Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is an illness with a long history of controversies. For years, many professionals within the medical community did not recognize CFS as a true condition, nor was there agreement on its prevalence.[1][2][3] There has been much disagreement over the pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome, how it should be diagnosed, and how to treat it.[4][5][6][7][8]

The diagnosis is controversial, and its etiology is still not fully understood. Alternative names to describe the condition(s) have been used over time throughout the world, and the name chronic fatigue syndrome is criticized by many patient groups that say the name trivializes the illness, who advocate a more serious-sounding term, such as myalgic encephalomyelitis.

A major divide still exists over funding for research and treatment of physiological versus psychological and psychosocial aspects of the illness. The division is especially great between CFS patient groups and health care professionals advocating psychological and psychosocial treatments in the United Kingdom.[9]

Naming[edit]

An article in The New York Times states many patients would prefer a different name than chronic fatigue syndrome, saying that "fatigue" does not adequately describe their condition, and believe the name chronic fatigue syndrome trivializes the illness, preventing it from being seen as a serious health problem, and discouraging research. Their preference is an older British term, myalgic encephalomyelitis, or the term myalgic encephalopathy.[10] According to a survey of medical trainees at a school in the United States, a condition described as chronic fatigue syndrome may be considered less serious than a condition described as myalgic encephalopathy.[11] In 2004, a paper reported that the majority of the CFS patients questioned in a survey wanted the name changed from chronic fatigue syndrome.[12]

Etiology, diagnosis and treatment[edit]

Recognition[edit]

Historically, many professionals within the medical community were unfamiliar with CFS, or did they not recognize it as a real condition, and disagreed on its prevalence or seriousness.[1][2][13] In a 1993 New Zealand study, 90% of 83 Otago general practitioners surveyed accepted chronic fatigue syndrome as a clinically valid diagnosis, and 57 stated they had sufficient information to make a diagnosis.[6] A 2005 study in the UK surveyed 811 general practitioners' attitudes and knowledge of CFS. 72% accepted CFS as a recognizable clinical entity, but 48% did not feel confident diagnosing it, and 41% did not feel confident in treatment.[14] The CFS Advisory Committee (Part of the US Department of Health) in 2007 found that a survey of 1,500 US primary care providers showed that 90 percent believed CFS can impair quality of life, 20 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that CFS is only in the patient’s head, and 30 percent said enough information is available to diagnose CFS.[15] A 2008 Norwegian study that explored barriers quality care from experiences by patients suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome concluded, "current medical skepticism and ignorance regarding CFS shapes the context of medical care and the illness experiences of CFS patients, who may feel they neither get a proper assessment nor management."[16]

Education of care providers is a proposed solution. One study conducted a relatively brief seminar presenting factual information on CFS to a cohort of fourth year medical students. The authors concluded the information provided was associated with a more favorable attitude toward CFS.[17] In the UK, the 2002 Chief Medical Officer's report stated that all doctors should consider CFS as a serious chronic illness and treat patients accordingly.[18] In 2006, the CDC launched a national program to educate the American public and health care professionals about CFS.[19]

Contrasting viewpoints[edit]

There has been much disagreement over proposed cause(s), diagnosis, and treatment of the illness.[5][6][7][8][20] Contrasting viewpoints have been expressed by different CFS experts. In a letter to the Lancet in 1993, psychiatrists David and Wessely contested the WHO classification of CFS under diseases of the nervous system, arguing that it was a form of neurasthenia to be classified as a psychiatric condition.[21] Dutch researchers authored a 1998 study that developed and tested a model where behavioral, cognitive, and affective factors played a role in perpetuating fatigue, and concluded that this was the correct model for CFS.[22] After an attempted replication of the Dutch model with a 2005 population-based study, United States researchers stated the model adequately represented chronic fatigue secondary to psychiatric conditions, but not CFS. They reported finding important differences between CFS and psychiatrically explained chronic fatigue which could affect the development of therapy and explanatory models.[23]

Contested causation may have serious negative effects on healthcare for individuals, as it may erode patient-provider trust, test the provider's self-assurance and capacity to share power with the patient, and raise problematic issues of reparation, compensation and blame.[24]

A survey published in 2013 found that 89% of patient organisations thought the illness to be physical, compared with 58% of newspaper articles and 24% of medical authorities. The authors of the report think that this might explain the gulf between patients and doctors, and why many patients are reluctant to engage in behavioural treatments.[25]

PACE trial[edit]

PACE was a large trial investigating the efficacy and safety of four treatments adjunctive to specialist medical care (SMC): cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), graded exercise therapy (GET), and adaptive pacing therapy (APT). The results were published in February 2011 and concluded that CBT and GET were each "moderately" effective compared to SMC alone, while APT was not found to be effective when added to SMC.[26]

Patient groups and the IACFS/ME[27] have criticized the trial for over-simplified and exaggerated conclusions, for using a flawed psychosocial illness model that ignores biological evidence, for testing a non-representative version of pacing, and because the results seriously conflict with their member surveys which show that pacing is effective and CBT or GET can cause deterioration in many patients who use the treatments.[28][29][30]

The trial generated a furious response from patient groups and campaigners. Letters to the editor critiqued the definitions of secondary outcomes, questioned post-hoc protocol changes, and expressed concern over generalisability of the results. Professor Malcolm Hooper branded the results "unethical and unscientific" and submitted a 442 page response to the Medical Research Council and a shorter 43-page complaint to the Lancet. The MRC and the Lancet considered the submissions and rejected them. A Lancet editorial conjectured that the strong negative response might be due to the dismay over the debilitating illness, "but also from an active campaign to discredit the research."[31][32]

Support for patients[edit]

A 2006 investigation by a group from the Parliament of the United Kingdom found there was not enough support in the UK for CFS patients in terms of access to social security and health care.[33] Sufferers describe the struggle for healthcare and legitimacy due to what they consider to be bureaucratic denial of the condition because of its lack of a known etiology. Institutions maintain the exclusion of patient support by rhetorical arguments of the open-endedness of science to delay new findings of fact. This has resulted in an expensive and prolonged conflict for all involved.[2][34]

Research funding[edit]

In 1998 it became known almost 13 million dollars for CFS research had been redirected or improperly accounted for by the United States CDC. The agency stated the need to respond to other public health emergencies. The director of a U.S. national patient advocacy group charged the CDC had a bias against studying the disease.[35]

Perception[edit]

Epidemic cases of benign myalgic encephalomyelitis were called mass hysteria by psychiatrists McEvedy and Beard in 1970,[36] provoking criticism in letters to the editor of the British Medical Journal by attending physicians, researchers, and nurses who fell ill.[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] The psychiatrists were faulted for not investigating the patients they described,[46] and their conclusions have been refuted.[47][48][49] In 1978 a symposium held at the Royal Society of Medicine (RSM) concluded that epidemic myalgic encephalomyelitis was a distinct disease entity.[50]

In an article in the Journal of Clinical Pathology, Malcolm Hooper argued myalgic encephalomyelitis should be used in place of CFS, and that research in the UK has been hijacked by a "lobby of psychologists and psychiatrists" holding significant power within the medical fraternity, with a resultant "gross abuse/neglect of patients."[46]

In her 1997 book Hystories: Hysterical Epidemics and Modern Culture, literary critic and feminist Elaine Showalter argues that chronic fatigue syndrome is a "hysterical narrative," a modern manifestation of hysteria, a self-perpetuating "cultural symptom of anxiety and stress" historically assigned to women.[51] She says that CFS is a new form of "effort syndrome", a disorder with a long history. Showalter says the media, especially the internet, help to spread the mass hysteria and doctors bow to pressure to accept the new diagnosis because they do not want to be seen as "uncaring." In her book she says that CFS symptoms are genuine, whether psychologically or organically caused, or both, and that the main problem is that people do not believe that psychiatric disorders are "real". She says that while many CFS patients are hostile to psychiatric explanations for their illness, "the majority of doctors and researchers maintain that CFS is a psychological syndrome, and that its symptoms and effects are real".[51][52] In 2001 she wrote in a new preface to a reprint of her book that CFS patients responded to her ideas with hate mail and death threats.

Political[edit]

The 2006 report by the UK Parliamentary Group on Scientific Research into Myalgic Encephalomyelitis stated that, "CFS/ME is defined as a psychosocial illness by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and medical insurance companies. Therefore claimants are not entitled to the higher level of benefit payments. We recognise that if CFS/ME remains as one illness and/or both remain defined as psychosocial then it would be in the financial interest of both the DWP and the medical insurance companies." The Group called for investigation of what they called, "numerous cases where advisors to the DWP have also had consultancy roles in medical insurance companies. Particularly the Company UNUMProvident. Given the vested interest private medical insurance companies have in ensuring CFS/ME remain classified as a psychosocial illness there is blatant conflict of interest here." The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions responded that "Entitlement to Disability Living Allowance depends on the effects that severe physical or mental disability has on a person's need for personal care and/or their ability to walk, and not on particular disabilities or diagnoses. The benefit is available to people with myalgic encephalomyelitis (which can have a physical basis or a psychological basis, or can be due to a combination of factors) on exactly the same terms as other severely disabled people, and they can qualify for it provided that they meet the usual entitlement conditions."[53]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Wallace PG (1991). "Post-viral fatigue syndrome. Epidemiology: a critical review". Br. Med. Bull. 47 (4): 942–51. PMID 1794092. 
  2. ^ a b c Mounstephen A, Sharpe M; Sharpe (1997). "Chronic fatigue syndrome and occupational health". Occup Med (Lond) 47 (4): 217–27. doi:10.1093/occmed/47.4.217. PMID 9231495. 
  3. ^ Solomon L, Reeves WC; Reeves (2004). "Factors influencing the diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome". Arch. Intern. Med. 164 (20): 2241–5. doi:10.1001/archinte.164.20.2241. PMID 15534161. 
  4. ^ Hooge J (1992). "Chronic fatigue syndrome: cause, controversy and care". Br J Nurs 1 (9): 440–1, 443, 445–6. PMID 1446147. 
  5. ^ a b Sharpe M (1996). "Chronic fatigue syndrome". Psychiatr. Clin. North Am. 19 (3): 549–73. doi:10.1016/S0193-953X(05)70305-1. PMID 8856816. 
  6. ^ a b c Denz-Penhey H, Murdoch JC; Murdoch (1993). "General practitioners acceptance of the validity of chronic fatigue syndrome as a diagnosis". N. Z. Med. J. 106 (953): 122–4. PMID 8474729. 
  7. ^ a b Greenlee JE, Rose JW; Rose (2000). "Controversies in neurological infectious diseases". Semin Neurol 20 (3): 375–86. doi:10.1055/s-2000-9429. PMID 11051301. 
  8. ^ a b Horton-Salway M (2007). "The ME Bandwagon and other labels: constructing the genuine case in talk about a controversial illness". Br J Soc Psychol 46 (Pt 4): 895–914. doi:10.1348/014466607X173456. PMID 17535450. 
  9. ^ Couper J (2000). "Chronic fatigue syndrome and Australian psychiatry: lessons from the UK experience". Aust N Z J Psychiatry 34 (5): 762–9. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1614.2000.00810.x. PMID 11037362. 
  10. ^ Tuller, D (17 July 2007). "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome No Longer Seen as ‘Yuppie Flu’". The New York Times. Retrieved 15 June 2009. 
  11. ^ Jason LA, Taylor RR, Plioplys S, Stepanek Z, Shlaes J; Taylor; Plioplys; Stepanek; Shlaes (2002). "Evaluating attributions for an illness based upon the name: chronic fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalopathy and Florence Nightingale disease". Am J Community Psychol 30 (1): 133–48. doi:10.1023/A:1014328319297. PMID 11928774. 
  12. ^ Jason, L; Holbert C; Torres-Harding S; Taylor RR (2004). "Stigma and the Term Chronic Fatigue Syndrome". Journal of Disability Policy Studies 14 (4): 222–228. doi:10.1177/10442073040140040401. 
  13. ^ Jason LA, Richman JA, Friedberg F, Wagner L, Taylor R, Jordan KM; Richman; Friedberg; Wagner; Taylor; Jordan (1997). "Politics, science, and the emergence of a new disease. The case of chronic fatigue syndrome". Am Psychol 52 (9): 973–83. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.9.973. PMID 9301342. 
  14. ^ Bowen J, Pheby D, Charlett A, McNulty C; Pheby; Charlett; McNulty (2005). "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: a survey of GPs' attitudes and knowledge". Fam Pract 22 (4): 389–93. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmi019. PMID 15805128. 
  15. ^ "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) meeting". Room 800, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Washington, D.C. 20201: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. 28–29 November 2007. Retrieved 18 April 2008.  |first1= missing |last1= in Authors list (help)
  16. ^ Gilje AM, Söderlund A, Malterud K; Söderlund; Malterud (May 2008). "Obstructions for quality care experienced by patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)-A case study". Patient Educ Couns 73 (1): 36–41. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.04.001. PMID 18486415. 
  17. ^ Friedberg F, Sohl SJ, Halperin PJ; Sohl; Halperin (May 2008). "Teaching medical students about medically unexplained illnesses: A preliminary study". Med Teach 30 (6): 1–4. doi:10.1080/01421590801946970. PMID 18608944. 
  18. ^ CFS/ME Working Group (11 January 2002). "A report of the CFS/ME working group: report to the chief medical officer of an independent working group" (pdf). London: Department of Health. Retrieved 26 May 2009. 
  19. ^ "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Mission / Goals". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 11 May 2006. Retrieved 18 August 2009. 
  20. ^ Hooge J (1992). "Chronic fatigue syndrome: cause, controversy and care". Br J Nurs 1 (9): 440–1, 443, 445–6. PMID 1446147. 
  21. ^ David A, Wessely S; Wessely (1993). "Chronic fatigue, ME, and ICD-10". The Lancet 342 (8881): 1247–8. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)92234-K. PMID 7901572. 
  22. ^ Vercoulen, JHMM; Swanink CMA; Galama JMD; Fennis JFM; Jongen PHJ; Hommes OR; Van der Meer JWM; Bleijenberg G (1998). "The persistence of fatigue in chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple sclerosis: Development of a model". Journal of Psychosomatic Research 45 (6): 507–517. doi:10.1016/S0022-3999(98)00023-3. PMID 9859853. 
  23. ^ Song, S; Jason LA (2005). "A population based study of CFS experienced in differing patient groups. An effort to replicate Vercoulen et al.'s model of CFS" (pdf). Journal of Mental Health 14 (3): 277–289. doi:10.1080/09638230500076165. 
  24. ^ Engel CC, Adkins JA, Cowan DN; Adkins; Cowan (2002). "Caring for medically unexplained physical symptoms after toxic environmental exposures: effects of contested causation". Environ. Health Perspect. 110 Suppl 4 (Suppl 4): 641–7. doi:10.1289/ehp.02110s4641. PMC 1241219. PMID 12194900. 
  25. ^ Hossenbaccus, Z.; White, P. D. (2013). "Views on the nature of chronic fatigue syndrome: Content analysis". JRSM Short Reports 4 (1): 4. doi:10.1258/shorts.2012.012051. PMC 3572659. PMID 23413406.  edit
  26. ^ White, P.; Goldsmith, K.; Johnson, A. et al. (2011). "Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial". The Lancet 377 (9768): 823–836. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60096-2.  edit
  27. ^ "IACFS/ME Statement on the PACE Trial: The Issue of Illness 'Reversal'", 24 February 2011, The International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME (IACFS/ME), http://www.iacfsme.org/PACETrial/tabid/450/Default.aspx
  28. ^ "PACE: 'surprising and disappointing'", 18 February 2011, Action for ME, http://www.afme.org.uk/news.asp?newsid=1047
  29. ^ "ME Association press statement about the results of the PACE study", Tony Britton for the ME Association, 18 February 2011, http://www.meassociation.org.uk/?p=4607
  30. ^ "Falling off the PACE", Kimberly McCleary, [undated (Retrieved 26 July 2011)], The CAA (CFIDS Association of America), http://www.cfids.org/pdf/lancet-analysis.pdf
  31. ^ [No authors listed] (Editorial) (May 2011). "Patients' power and PACE". Lancet 377 (9780): 1808. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60696-X. PMID 21592553. 
  32. ^ Hawkes N (June 2011). "(Editorial) Dangers of research into chronic fatigue syndrome". BMJ 342: d3780. doi:10.1136/bmj.d3780. PMID 21697226. 
  33. ^ Gibson I (February 2007). "A new look at chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis". J. Clin. Pathol. 60 (2): 120–1. doi:10.1136/jcp.2006.042432. PMC 1860614. PMID 16935965. 
  34. ^ Dumit, J. (8 August 2005). "Illnesses you have to fight to get: facts as forces in uncertain, emergent illnesses". Soc Sci Med. Feb;62 (3): 577–90. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.06.018. PMID 16085344. 
  35. ^ Dove, A. (August 2000). "GAO reports on CFS funding controversy". Nat Med. 6 (8): 846. doi:10.1038/78579. PMID 10932206. Retrieved 2 April 2008. 
  36. ^ McEvedy CP, Beard AW; Beard (1970). "Concept of Benign Myalgic Encephalomyelitis". British Medical Journal 1 (5687): 11–5. doi:10.1136/bmj.1.5687.11. PMC 1700895. PMID 5411596. 
  37. ^ Scott BD (January 1970). "Epidemic malaise". Br Med J 1 (5689): 170. doi:10.1136/bmj.1.111.170. PMC 1699088. PMID 5370039. 
  38. ^ Compston N. D., Dimsdale H. E., Ramsay A. M., Richardson A. T.; Dimsdale; Ramsay; Richardson (February 1970). "Epidemic Malaise". Br Med J 1 (5692): 362–363. doi:10.1136/bmj.1.5692.362-a. PMC 1699022. 
  39. ^ Acheson E. D. (February 1970). "Epidemic Malaise". Br Med J 1 (5692): 363–4. doi:10.1136/bmj.1.5692.363-b. PMC 1698971. PMID 5467149. 
  40. ^ Gosling PH (February 1970). "Epidemic malaise". Br Med J 1 (5694): 499–500. doi:10.1136/bmj.1.5694.499-b. PMC 1699452. PMID 5435167. 
  41. ^ Purke GJ (February 1970). "Epidemic malaise". Br Med J 1 (5694): 500. doi:10.1136/bmj.1.5694.500. PMC 1699458. PMID 5435168. 
  42. ^ Hopkins EJ (February 1970). "Epidemic malaise". Br Med J 1 (5694): 500–1. doi:10.1136/bmj.1.5694.500-a. PMC 1699426. PMID 5435169. 
  43. ^ Galpine JF (February 1970). "Epidemic malaise". Br Med J 1 (5694): 501. doi:10.1136/bmj.1.5694.501. PMC 1699416. PMID 5435170. 
  44. ^ Poskanzer DC (May 1970). "Epidemic malaise". Br Med J 2 (5706): 420–1. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.5706.420-b. PMC 1700311. PMID 5420612. 
  45. ^ Parish JG (July 1970). "Epidemic malaise". Br Med J 3 (5713): 47–8. doi:10.1136/bmj.3.5713.47-c. PMC 1700986. PMID 4316803. 
  46. ^ a b Hooper M (2006). "Myalgic encephalomyelitis: a review with emphasis on key findings in biomedical research". J Clin Pathol 60 (5): 466–71. doi:10.1136/jcp.2006.042408. PMC 1994528. PMID 16935967. 
  47. ^ Evengård B, Schacterle RS, Komaroff AL; Schacterle; Komaroff (November 1999). "Chronic fatigue syndrome: new insights and old ignorance". J. Intern. Med. 246 (5): 455–69. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2796.1999.00513.x. PMID 10583715. 
  48. ^ David AS, Wessely S, Pelosi AJ; Wessely; Pelosi (March 1988). "Postviral fatigue syndrome: time for a new approach". Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 296 (6623): 696–9. doi:10.1136/bmj.296.6623.696. PMC 2545306. PMID 3128374. 
  49. ^ Stricklin A, Sewell M, Austad C; Sewell; Austad (January 1990). "Objective measurement of personality variables in epidemic neuromyasthenia patients". S. Afr. Med. J. 77 (1): 31–4. PMID 2294610. 
  50. ^ No authors listed (3 June 1978). "Epidemic myalgic encephalomyelitis". Br Med J. 1 (6125): 1436–7. doi:10.1136/bmj.1.2791.1436-a. PMC 1604957. PMID 647324. 
  51. ^ a b Showalter, Elaine (1997). Hystories: hysterical epidemics and modern media. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 132. ISBN 0-231-10459-6. 
  52. ^ Rewriting Modern 'Hystories' Elaine Showalter believes that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Gulf War Syndrome and other current maladies are not significantly different from the Salem witch hysteria or the spurt in reports of alien abductions - The Baltimore Sun, 28 May 1997
  53. ^ "Inquiry into the status of CFS/ME and research into causes and treatment". United Kingdom Parliamentry Group on Scientific Research into Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. 1 November 2006. Retrieved 25 June 2010. 

Further reading[edit]

  • Hillary Johnson. (1996). Osler's Web: Inside the Labyrinth of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Epidemic. Crown Publishers, New York. ISBN 0-517-70353-X.