• 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.

JIM: Van der Meer and Lloyd Critique International Consensus Criteria ME

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
'The response from Broderick clarifies that the original publication, in its current format, is intended only for application in clinical settings and that its use in research settings should await the publication of a related International Symptom Scale, currently being developed. Neither letter addresses the consequences of the new criteria for medical-legal issues such as reimbursement or disability assessment, particularly for those who might meet the 1994 Fukuda criteria for CFS but do not fully meet the new criteria for M.E. The response from Broderick on behalf of the author panel also does not address the uneven access to testing that is proposed to confirm the presence of subjective symptoms, especially if intended to be employed in the clinical setting to make a diagnosis. These issues are top-of-mind for the autism and Alzheimers communities, as the definitions for those conditions are being narrowed (autism, see New York Times, Jan. 19, 2012 and Medical News Today, Jan. 24, 2012) and expanded (Alzheimers, see Los Angeles Times, April 25, 2011). [http://forums.phoenixrising.me/show...efinition-for-autism-implications-for-CFS-ME]

The discussion of these criteria will certainly continue, especially when the related scale and physician guidelines are published.'

CFIDS 24 January 2012: http://www.research1st.com/2012/01/...&utm_campaign=Feed:+Research1st+(Research1st)
 

Ember

Senior Member
Messages
2,115
While the awaited ICSS will provide a quantitative score for the selection of research subjects, aren't Fukuda and the CCC both used in research with only the specification of measurable factors?
 

oceanblue

Guest
Messages
1,383
Location
UK
By adding emphasis without noting that it's yours, you may inadvertently be misquoting the ICC. Try reading this sentence as it may have been intended: "Determine whether symptom cluster patterns are congruent with those expected from dysfunction of an underlying causal system (emphasis mine).
Hi Ember. Sorry, you're quite right: I should have been explicit that the emphasis was mine. I did note the word 'expected' but the ICC are still presuming causal dysfuntion and that hasn't been shown; that's what I ws trying to highlight.

The authors of the ICC include Nancy Klimas, Alan Light and Stacy Stevens. Would they have measured and reproduced pathophysiological abnormalities in response to exertion in ME patients?
Not reliably reproduced and published, to my knowledge. The replicated NKCC finding (Klimas/Brenu) was not post-exertion. The Light's did a gene expression pilot then a larger study, but rolled the pilot data into the larger study so it's not a proper replication on an independent sample (which really needs to be by an independent group). Is Stacy Stevens SR Stevens of Pacific labs? If so, they don't seem to have come up with the goods yet, sadly. I think the Lights used CCC but the other studies used Fukuda.

I'd love to see these studies replicated and believe they be will eventually, but until then they are provisional findings.

If you make claims that aren't backed up by the published literature then, in any field of science, researchers with competing views will take pot shots. If I remember correctly*, the Canadian criteria make much of 'characteristic patterns of symptoms' (as opposed to Fukuda's 'pick 4 symptoms, any 4 will do', particularly in response to exertion - but didn't rely so heavily on causal dysfunction of specific symptoms. The ICC would have been less contentious, and just as valuable, if they had taken this approach too.

*not guaranteed these days
 

Ember

Senior Member
Messages
2,115
Neither letter addresses the consequences of the new criteria for medical-legal issues such as reimbursement or disability assessment, particularly for those who might meet the 1994 Fukuda criteria for CFS but do not fully meet the new criteria for M.E.

Does the Research1st commentary imply that the ICC recommends removing patients with ME from Fukuda? The ICC authors write instead, Individuals meeting the International Consensus Criteria have myalgic encephalomyelitis and should be removed from the Reeves empirical criteria and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome.
 

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
That's very restrained of you, Dolphin. I thought the comment was borderline libel!

Talking of 'libel':

Ellen Goudsmit from MEA Facebook:

'Dr Stouten and myself have taken action against Prof Van der Meer and Dr Lloyd for libel (JIM). The editor is in Sweden, but if it takes a court case, so be it.

There's a procedure and this has been started. The modus operandi of dismissing everyone with a different view as stupid says more about the source than the people they write about. It's incredibly unscientific.

They suggested that our letter in the Lancet was unscientific and/or a personal attack. Our letter was factual, focused on statistics, and did not allude to the character of any individual. Sad to see Dr Lloyd has begun to attack the diligence etc of colleagues. I hadn't seen him do that before.'
 

Ember

Senior Member
Messages
2,115
If I remember correctly*, the Canadian criteria make much of 'characteristic patterns of symptoms' (as opposed to Fukuda's 'pick 4 symptoms, any 4 will do', particularly in response to exertion - but didn't rely so heavily on causal dysfunction of specific symptoms. The ICC would have been less contentious, and just as valuable, if they had taken this approach too.

*not guaranteed these days

Broderick discusses the value of the approach they've taken:

The 2011 ICC for ME continues the direction of refinement undertaken in the Canadian Consensus Criteria and incorporates more recent knowledge and understanding. More specifically, the rationale of the ICC document advances the successful strategy of the Canadian Consensus Criteria of not viewing symptoms isolated in a nominal list, but rather as coordinated patterns of symptoms that directly reflect the regulatory interactions of the underlying systems involved.

If the same symptoms consistently flare in response to exertion, they are more likely to share a common cause. For example, if a patient consistently experiences flu-like symptoms, sore throat and tender lymph nodes in response to exertion, it suggests that immune activation is a component of their underlying pathophysiology, which then can be studied scientifically.

In the original article, the authors of the ICC claim that their framework is consistent with patterns emerging from published research findings and clinical experience. They add:

Symptom patterns interact dynamically because they are causally connected. This has been formally addressed by some investigators who have used well-established multivariate statistical techniques, such as common factor or principal component analyses to identify symptom constructs [117, 118]. Others have extended the use of such methods to guide the analysis of gene expression profiles [28] and to delineate patient subgroups [119].
 

oceanblue

Guest
Messages
1,383
Location
UK
In the original article, the authors of the ICC claim that their framework is consistent with patterns emerging from published research findings and clinical experience. They add:
Sure, but lots of different views are consistent with 'emerging research findings and clinical experience': they were criticised for not having robust evidence of specific underlying pathophysiology and that's still the case. It would be nice if what they claim is true, it may well even be true but until they produce well replicated findings it ain't proven. That's just how science works. If (or rather when) biopsychosocialists stretch the evidence like this then people on this forum (including me) are all over them, and rightly so. I don't think we should hold the biomedical approach to a lesser standard.

If the same symptoms consistently flare in response to exertion, they are more likely to share a common cause. (my emphasis)
but 'more likely' is the extent of it, it's not proof by any means.

If there is robust, replicated then evidence for their claims, please show me; it's what I've been trying to find for years. As I said before, they could have created the same criteria without relying so heavily on 'emerging findings'.
 

oceanblue

Guest
Messages
1,383
Location
UK
Talking of 'libel':

Ellen Goudsmit from MEA Facebook:

'Dr Stouten and myself have taken action against Prof Van der Meer and Dr Lloyd for libel (JIM). The editor is in Sweden, but if it takes a court case, so be it.

There's a procedure and this has been started. The modus operandi of dismissing everyone with a different view as stupid says more about the source than the people they write about. It's incredibly unscientific.

They suggested that our letter in the Lancet was unscientific and/or a personal attack. Our letter was factual, focused on statistics, and did not allude to the character of any individual. Sad to see Dr Lloyd has begun to attack the diligence etc of colleagues. I hadn't seen him do that before.'
Would be nice if this lead to a prompt retraction and apology from the journal, with no need for a court case. I think their claims agains the letter writers are wholly unsustainable, particularly as they named them indiviudally (through the references).

ETA: oh good, looks like that's the plan. This from MEA facebook page:
Ellen Goudsmit Thinking of who we may end up suing. One author is in Holland (that's therefore easy), one is in Australia (not so accessible) or the journal. Or all. Let's hope they see sense and apologise/correct.
 

oceanblue

Guest
Messages
1,383
Location
UK
While the awaited ICSS will provide a quantitative score for the selection of research subjects, aren't Fukuda and the CCC both used in research with only the specification of measurable factors?
Lenny Jason is currently trying to quantify the CCC (I recetly completed a questionnaire as part of the study), it's also what bill Reeves did to Fukuda with his 'Empiric' criteria! Any ICSS will need to show it's quantitative score is meaningful - quantitative isn't better if it's inaccurate (eg the Empiric criteria).
 
Messages
180
I'm inclined to agree with oceanblue, although I agree with the premises and implications of the ICC I think anyone in this field right now needs to realise that anything they do is going to be scrutinised intensely and therefore any claims which cannot be fully substantiated should be avoided at all costs, leave that to the bio-psycho-social mob. You almost need to be one step ahead of the game really, pre-empt the criticism that is going to be thrown at you by those with a different view, there is no point saying that this is focussed on ME and they aren't, because they don't even acknowledge a difference between the two.
 

Ember

Senior Member
Messages
2,115
Lenny Jason is currently trying to quantify the CCC (I recetly completed a questionnaire as part of the study), it's also what bill Reeves did to Fukuda with his 'Empiric' criteria! Any ICSS will need to show it's quantitative score is meaningful - quantitative isn't better if it's inaccurate (eg the Empiric criteria).

Yes, I'm aware of Lenny Jason's work and of the Reeves definition. My question was about the CAA's holding the ICC to a different standard. They write, Its use in research settings should await the publication of a related International Symptom Scale, currently being developed. If Fukuda and the CCC were held to the same standard, wouldn't all research in the field currently be on hold?

I'm inclined to agree with oceanblue, although I agree with the premises and implications of the ICC I think anyone in this field right now needs to realise that anything they do is going to be scrutinised intensely and therefore any claims which cannot be fully substantiated should be avoided at all costs, leave that to the bio-psycho-social mob. You almost need to be one step ahead of the game really, pre-empt the criticism that is going to be thrown at you by those with a different view, there is no point saying that this is focussed on ME and they aren't, because they don't even acknowledge a difference between the two.

I can't agree with you that any claims which cannot be fully substantiated should be avoided at all costs. Science moves forward by creating and testing better hypotheses. To that end, the ICC framework should be consistent with patterns emerging from published research findings and clinical experience.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean when you say, There is no point saying that this is focussed on ME and they aren't, because they don't even acknowledge a difference between the two. Could you clarify?
 

oceanblue

Guest
Messages
1,383
Location
UK
Yes, I'm aware of Lenny Jason's work and of the Reeves definition. My question was about the CAA's holding the ICC to a different standard. They write, Its use in research settings should await the publication of a related International Symptom Scale, currently being developed. If Fukuda and the CCC were held to the same standard, wouldn't all research in the field currently be on hold?
Personally I think all the criteria need a rigorous evaluation, testing their usefulness in practice, as Dr Yes suggested (see my original post).

Science moves forward by creating and testing better hypotheses. To that end, the ICC framework should be consistent with patterns emerging from published research findings and clinical experience.
I completely agree that's how science moves forward. My concern with the ICC is that it doesn't offer up it's findings as a hypothesis to be tested, but presumes the hypothesis is correct to justify it's criteria. Actually, if they had been upfront and said this is our hypothesis - that the series of symptom clusters reflect a number of underlying causal pathologies - and that this needs to be put to the test, then that would have been entirely consistent with what you propose, and they wouldn't have left themselves open to such criticism.

ETA, awol has also endorsed the Dr Yes suggestion, adding:
I think it needs repeating in a community that tends to rip itself up over battles on the definition. This is and has been my position as well, and furthermore it is a prescription for peace among patient activists.
which surely has to be a good thing :D
 

Ember

Senior Member
Messages
2,115
Personally I think all the criteria need a rigorous evaluation, testing their usefulness in practice, as Dr Yes suggested (see my original post).

I completely agree that's how science moves forward. My concern with the ICC is that it doesn't offer up it's findings as a hypothesis to be tested, but presumes the hypothesis is correct to justify it's criteria. Actually, if they had been upfront and said this is our hypotheses - that the series of symptom clusters reflect a number of underlying causal pathologies - and that this needs to be put to the test, then that would have been entirely consistent with what you propose, and they wouldn't have left themselves open to such criticism.

Dr. Yes suggests that the ICC, like the CCC, be used in research. We haven't disagreed about that. Researchers could run separate analyses:

The answer I always propose is to design studies with highly specific criteria (e.g. requiring acute viral onset and/or objective markers of neurological or immune dysfunction) alongside moderately specific ones like the ICC or CCC and those of lower specificity like Fukuda. Then the results for whatever the study was looking at can be sorted according to criteria. That will immediately allow researchers to begin to differentiate findings that are criteria-specific from those that are more general, as well as to better understand the true nature and boundaries of the disease or diseases that are captured under the umbrella of CFS (or even under that of ME). This is NOT hard to do; it simply requires one or two extra levels of patient screening.

To my mind, the authors of the ICC have been upfront in calling for their work to be put to the test. Again, here's Gordon Broderick:

For example, if a patient consistently experiences flu-like symptoms, sore throat and tender lymph nodes in response to exertion, it suggests that immune activation is a component of their underlying pathophysiology, which then can be studied scientifically.

And here's the ICC:

Underlying problems of inconsistent findings in research studies have been identified [39, 40] and include a need for studies to be based on larger sample sizes with a more clearly defined phenotype, in particular one that recognizes the likely existence of significant subgroups within the patient population.

The compulsory critical criteria allow comparable data to be collected in various locations and may assist in developing consistent biomarkers and further insights into the mechanism and aetiology of myalgic encephalomyelitis.
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
Lloyd and "unscientific" comments

The authors criticise people for people unscientific.

This reminded me of the following study:

Immunologic and psychologic therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Lloyd AR, Hickie I, Brockman A, Hickie C, Wilson A, Dwyer J, Wakefield D.
Am J Med. 1993 Feb;94(2):197-203.
CBT did not come out well from it.

However, it does not tend to be included in meta-analyses because no standard deviation was published.

Both Malouff et al (2008) and the Cochrane review say they wrote to authors when there was missing data but still had to exclude this study (as the data was never given presumably).

It's not as if Lloyd has left the field/is no frail/whatever.
 

oceanblue

Guest
Messages
1,383
Location
UK
Hi Ember

I'm not sure we actually disagree much here.

We agree the ICC is a valuable contribution and should be used in research alongside other criteria as per Dr Yes's suggestion. My concern, as I've maybe not explained clearly enough, is that they've overclaimed on the evidence for the causal dysfunction presumed in their definition. Since you haven't given any examples of robustly replicated findings I'm asssuming you don't disagree with that point, and that's the criticism made by van der Meer and Lloyd that I said was justified (even though I disagreed with the majority of their points).

And yes, as I said in my original post (using one of the same quotes you pulled out), Broderick has pointed to the usefulness of the criteria in better understanding the underlying pathology, which implies ICC needs to be tested. But as I also said that rather contradicts his claim, repeated in his rebuttal, of the evidence for the underlying causal pathology in multiple systems - I don't think they have been upfront in saying their ideas need testing, it's more like trying to have it both ways, and I don't think that's robust science. They didn't need to make such a strong claim in order to issue the criteria.

Maybe is beginning to feel a bit like a 'Groundhog Day' to you too? I'm going to leave it here.
 

Ember

Senior Member
Messages
2,115
My concern, as I've maybe not explained clearly enough, is that they've overclaimed on the evidence for the causal dysfunction presumed in their definition. Since you haven't given any examples of robustly replicated findings I'm asssuming you don't disagree with that point...

You want proof. They give evidence. I do disagree that they've over-claimed the evidence and have tried to have it both ways. But I'm happy to leave it there.
 

Ember

Senior Member
Messages
2,115
Neither letter addresses the consequences of the new criteria for medical-legal issues such as reimbursement or disability assessment, particularly for those who might meet the 1994 Fukuda criteria for CFS but do not fully meet the new criteria for M.E.

Apparently, Gordon Broderick's suggestion that we only use the name ME for those who meet the more restrictive ICC criteria for this very serious disease, which is consistent with the WHO ICD neurological classification surprises Kim McCleary (see comments: http://www.research1st.com/2012/01/...&utm_campaign=Feed:+Research1st+(Research1st)). Having read the first sentence of the ICC, Kim seems to have understood it to mean that everyone diagnosed with CFS should instead be said to have ME. Now, faced with her obvious misinterpretation, the best she can come up with is this:

It's unclear.... The original paper said that ME should be used as a replacement for CFS, but the reply from Broderick appears to reflect that ME is intended to describe a unique condition defined by the new criteria, not simply a replacement for existing CFS criteria. These two statements are somewhat contradictory.
Here's the statement that troubles Kim:

The label chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) has persisted for many years because of the lack of knowledge of the aetiological agents and the disease process. In view of more recent research and clinical experience that strongly point to widespread inflammation and multisystemic neuropathology, it is more appropriate and correct to use the term myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) because it indicates an underlying pathophysiology.

To interpret this statement to mean that 'ME' should be used...simply [as] a replacement for existing CFS criteria seems to me a stretch, but if Kim is genuinely confused, shouldn't she be seeking competent clarification, especially given her expressed concern about medical-legal issues for those who (she somehow acknowledges) might meet the 1994 Fukuda criteria for CFS but do not fully meet the new criteria for M.E?

The quality of leadership on this issue troubles me.