• 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.

Unger et al: CDC Grand Rounds: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome — Advancing Research and Clinical Education

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
CDC Grand Rounds: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome — Advancing Research and Clinical Education

Elizabeth R. Unger, PhD, MD1; Jin-Mann Sally Lin, PhD1; Dana J. Brimmer, PhD1; Charles W. Lapp, MD2; Anthony L. Komaroff, MD3; Avindra Nath, MD4; Susan Laird, MSN5; John Iskander, MD6 (View author affiliations)

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm655051a4.htm#B1_down

Intro:

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a complex and serious illness that is often misunderstood.

Experts have noted that the terminology “chronic fatigue syndrome” can trivialize this illness and stigmatize persons who experience its symptoms (1).

The name was coined by a group of clinicians convened by CDC in the late 1980s to develop a research case definition for the illness, which, at the time, was called chronic Epstein-Barr virus syndrome.

The name CFS was suggested because of the characteristic persistent fatigue experienced by all those affected and the evidence that acute or reactivated Epstein-Barr virus infection was not associated with many cases (2).

However, the fatigue in this illness is striking and quite distinct from the common fatigue everyone experiences.

A variety of other names have been used, including myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), ME/CFS, chronic fatigue immune dysfunction, and most recently, systemic exertion intolerance disease (3).

The lack of agreement about nomenclature need not be an impediment for advancing critically needed research and education. The term ME/CFS will be used in this article.

ME/CFS is a Significant Public Health Problem

Extrapolating from the three U.S. population-based studies, it is estimated that at least one million persons in the United States suffer from ME/CFS (46).

These studies indicate that ME/CFS is three to four times more common in women than in men.

Persons of all racial and ethnic backgrounds are affected; however, the illness is more prevalent in minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.

The highest prevalence of illness is in persons aged 40–50 years, but the age range is broad and includes children and adolescents.


ME/CFS patients, their families, and society all bear significant costs associated with this illness.

These include direct medical costs for provider visits and medications and indirect costs of lost productivity.

In the United States, the estimated annual cost of lost productivity ranges from 9–37 billion dollars, and for direct medical costs, ranges from 9–14 billion dollars, with nearly one quarter of direct medical expenses paid directly by patients and their families (79).

When ME/CFS occurs in patients aged <25 years, these patients might not achieve their full educational potential, resulting in a life-long impact on their earnings (7).

ME/CFS patients have significant functional impairment as illustrated by findings from CDC’s ongoing study of patients in seven clinics of ME/CFS specialists (Figure).

Functioning of ME/CFS patients, as measured by subscale scores on the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), were well below those of healthy persons except for the two subscales reflecting mental and emotional functioning.

Despite the severity of their illness, ME/CFS patients face significant barriers to receiving appropriate health care.

A population-based study in Georgia found that 55% of persons with ME/CFS reported at least one barrier to health care; for example, 10% had financial barriers to seeking needed health care (10).

Most persons with ME/CFS identified in population surveys have been ill >5 years and only approximately half continue to seek medical care (46). Further, only approximately 20% received a diagnosis, emphasizing the need for more physician education about this illness.

Read more at the link above...
(Each sentence was given a new paragraph to make reading easier)
 

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
"It is clear that more basic science research is needed. In September 2015, the NIH intramural program began developing a research protocol to study ME/CFS. The overall hypothesis is that ME/CFS is attributable to an infection that results from immune-mediated brain dysfunction in some patients with acute onset illness."
 

duncan

Senior Member
Messages
2,240
"Other studies have found that, compared with healthy controls, persons with ME/CFS have had exposure to significantly more stressors (trauma and other adverse life events)..."

"Significantly" more.

Quite the embedded seed, that.
 

duncan

Senior Member
Messages
2,240
Under Treatments, several gems:

"Nonpharmacologic approaches might include Epsom salt soaks, massage..." :cautious:

"Patients should be encouraged to remain active, but not too active..." o_O

"They need to start with very low levels of activity and escalate the levels slowly." Er, I thought this group was supposed to be listening to patients and patient advocates.

I almost would prefer if they had instead just simply admitted, "As of this moment, there are no effective treatments for the majority of ME/CFS sufferers, which is a major reason why research is desperately needed." And left it at that.
 
Last edited:

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
Under Treatments, several gems:

"Nonpharmacologic approaches might include Epsom salt soaks, massage..." :cautious:

"Patients should be encouraged to remain active, but not too active..." o_O

"They need to start with very low levels of activity and escalate the levels slowly." Er, I thought they were supposed to be listening to patients and patient advocates.

I almost would prefer if they had instead just admitted, "As of this moment, there are no effective treatments for the majority of ME/CFS sufferers, which is why research is desperately needed."
That is truly maddening. Self-management is not treatment.

It reminds me that the section of "general treatment" on this forum need cleaning up. Alternative medicine self-treatment experiments are not medical treatments. By declaring them treatments we are sending a message to the physicians out there that non-evidence patient experiment can pass as evidence-based treatment.

My 2 cents.
 
Last edited:

medfeb

Senior Member
Messages
491
"Other studies have found that, compared with healthy controls, persons with ME/CFS have had exposure to significantly more stressors (trauma and other adverse life events)..."

"Significantly" more.

Quite the embedded seed, that.

Their trauma/adverse events claim is largely based on a Reeves (empirical) study that the IOM dismissed because the definition "resulted in a biased sample with overrepresentation of individuals with depression and posttraumatic stress disorder."
 

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
Their trauma/adverse events claim is largely based on a Reeves (empirical) study that the IOM dismissed because the definition "resulted in a biased sample with overrepresentation of individuals with depression and posttraumatic stress disorder."
So why are they hanging on to this?
 

medfeb

Senior Member
Messages
491
So why are they hanging on to this?

Good question. CDC appears to still defend the Reeves definition/method as an appropriate approach - they issued that paper last Feb that stated that Reeves and Fukuda selected the same set of patients. I imagine CDC was also influential in the NIH intramural study originally picking Reeves for patient selection. I don't know how they reconcile that with the IOM statement.
 

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
Any bureaucracy will hang onto it's prior actions. In the world of bureaucracy, the Agency is never wrong, and when it does harm it is never responsible. "A bureaucracy is about process, not results." That is not unique to the CDC, it's a basic law of bureaucracy. C.S. Lewis observed this about 100 years ago.

@HowToEscape? this brings me to the question... How to escape? :lol:
 

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
Hypothetically, say I was going to meet with a very high level CDC official at a party next month. Any suggestions for interesting questions?

Hypothetically of course.
Why does CDC can't give up the psycho-social explanation of the disease?
What responsibility do they take in not controlling the disease (CDC= center for diseases control)
Why are things moving so slowly?
When will CDC publish about their big study- involving over 400 patients?
When will CDC remove harmful information frm their website?
 

Artstu

Senior Member
Messages
279
Location
UK
"Other studies have found that, compared with healthy controls, persons with ME/CFS have had exposure to significantly more stressors (trauma and other adverse life events)..."

"Significantly" more.

Quite the embedded seed, that.

I was exposed to some hassle and pressure at the time I became ill, whether that played a part in me becoming ill I don't know.
 

Seven7

Seven
Messages
3,444
Location
USA
How to escape?
Getting on cars in front of the CDC and stop all traffic everyday at peak hour when they want to go out to dinner and lunch, "Oh we are pacing". I am tired so now I need to take a break IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET.
Bunch of dumb arses. Only when they see the ridiculousness of the suggestion and how hard it is to implemented and real life and how disruptive this recommendation is for the rest of society (not just to ourself and families like today) then things will change.
 

medfeb

Senior Member
Messages
491
I agree with many of the concerns along with others in the article and the need for CDC to clean up its medical education.

But there are a few positive things in the article - This is the first time to my knowledge that CDC has provided a linked to the IACFS/ME Primer - in the section on treatments and symptom management. CDC has always maintained they can not link to the primer because its not published.
They also don't use the terms CBT and GET. But I agree that the text that's provided with activity management will lead to inappropriate and harmful recommendations by doctors who have been conditioned by years of PACE style recommendations.