical features show that the disorder is an encephalomyelitis; “Iceland disease” is not specific enough; and “neuromyasthenia” suggests a relation to myasthenia gravis whereas the muscle fatigability is different, as are the electrophysiological findings.(8) Indeed, the exhaustion and tiredness are similar to that described by patients with multiple sclerosis.(9) From the patient’s point of view the designation benign is also misleading, since the illness may be devastating. Originally the term was used because no deaths had been recorded from myalgic encephalomyelitis. Two patients who had had the disease have now been examined post mortem: one was found to have multiple sclerosis. The adjective epidemic is correct, since most cases occur in an epidemic, but the disease may be endemic, and sporadic cases may occur. (10-12)

Some authors have attempted to dismiss this disease as hysterical, (13) but the evidence now makes such a tenet unacceptable. Some purely psychiatric symptoms may well occur, particularly in patients entering the chronic phase. No doubt, too, in an epidemic some hysterical persons will simulate the symptoms of the disease. Nevertheless, the organic basis is clear-from the finding that the putative agent can be transferred to monkeys(14); the detection of an increased urinary output of creatine2 (15); the persistent finding of abnormal lymphocytes in the peripheral blood of some patients (16); the presence of lymphocytes and an increased protein concentration in the cerebrospinal fluid of occasional patients (3); and the neurological findings. At this symposium more evidence was produced to support the organic nature of the disease. Increased serum concentrations of lactic dehydrogenases and transaminases have been found in several patients examined during the acute attack. In a recent outbreak in London immunological studies showed a high incidence of serum anticomplementary activity and the presence of ill-defined aggregates on electron microscopy of acute-phase sera.(17) A perplexing finding, suggesting the possibility of a persistent virus infection, was the ability of lymphocytes from patients to proliferate and survive in vitro for up to 19 weeks. The results of electroencephalographic studies were also stated to be abnormal, confirming other reports. (10)

We still know nothing about the nature and cause of epidemic myalgic encephalomyelitis, but outbreaks are still occurring. Future epidemics should be studied by a collaborative team of neurologists, epidemiologists, virologists, and immunologists. Its findings would be important not only for the study of epidemic myalgic encephalomyelitis but also for other neurological disorders, including multiple sclerosis.

1 British Medical Journal, 1957, 2, 895.

2 White, D N, and Burtch, R B, Neurology, 1954, 4, 506.

3 Acheson, E D, American Journal of Medicine, 1959, 26, 569.

4 Gilliam, A G, Epidemiological Study of an Epidemic, Public Health Bulletin, No 240. US Public Health Service, Washington, 1938.

5 Acheson, E D, Lancet, 1955, 2, 394.

6 Pellew, R A A, Medical Journal of Australia, 1951, 1, 944.

7 Hill, R C J, South African Medical Journal, 1955, 29, 344.

8 Richardson, A T, Annals of Physical Medicine, 1956, 3, 81.

9 McAlpine, D, Compston, N D, and Lumsden, C E, Multiple Sclerosis, chap 5. Edinburgh and London, Livingstone, 1955. ”

10 Ramsay, A M, and O’Sullivan, E, Lancet, 1956, 1, 761.

11 Jelinek, J E, Lancet, 1956, 2, 494.

12 Ramsay, A M, Lancet, 1957, 2, 1196.

13 McEvedey, C P, and Beard, A W, British Medical Journal, 1970, 1, 7.

14 Pellew, R A A, and Miles, J A R, Medical Journal of Australia, 1955, 2, 480.

15 Albrecht, R M, Oliver, V L, and Poskanzer, D C, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1964, 187, 904.

16 Wallis, A L, MD Thesis, Edinburgh University, 1957.

17 Dillon, M J, et al, British Medical Journal, 1974, 1, 301.

 

Source: BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 3 JUNE 1978 1436-1437

You can read and download a PDF file of the letter at:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1604957/?page=1