• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

What Should Phoenix Rising Tell the IOM Committee?

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
Mark and Kina... Amazing job... Especially considering the short amount of time... Broadly speaking, I support the outline that you have posted above... Thank you.
 
Last edited:

Sparrow

Senior Member
Messages
691
Location
Canada
Thank you for putting together a statement that does a good job of representing what was discussed here. I really like the idea of using our protests to give productive advice, by asking them to consult with patients, defer to the experts, etc.

The only part of the statement that concerns me a bit is the emphasis on strictly requiring test abnormalities for an ME diagnosis. I most definitely fit the CCC criteria. I have been diagnosed by specialists. I have textbook ME. ...But I do not show many of the common test abnormalities. Many of the ones we have seem to show up in most patients, but not all.

In the second point, could we instead say something like an ME definition should be based on test abnormalities where they are present, and definitive neurological symptoms and post exertional malaise where they are not?

And would it be possible to amend the first point to emphasize CPET testing except in severely ill patients. I just don't want to see misguided doctors requiring exercise tests for people who can't even crawl to their own bathrooms.
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
The only part of the statement that concerns me a bit is the emphasis on strictly requiring test abnormalities for an ME diagnosis.
That's the only reservation I had as well, but on balance, I think it makes a good political point. i.e. it may open the eyes to committee members that there are biological abnormalities in ME patients. I'm certain that they will dismiss this demand, but it makes a point. I support the points you have made in your post, Sparrow.
 

Ember

Senior Member
Messages
2,115
The definition should include PEM/PENE (operationalised by CPET testing), neurological and immune dysfunction, with testing for known abnormalities mandatory.... An ME definition should be based on test abnormalities.
See the ME Primer's Laboratory/Investigative Protocol: “Diagnose by criteria. Confirm by laboratory and other investigations. A broad panel of tests provides a more robust basis to identify symptom patterns, abnormalities and orient treatment” (pp. 11-12).
 

Sparrow

Senior Member
Messages
691
Location
Canada
See the ME Primer's Laboratory/Investigative Protocol: “Diagnose by criteria. Confirm by laboratory and other investigations. A broad panel of tests provides a more robust basis to identify symptom patterns, abnormalities and orient treatment” (pp. 11-12).

I would be comfortable saying something like that. I just feel a bit off recommending the original statement when that criteria would probably exclude me from having this illness (as much as I'll love to get rid of it, that's only a good deal if the symptoms go too ;)).
 

Ember

Senior Member
Messages
2,115
The illness we are talking about is not about fatigue.
Clinical Working Case Definition of ME/CFS
A patient with ME/CFS will meet the criteria for fatigue, post-exertional malaise and/or fatigue, sleep dysfunction, and pain; have two or more neurological/cognitive manifestations and one or more symptoms from two of the categories of autonomic, neuroendocrine and immune manifestations; and adhere to item 7.

1. Fatigue: The patient must have a significant degree of new onset, unexplained, persistent, or recurrent physical and mental fatigue that substantially reduces activity level.

2. Post-Exertional Malaise and/or Fatigue: There is an inappropriate loss of physical and mental stamina, rapid muscular and cognitive fatigability, post exertional malaise and/or fatigue and/or pain and a tendency for other associated symptoms within the patient's cluster of symptoms to worsen. There is a pathologically slow recovery period--usually 24 hours or longer....
 
Messages
5,238
Location
Sofa, UK
I would be comfortable saying something like that. I just feel a bit off recommending the original statement when that criteria would probably exclude me from having this illness (as much as I'll love to get rid of it, that's only a good deal if the symptoms go too ;)).
All the summary statement are my own rough drafts; feel free to propose specific re-wording of the text but I am going to need that specific re-wording rather than general points if I'm going to have a chance of getting this ready in time.
 

Legendrew

Senior Member
Messages
541
Location
UK
Just wanted to add my opinions on the major topics you've outlined
  • The criteria used so far (like Fukuda, Reeves) have been so broad as to make the research evidence based on those criteria largely useless: we argue for the recognition of an ME definition, nothing less than the CCC or ICC (as an interim pending further research, and ultimately, ideally, a tighter definition than even the ICC). The definition should include PEM/PENE (operationalised by CPET testing), neurological and immune dysfunction, with testing for known abnormalities mandatory. (Firestormm 4, 50, Slayadragon 5, Daisybell 16, taniaaust 20, ecoclimber 44, Roseblossom 46, 51, Ember 56, 82, Nielk 76)
I agree almost entirely with this point however I'd like to raise the point that going forwards we are likely to find more bio-markers of ME/CFS, it is therefore worthwhile ensuring the definition has room for expansion and it is likely that as time progresses the definition may have to be entirely re-worked.
  • ME should be separated out from Chronic Fatigue and 'CFS'. Chronic Fatigue, CFS and ME are separate entities. An ME definition should be based on test abnormalities. CFS should be dropped. Chronic Fatigue isn't relevant to ME. (taniaaust 20,22, bob 42, Lnester7 45, Beaker 71, 72, Nielk 76)
I'm not sure I 100% agree with this, more I believe the name is a topic all in itself and should likely be changed only when sufficient scientific data has been gathered to give the disease a fitting name. Both CFS and ME have problems, given that CFS is too broad a term and seems too much like a waste basket diagnosis and there is no reliable and consistant evidence to support the 'encephalomyelitis' of ME. A name i've seen discussed numerous times is Myalgic encephalopathy which appears to be more consistant with a disease that is currently classified as a neurological disease.
  • The illness we are talking about is not about fatigue. This illness is also not about depression, deconditioning, childhood abuse, somatization, personality disorder, laziness, malingering, hypochondria, or unwellness. (SOC 6, Nielk 8, Sparrow 10, bob 42, ecoclimber 44, Lnester7 45)
Further to the points raised, I'd like to emphasise that many patients became ill very suddenly - leading a normal and healthy life up to this point. This likely causes a lot of distress and upset, however this is the same in any organic disease and does not verify a psychological disease, it merely verifies the distress such disability can cause.
  • The panelists need to understand how severe the disease can be, and have a definition focusing on the core of the most severely affected. The disease we are talking about is a complex, serious, debilitating, multi system disease which leaves its patients disabled. There is a wide variety of symptoms. Half of patients can't work and a quarter are left bedbound. Panelists need to recognise the varying severities and the impact on patients' lives of the various disability levels. (Sparrow 10, 104, Firestormm 21, Beaker 49, Nielk 76, Ritto 112)
I'm not sure the definition should be built specifically around the most severely effected patients as this could end up discounting ME patients who may not have such a severe degree of disability, however it should emphasise the vast array of disability severities that can occur and how patients can move between these levels very quickly during times of relapse.
  • Our presentation should challenge the concept that ME/CFS is a psychological or psychogenic condition and call for such research to be disregarded in relation to the EBM base for ME. We could show examples of past illnesses once thought psychiatric and now known to be physical (eg Ulcers/H. pylori infection, Multiple Sclerosis, Diabetes). Research which describes a putative 'functional disorder' should be ignored and dismissed in relation to ME. (A.B. 34, bob 42, ecoclimber 44, Alex 52)
I think an important point to make here is that among patients and ME experts, both doctors and researchers, there is no doubt that ME is a significantly debilitating organic disease. The point regarding past diseases classed as psychological diseases is a strong one which cannot be understated. Far too often have organic diseases been incorrectly identified as psychological in nature despite lacking research, such events are catastrophic to further research into the condition and past mistakes should not be repeated over and over. There now exists enough research data to support the notion of ME/CFS as a physiological disease.
 

Ember

Senior Member
Messages
2,115
The CCC do put more emphasis on the word/symptom 'fatigue' than I'm comfortable with.
However, Mark is right to say that we are not talking about fatigue.
I think it is helpful to refer to the ICC in our submissions.
Myalgic encephalomyelitis: international consensus criteria
Myalgic encephalomyelitis is an acquired neurological disease with complex global dysfunctions. Pathological dysregulation of the nervous, immune and endocrine systems, with impaired cellular energy metabolism and ion transport are prominent features. Although signs and symptoms are dynamically interactive and causally connected, the criteria are grouped by regions of pathophysiology to provide general focus.

A patient will meet the criteria for postexertional neuroimmune exhaustion (A), at least one symptom from three neurological impairment categories (B), at least one symptom from three immune/gastro-intestinal/genitourinary impairment categories (C), and at least one symptom from energy metabolism/transport impairments (D).

A. Postexertional neuroimmune exhaustion (PENE pen’-e): Compulsory
This cardinal feature is a pathological inability to produce sufficient energy on demand with prominent symptoms primarily in the neuroimmune regions. Characteristics are as follows:
1. Marked, rapid physical and/or cognitive fatigability in response to exertion, which may be minimal such as activities of daily living or simple mental tasks, can be debilitating and cause a relapse.
2. Postexertional symptom exacerbation: e.g. acute flu-like symptoms, pain and worsening of other symptoms.
3.Postexertional exhaustion may occur immediately after activity or be delayed by hours or days.
4. Recovery period is prolonged, usually taking 24 h or longer. A relapse can last days, weeks or longer.
5.  Low threshold of physical and mental fatigability (lack of stamina) results in a substantial reduction in pre-illness activity level....
 
Last edited:

Andrew

Senior Member
Messages
2,513
Location
Los Angeles, USA
PS: I forgot to mention that the presentation can be delivered via the web, it's not necessary for the presenter to attend the meeting in person.

Where does it say this? I didn't sign up because they told me I could not present from home. If it's not too late for me, where do I sign up to present what I wrote?
 

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,970
Where does it say this? I didn't sign up because they told me I could not present from home. If it's not too late for me, where do I sign up to present what I wrote?
This is only for the invited presenters like Phoenix Rising. Mark is looking for someone to present PR,s comment.
 
Messages
2,565
Location
US
  • Our presentation could emphasise (perhaps at the start) that a presentation lasting 5-7 minutes is nowhere near sufficient time for us to provide the feedback we want to provide. So perhaps one main point could be: please ask us again, give us more opportunity for feedback, and keep on asking us throughout the process. Invite us for further discussions with the panel, later in the process.
I like this very much.
 

Ren

.
Messages
385
Some, at least, of the Gulf War IOM presentations have included titles, so I would suggest a minimal title that emphasizes/advocates a chosen point/message. And for my own conscience I still have to advocate some kind of in memoriam end note, if only a very minimal line/quote/reference to honor and humanize. Governments sanitize, patients humanize.

(Thank you, Mark, Kina, and all.)
 
Last edited:

taniaaust1

Senior Member
Messages
13,054
Location
Sth Australia
The CCC is a good start, and I absolutely commend everyone who worked so hard to put it together, but it isn't perfect. It has been around for more than ten years now, and it is certainly not accepted by doctors as a whole. Part of that is lack of a large body to endorse it,

Maybe doctors would of accepted the CCC if it had been pushed by places like the CDC etc and made so it is acceptable instead of them pushing other defintions (how many doctors would go against their own health system views? not many I think) . I dont think we cant say that it cant be accepted just cause its been around for 10 years and so far hasnt been.

The CCC has never been given a chance in America.
 

taniaaust1

Senior Member
Messages
13,054
Location
Sth Australia
In addition, theIACFS/ME published a user friendly guide if the CCC in their primer.

I agree with Andrew. Complex, difficult to diagnose disease have complex diagnostic criteria. Lupus is actually very similar to ME in that it is mainly diagnosed with a set if symptoms and could manifest idifferently depending which body system is involved. Lupus patients are treated by Rheumatologist who have been trained in this disease, not general practitioners.

ME needs to be taught in medical school so that the doctors treating us actually know what this disease is all about.

Im thinking like Nielk.. if ME was taught in medical school maybe doctors wouldnt have trouble at all using something like the CCC.

Other complex illness do not have general GPs diagnosing them.. what happens is the person is sent to a specialist for diagnoses etc.

Any diagnostic criteria other then a complex one, isnt going to be good enough for ME.
 

taniaaust1

Senior Member
Messages
13,054
Location
Sth Australia
I included that general point immediately after the main list of points; I worded it differently but obviously the wording needs to be worked on:

I'm not sure it's strictly accurate to say that the majority of Phoenix Rising members oppose it - technically there are about 8 or 9 thousand members and only a minority of those have voted in your poll - but so long as the wording of what we say is accurate, I agree this point should be included.

The majority of Phoenix Rising members oppose the IoM contract and support the experts' letter calling for adopting the CCC.

I ask PR to say this as clearly as its been put above . If the poll comes up with the majority here saying this (which it really was the last time I looked by the poll.. you can only go by a poll!!). or if you arent comfortable with that.. express the poll result in a percent.. eg A poll showed that 80%?? of PR members oppose the Iom contract and support experts letter etc.

Thou I wasnt listed as one of the ones saying that, I too feel like this a very important point to make a clear stance on this.