Videocast: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee Meeting (Day 1)

If you don’t support the Reeves/empirical definition/criteria for CFS sign the petition at: http://CFSdefinitionpetition.notlong.com

************************************************************

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee Meeting (Day 1)

The videocast of Day 1 of the CFSAC meeting which took place on 27 May, Washington DC, is now available.  You will need RealPlayer to view this videocast which is world accessible.

The broadcast covers the entire proceedings of Day 1 and is 06:57:55 long but you can dip in and out (Agenda below). Video and audio quality is generally good and there are simultaneous subtitles but no signing.

I will add the videocast for Day 2 of proceedings to this page when it becomes available.

Transcripts of testimonies from patients, carers and medical professionals will eventually be archived on a website and I will flag up the URL when this has been issued.

http://videocast.nih.gov/ 

http://videocast.nih.gov/PastEvents.asp

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee Meeting (Day 1)

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Wanda K. Jones, DrPH, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health (Women’s Health), Office of Public Health and Science
Total Running Time: 06:57:55

Category: Advisory Boards

Agenda

http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/meetings/agendas/cfsac090527_agenda.html

CFSAC Agenda – May 27-28, 2009
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Meeting
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Thursday, May 28, 2009
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Room 800, Hubert H. Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201

Agenda

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

9:00 a.m.
Call to Order
Opening Remarks

Roll Call, Housekeeping
Dr. James Oleske
Chair, CFSAC

Dr. Wanda Jones
Designated Federal Official

9:15 a.m.
Agency Updates: HRSA, SSA, NIH, FDA
Ex Officio Representatives

10:00 a.m.
CDC Update
Research Program Strategic Plan
Public Meeting
Next Steps
Dr. Mike Miller
Ex-Officio

12:00 p.m.
Public Comment
Public

1:00 p.m.
Subcommittee Lunch
Subcommittee Members

2:30 p.m.
Subcommittee Reports

Quality of Life
Education
Research
Committee Discussion Committee Members

4:00 p.m.
Public Comment
Public

5:00 p.m.
Adjourn

£13 home-test kit developed for ME (Kenny de Meirleir)

ME agenda site is unable to recommend or give advice on laboratory testing, testing kits, treatments, therapies or management strategies or recommend medical practitioners or therapists. Information published on this site, regardless of authorship or origin, should not be considered a recommendation nor a substitute for seeking medical advice. If individuals require information or advice about a medical condition or have concerns about their health they should consult a qualified medical practitioner.

As a rule, ME agenda does not publish around research, testing or treatments on this site and the following media coverage and press release material are posted under the Category: ME in the Media.

Dr Charles Shepherd, Medical advisor and Trustee of the ME Association, told the Daily Mail:

”This is an interesting scientific observation which needs to be looked at in more detail and verified by independent researchers before we can conclude it is a diagnostic test for this illness. We have a research fund* and we would be interested in testing this hypothesis on other groups of patients.”

Dr Shepherd and Professor Kenny de Meirleir have both been named as members of the Editorial Board of a new journal called “Fatigue” due to launch early 2010. 

*The Ramsay Research Fund is the dedicated research arm of the ME Association.

The ME Association published the following statement on 2 June:

http://www.meassociation.org.uk/content/view/875/161/

Media coverage:

Telegraph  |  1 June 2008  | Liz Hunt

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/5407749/ME-Proof-that-it-isnt-all-in-the-mind.html

ME: Proof that it isn’t all in the mind?

Belgian doctors, Professor Kenny De Meirleir and Dr Chris Roelant, have developed a simple test that, they claim, solves the mystery of ‘yuppie flu’…

—————————-

Daily Mail  |   29 May 2009

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1189291/Scientists-develop-home-testing-kit-ME.html 

Scientists develop home-testing kit for ME

—————————-

Telegraph  |  29 May 2009  |  Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5401802/Simple-13-test-could-be-used-to-diagnose-patients-with-ME.html

Simple £13 test ‘could be used to diagnose patients with ME’

A simple £13 test could be used to diagnose patients with Myalgic encephalopathy (ME), scientists believe, and potentially offer hopes of treatment for many.  The researchers believe that the condition, thought to affect around 250,000 people in Britain, is triggered by an overabundance of certain bacteria in the gut and a build-up of toxins in the body…”

—————————-

Slides used in the London Press Conference, can be viewed here: http://bit.ly/15fr3o

Media scientific information, here, on ME agenda (2MB PDF):  Press Conference-KDM-2

—————————-

£13 home-test kit developed for ME

Scientists have developed a £13 home-testing kit which they claim will help identify people suffering from myalgic encephalopathy (ME).

The urine test is based on the theory that the illness is strongly linked to certain bacteria and a build up of toxins in the body.

Experts are divided on what exactly causes ME, which was dismissed as “yuppie flu” in the 1980s.

At a conference in London, Professor Kenny de Meirleir, who works at the University of Brussels, discussed his theory.

He and fellow scientists have developed a simple urine test which they say identifies the presence of high levels of the chemical hydrogen sulphate.

This chemical builds up after antibiotic use or exposure to salmonella infection, and can occur when there is too much exposure to mercury, he said.

Prof de Meirleir’s research has shown that around 90% of patients with ME also have an excess of the bacteria enterococcus and streptococcus, which he believes interacts with exposure to metals to produce hydrogen sulphate.

Prof de Meirleir, who treats between 3,000 and 4,000 ME patients a year, said his patients had been shown to excrete high quantities of the metals copper, mercury and nickel, possibly contracted through the environment or food.

Prof de Meirleir said his new test, produced by his company Protea Biopharma and available via its website from Monday, accurately shows whether an ME patient has high levels of hydrogen sulphate. The patient’s urine turns a dark colour when mixed with a chemical agent in the test.

“This is a test for a major cause of ME,” he said.

“Anyone with a positive result should talk about it with their GP and get referred to a specialist.”

Ends

—————————-

Ed: Kenny de Meirleir will be presenting at the 4th Invest in ME International ME/CFS Conference in London, today, 29th May. 

Kenny de Meirleir is a member of the editorial board of a new journal controversially titled “Fatigue” which we are told will debut in early 2010. The journal’s Editor, Dr Derek Enlander, has yet to issue a formal statement of clarification setting out the scope and intentions of this proposed publication.  The Editorial Board has been announced as comprising Derek Enlander, Editor (USA), Charles Shepherd (UK), Jonathan Kerr (UK), Dharam Ablashi (USA), Paul Cheney (USA), David Bell (USA) and Kenny de Meirleir (Belgium).

See previous postings:

http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/journal-fatigue-whats-in-a-name-co-cure/

http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/new-journal-fatigue-whats-in-a-name/

http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/more-on-journals-and-the-f-word/

 

Posted in Invest in ME, ME in the media. Comments Off

RiME: NHS Services Inquiry, Confusion re. Deadlines 27 May 2009

Ed: Note that a website for the APPG on ME (which includes pages for the APPG on ME inquiry into NHS service provision for people with ME) has now been launched.

Action for M.E. and the ME Association, who perform the role of secretariat to the APPG on ME, have yet to issue a notice alerting the ME community to the website.

The website can be found here:  http://www.appgme.org.uk/

The inquiry page here:  http://www.appgme.org.uk/inquiry/inquiry.html

The APPG on ME has yet to publish the Minutes of the 1 April 09 meeting or the promised transcript of the meeting.  No Timeline has been published for the inquiry.

RIME issued the following a couple of days ago:

RiME: NHS Services Inquiry, Confusion re. Deadlines 27 May 2009

Campaigning for Research into ME (RiME)  www.rime.me.uk

NHS Services Inquiry

Confusion re. Deadlines

In Terms of Reference 2 (document in full – www.rime.me.uk – Inquiry folder), it said that written evidence needed to be submitted by June 9.

However, in the Press Release by Des Turner 3/4/09 (on website), it says the cut-off point for the submission of written evidence is 30 June 2009 and that oral hearings are likely to take place in the middle of July.

So, two sources – two different deadlines.

The Press Release also says, ‘A website is being set up for the inquiry, which will include the timetable of activities’.

But, to our knowledge (May 27), there is still no website.  (Ed: See above)

There are rumours that the June 9 deadline is for those who want to attend oral hearings. But without written confirmation from Turner’s office, they are only rumours.

One doesn’t know how written evidence or applications to present evidence should be made ie should it be put on a questionnaire or ad lib?

To try to get clarification, I phoned Turner’s office May 12. I spoke to ‘Nick’ (a p.a) who said he was meeting with Dr Turner that afternoon and would phone me back. No call back that day. Phoned next day. Spoke to another p.a who said he would ask ‘Nick’ to phone me. As of today, I still haven’t heard anything. Tried yesterday (May 26), but got ansaphone. MPs are on Witsun recess this week.

I sense that more and more are getting impatient with the lax approach to procedure.

If the website was to appear on Monday June 1 with details re. June 9 deadline; well, again, it’s all too tight for people with ME.

The above hardly inspires confidence in the process or the APPG.

Does it have any Credibility?

The inquiry committee will consist of four APPG officials – Dr Turner MP, Dr Ian Gibson MP, Tony Wright MP and Andrew Stunell MP; plus two APPG members – Peter Luff MP and Lady Mar.

The comments of five of them (see below) also don’t inspire confidence; leading some of our supporters to say it would be better if the Inquiry didn’t happen, and the current APPG just faded out…

———————

The Gibson Report was signed by two APPG officials – Dr Ian Gibson MP and Dr Des Turner MP; plus APPG member, Lady Mar. It says:

(A) ‘The £8.5m ring fenced by the DOH was used.. to set up 13 new CFS/ME treatment centres nationwide… The Group is extremely pleased with the advent of these centres and we hope they will be maintained and rolled out’ (5.1.) (B) that they were to his (Wessely’s) model (3.2) (C) that it was impressed with the work of Trudie Chalder (4.3) saying this treatment (CBT) has a role to play in treating CFS/ME.

Des Turner has already commented positively on the CMO Report. At the APPG meeting 2/7/08, he said he expected the inquiry would be taking evidence on progress (? – ed.) made since the CMO Report in January 2002 (is Turner not prejudging? – ed.):

Tony Wright MP Vice-Chair of APPG seems to link the ‘CFS/ME’ centres to the causation of ME. On 9/12/04 when APPG Chair he stated:

… With regard to your constituent’s points on CBT and GET, I believe that when these therapies are applied with the agreement of both patient and clinician they undoubtedly benefit some patients…

…I have always been, as Chair of the APPG… , active in calling on Government to provide more resources into finding the causes of ME. I am delighted that under this Government and for the first time government funding has been granted to directly benefit people with ME. The £8.5m is being released through 2004/5 to develop specialist NHS services for people with CFS/ME across England…

RiME’s West Midlands Officer received the following email from APPG Vice-Chair Andrew Stunell MP 21/4/04 (RiME Newsletter 3 Spring 2004 was critical of the CMO Report, York Review 1, GET, CBT):

… I am not clear why you have sent me this.

It may help you in approaching MPs to recognise that some of us have personal or family experience of ME. In my case the treatment system you scorn has been effective, as it appears to have been for quite a high proportion of sufferers.

It is seriously damaging to the case you espouse so passionately to waste time slagging it off, and casting ridiculous aspersions on those who deliver it.

Just think about it. Am I likely to ask a Health Minister to sack people who have provided very effective treatment for a member of my family?

There is a reasonable case for more research, but you don’t provide it. Can I suggest you pass this message back up the line to whoever is in charge of your communication strategy, and get them to change it? Otherwise don’t be surprised if this sort of stuff gets filed under ‘green ink’…

Lady Mar to RiME 13/11/08:

… I am greatly saddened that there is so much hostility to the NICE Guidelines and, specifically, to CBT/GET…

…The CMO, the Department of Health and NICE acknowledge that ME is not a psychosocial problem but, as with any long-term illness, there are psychological aspects to it. In the absence of any treatment, they recommend CBT/GET for a few who might benefit from it. It really is time that we all acknowledge the good bits of any government instigated proposals and that we work together to put right those parts that are unhelpful…

Paul Davis  rimexx@tiscali.co.uk    www.rime.me.uk

27 May 2009

CFSAC Agenda – Wednesday 27 and Thursday 28 May 2009 U.S.

Update: At close of meeting it was said that archive video for the two days of the meeting should be available in two or three days.  I will post a URL when these become available.

There is a report, here, on Dr Reeves’ presentation on Wednesday 27th:

http://cfsknowledgecenter.ning.com/profiles/blogs/reeves-presentation-at-the-may

 

Today’s session (Thursday 28th) will also be streamed live.  In the UK , we are 5 hours ahead of Washington DC, so streaming of today’s meeting should start around 2.00 pm, UK time.

The audio quality is mostly good and there are also simultaneous transcription subtitles. 

Hopefully, archived video will shortly be available for those of us who missed all or parts of yesterday’s meeting or are not able to catch all of today’s meeting.

Today’s Agenda at:  http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/meetings/agendas/cfsac090527_agenda.html

 

CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting

http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/

The meeting will be webcast at

http://videocast.nih.gov

Click on “Click to Watch.”   (Don’t forget time differences)

Realplayer is required to view the videocast. The meeting will also be archived.

 

http://www.hhs.gov/advcomcfs/meetings/agendas/cfsac090527_agenda.html

 CFSAC Agenda – May 27-28, 2009 U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services

CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting


Wednesday, May 27, 2009
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Thursday, May 28, 2009
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Room 800, Hubert H. Humphrey Building

200 Independence Avenue,

 S.W. Washington, D.C. 20201

Slip slidin’ away (APPG on ME inquiry into NHS services for ME)

APPG on ME inquiry into NHS services for people with ME

According to the draft Timeline circulated at the 1 April APPG on ME meeting:

5 May  Deadline for people with M.E. to submit questions to Dr Turner via website or in writing

(no website has been launched)

12 May  Compilation and issue of final questions

- patient survey
- questions for service providers identifying those that are obtainable under FO1

(no questionnaires or patient surveys have been issued)

19 May  Comment on draft surveys by parliamentarians – return to Dr Turner

Whitsun Recess

21 May -1 June

(Parliament is now in recess)

26 May  Issue final surveys and post them on inquiry website

(that’s today, no website, no surveys)

—————–

According to the ME Association (page 7, ME Essential)

“The delay arose because there was an initial problem finding an administrator. This has been resolved with the secondment of a parliamentary intern to the inquiry.”

 

We still have no Minutes and no transcript of the important 1 April meeting of the APPG on ME.  The inquiry’s Terms of Reference have been placed on Dr Des Turner’s parliamentary website, but no copy of any draft or finalised Timeline has been published.

Nobody knows what’s going on and Dr Turner is not responding to concerns.  Secretariat to the APPG on ME – that’s Action for M.E. and the ME Association, have issued no statements on the progress of these arrangements.

After the fiasco that was the “Gibson Inquiry”, why did the APPG committee think they could undertake this inquiry with unrealistic deadines and no adequate admin resources?

Why has the Secretariat encourage them to do so?

The APPG on ME should pull this inquiry.

The Secretariat should be advising them against going ahead.

The proposed diagnosis of somatic symptom disorders in DSM-V to replace somatoform disorders in DSM-IV – a preliminary report

Keywords

APA    DSM    DSM-IV    DSM-V    WHO    ICD    ICD-10    ICD-11    American Psychiatric Association    Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders    World Health Organization    Classifications    DSM Revision Process    DSM-V Task Force    DSM-V Somatic Distress Disorders Work Group    Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group    DSM-ICD Harmonization Coordination Group    International Advisory Group    Revision of ICD Mental and Behavioural Disorders    Global Scientific Partnership Coordination Group    ICD Update and Revision Platform    WHO Collaborating Centre    CISSD Project    MUPSS Project    Somatoform    Somatisation    Somatization    Functional Somatic Syndromes    FSS    MUS    Myalgic encephalomyelitis    ME    Chronic fatigue syndrome    CFS    Fibromyalgia    FM    IBS    CS    CI    GWS

Ed: The briefer April 09 report of the DSM-V “Somatic Distress Disorders” Work Group can be read on the website of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)  here

For information around the DSM and ICD revision processes, the CISSD Project and the “Elephant in the Room” series of reports see: http://tinyurl.com/dsm-vdirectory 

 

J Psychosom Res. 2009 Jun;66(6):473-6. Epub 2009 Apr 16.

The proposed diagnosis of somatic symptom disorders in DSM-V to replace somatoform disorders in DSM-IV – a preliminary report.

Dimsdale J a, Creed F b; DSM-V Workgroup on Somatic Symptom Disorders.

Collaborators (11)
Dimsdale J, Barsky AJ, Creed F, Frasure-Smith N, Irwin MR, Keefe F, Lee S,
Levenson JL, Sharpe M, Wulsin LR, Escobar J.

a University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

b Psychiatry Research Group, School of Medicine, University of Manchester,
Rawnsley Building, Oxford Road, M13 9WL Manchester, UK

PMID: 19446706 [PubMed - in process]

The Editorial: The proposed diagnosis of somatic symptom disorders in DSM-V to replace somatoform disorders in DSM-IV – a preliminary report by DSM-V Work Group members, Joel Dimsdale and Francis Creed is now published in the June issue of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Free access to both text and PDF versions at:

http://journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/psr/current

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0022-3999/PIIS0022399909000889.pdf

http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(09)00088-9/fulltext

Article Outline

. Introduction

. Concerns about DSM-IV somatoform disorders

. Overview of somatic symptom disorders

. I. Complex somatic symptom disorders

. A. Chronic somatic symptom disorder

. Somatic symptoms

. Misattributions, excessive concern or preoccupation with symptoms and illness

. Increased pattern of health care utilization

. B. Acute somatic symptom disorder

. II. Factitious disorder

. A. Factitious disorder

. B. Factitious disorder by proxy

. III. Functional neurologic symptoms/conversion disorder

. IV. Somatic disorder, NOS

. Psychological factor affecting general medical condition

. Conclusion

. References

*****************************************************

Not signed the CDC Petition?  Go now to:

http://CFSdefinitionpetition.notlong.com

“CDC CFS research should not involve the empirical definition (2005)”

Make it a 1000 by Wednesday!

*****************************************************

Suzy Chapman

Journal “FATIGUE”: What’s in a name (Co-Cure)

Read comments around this issue here:

http://cfsknowledgecenter.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-journal-fatigue

http://cfsknowledgecenter.ning.com/profiles/blogs/a-journal-called-fatigue

http://cfsknowledgecenter.ning.com/profiles/blogs/take-two-on-the-journal-called

http://oslersweb.com/blog.htm?post=597066

 

Over the past few days, I’ve received several emails expressing discomfort for what is perceived as my “harsh”  criticism of those behind the launch of the “FATIGUE” journal.

“MUPS” services are being commissioned specifically to minimise investigations and reduce the number of referrals to secondary care specialism.  (See NHS documents appended)

This is one reason why launching a journal simply called “FATIGUE” has angered so many of us, especially within the UK, where the majority of us receive socialized medical care.

When the US is looking for models of service provision, it is likely they will look towards UK “CFS” services and UK models of management and “rehabilitation” – King’s College London (Wessely, Chalder), Bart’s (Peter White), Manchester (home of the MRC FINE Trial), Southampton (Rona Moss Morris)…

If you want to read the European Association for Consultation Liaison Psychiatry and Psychosomatics’ vision for European service provision for MUPS, a copy of the Draft White paper:

“Patients with medically unexplained symptoms and somatisation – a challenge for European health care systems: A draft white paper of the EACLPP Medically Unexplained Symptoms study group”

is now available here  EACLPP Working group on MUS version 16 Jan 2009

or from the EACLPP site here:

http://www.eaclpp.org/news.html

http://www.eaclpp.org/documents/Patientswithmedicallyunexplainedsymptomsandsomatisation.doc

It is still out for consultation and comments can be submitted. Do our UK and European patient organisations intend to respond?

Francis Creed (UK), Peter Henningsen (Germany) and Per Fink (Denmark) are the co-ordinators of the European EACLPP MUS Work Group which operates out of University of Manchester.

Francis Creed and Michael Sharpe are the UK members of the APA’s DSM-V Somatic Distress Disorders Work Group, aka the Somatic Symptoms Disorders Work Group that is engaged in the revision of DSM-IV which will be “harmonized” with the WHO’s ICD-11 chapter for Mental and Behavioural Disorders (currently Chapter V in ICD-10).

——————-

Related information:

The Elephant in the Room Series Two: More on MUPS

NHS MUPS Positive Practice Guide

NHS MUS Healthcare for London  

NHS Top of Mind London

The Elephant in the Room Series Two: More on MUPS

Elephant70

Image | belgianchocolate | Creative Commons

Keywords

APA    DSM    DSM-IV    DSM-V    WHO    ICD    ICD-10    ICD-11    American Psychiatric Association    Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders    World Health Organization    Classifications    DSM Revision Process    DSM-V Task Force    DSM-V Somatic Distress Disorders Work Group    Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group    DSM-ICD Harmonization Coordination Group    International Advisory Group    Revision of ICD Mental and Behavioural Disorders    Global Scientific Partnership Coordination Group    ICD Update and Revision Platform    WHO Collaborating Centre    CISSD Project    MUPSS Project    Somatoform    Somatisation    Somatization    Functional Somatic Syndromes    FSS    MUS    Myalgic encephalomyelitis    ME    Chronic fatigue syndrome    CFS    Fibromyalgia    FM    IBS    CS    CI    GWS

——————–

The Elephant in the Room Series Two:

More on MUPS

In April, I reported that Dr Richard Sykes (International CISSD Project) is now a “Visiting Research Associate” of the WHO Collaborating Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London.

Since 2008, Dr Sykes has been engaged on the “London Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms and Syndromes (MUPSS) Project” for which he receives a research award of £27,000 per year through the Institute of Psychiatry. The aims and objectives of this MUPSS Project and through what means these are to be achieved have yet to be established. But it is understood that a paper or papers may result out of the MUPSS Project which, according to Dr Sykes, will have relevance to “all conditions characterised by medically unexplained symptoms, not just CFS/ME”.

I’d like to draw attention to a collation of “MUPS” related documents:

[Note the use and juxtaposition of "chronic fatigue" with "bed-bound" and then the later use of (and statement in relation to) "chronic fatigue syndrome" in the first of these three NHS Commissioning documents. In the UK, we continue to see examples within NHS service provision and in liaison psychiatry and psychosomatics journal papers (many of which will be feeding into the DSM-V revision process) of the indiscriminate use of the terms "fatigue", "chronic fatigue", "chronic fatigue syndrome", "CFS/ME" and "MUPS" .]

1] Three NHS (UK National Health Service) Commissioning related documents:

http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/medically-unexplained-symptoms-positive-practice-guidetxt.pdf

or open here:  NHS MUPS Positive Practice Guide

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (Commissioning)

Medically unexplained symptoms positive practice guide  October 2008

“Relieving distress, transforming lives”

“Medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) are physical symptoms that have no currently known physical pathological cause. They constitute a clinically, conceptually and emotionally difficult area to tackle, with clinical presentations varying greatly, from people who regularly attend GP surgeries with minor symptoms to people with chronic fatigue who are bed-bound.”

[...]

“The vast majority of MUPS, such as pain, irritable bowel syndrome and chronic fatigue syndrome, have no obvious cause and often do not actually require any input from health services.”

[...]

“Many people are willing to accept that depression and/or anxiety disorders are linked to their MUPS as long as they believe that health professionals are willing to keep an open mind about the cause of any further physical symptoms. Therefore, the venue or location of an IAPT service should be considered when looking to break down barriers for individuals who are experiencing MUPS. With many patients believing their symptoms are entirely physical problems, a service that is located or embedded in a physical health framework may encourage engagement, i.e. within a pain clinic, part of a Clinical Assessment Service or Intermediate Clinical Assessment Team for musculoskeletal problems.”

Healthcare for London (Commissioning)

Medically unexplained symptoms

http://www.healthcareforlondon.nhs.uk/assets/Publications/Mental-health/Briefs20-20MUS20v1.0.pdf

or open here:  NHS MUS Healthcare for London

“The proposed medically unexplained symptoms workstream will look at the patients who, after significant diagnostic investigation in physical care services, are not found to solely have a physical cause for their condition, and are considered to have a previously unrecognised mental health component to their condition.”

[...]

Outcomes of the medically unexplained symptoms workstream

· Integrated commissioning of services leading to individualised care and improved social outcomes for patients.

· Early identification and treatment will result in a potentially significant reduction in unnecessary and expensive medical investigations and ineffective treatment.

· Reduction in number of patients with medically unexplained symptoms in outpatient clinics and onward referral to diagnostics, which may have an impact on the 18 weeks target.

http://www.healthcareforlondon.nhs.uk/assets/Publications/Mental-health/Top20of20mindv1.0.pdf

Healthcare for London (Commissioning)

Top Of Mind: Making mental health a capital priority

or open here:  NHS Top of Mind London

“The mental health project will deliver commissioning specifications to primary care trusts (PCTs) providing evidence-based care pathways. It is proposed that these pathways meet the needs of the following three groups of service users:
· people with dementia and their carers;
· people with medically unexplained symptoms;
· people with co-occurring disorders.”

“Workstream one – Medically unexplained symptoms and the physical/mental health interface”

———————-

Here is UK based Rona Moss Morris selling CBT to the US:

2] Video of presentation by Prof Rona Moss Morris to School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin.

http://videos.med.wisc.edu/videoInfo.php?videoid=806

Medically Unexplained Symptoms: Medicine’s Dirty Little Secret

Rona Moss Morris
Professor of Health Psychology, University of Southampton UK

October 2007, 46 minutes

“Rona Moss Morris, PhD, describes her program of research to enhance coping with symptoms for individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome and irritable bowel syndrome using a model of self-regulation and cognitive behavioral therapy.”

———————-

Brace yourselves for this one…

3] PowerPoint presentation

From the website of the EACLPP (European Association for Consultation Liaison Psychiatry and Psychosomatics)

http://www.eaclpp.org/presentations.html

PowerPoint Presentation:

(PowerPoint Reader required):  ttp://www.eaclpp.org/presentations/Turner%20Stokes%20MUS.ppt

or open MS PP file here:  (PowerPoint Reader required):  Turner Stokes MUS  

Medically Unexplained Symptoms: an approach to rehabilitation

Prof Lynne Turner-Stokes, Herbert Dunhill Chair of Rehabilitation, King’s College London

Slide 6:

Establish a different attitude
‘Illness’ can be a social condition
Engenders a caring response
Admiration from peers
‘Isn’t she brave!”
Some who has found a prop
Does not necessarily want it removed
Seek medical attention
For confirmation – not cure
Diagnosis is an end in itself

Slide 26:

Some patients
Require their ‘medical condition’
Part of own strategy for dealing with life
Come to clinic
Not for a ‘cure’
For support and bona fide status
Of ‘being under care of the doctor’
Remove the crutch
They will find another

Slide 27:

Secondary gain
Disability may hold advantages for them
Financial /Environmental
Benefits, equipment, accommodation
Support, care and attention
From family, friends/carers
Excuse for avoidance
E.g of unwanted sexual attentions
Social mystique or importance
Having a ‘rare condition’

———————-

4] The Irish College of Psychiatrists’ Bulletin
Vol 3, Issue 1. May 2008

http://www.irishpsychiatry.ie/pdf/Newsletter%20May%2008.pdf

In which a keynote address of Danish researcher, Per Fink (CISSD Project member) is reported on Page 8:

“[...] His presentation also examined the claims of several of the ‘pseudonym’ somatoform conditions which have been invented by various branches of medicine. He found that there were no differences in the symptoms reported by patients diagnosed with Fibromyalgia; Multiple Chemical Sensitivity; Sick Building Syndrome and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome’ confirming the long-held clinical opinion that these are all the same condition: somatoform disorder. He also suggested a possible new name for the condition; ‘Body Distress Disorder’ which he believes may be more acceptable to patients and GPs.”

———————-

5] European Association for Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry and Psychosomatics (EACLPP) http://www.eaclpp.org/

http://www.eaclpp.org/working_groups.html  and

http://www.eaclpp.org/news.html

News:

Working Groups

Medically Unexplained Symptoms and Somatisation

Patients with medically unexplained symptoms and somatisation – a challenge for European health care systems

A white paper of the EACLPP Medically Unexplained Symptoms study group
by Peter Henningsen and Francis Creed can be downloaded at:

http://www.eaclpp.org/documents/Patientswithmedicallyunexplainedsymptomsandsomatisation.doc

“You can see the first draft of the report following the above link.
It is still “work in progress” and will be revised further.

“If you have any comments or additions to suggest, please email them to Gill
Dunkerley (
Gillian.D.Dunkerley@manchester.ac.uk ) who will pass them on to the
working group.”

Draft document is approx 76 pages long, including tables and charts can also be opened here

EACLPP Working group on MUS version 16 Jan 2009

(Let me know if there are any problems opening this draft report.)

A white paper of the EACLPP Medically Unexplained Symptoms study group

Patients with medically unexplained symptoms and somatisation – a challenge for
European health care systems

Draft – prepared by: Peter Henningsen and Francis Creed January 2009

“The report arises from the EACLPP working group “Improving the management of patients with medically unexplained symptoms/somatisation”. The group is open to all EACLPP members but a core group have been responsible for the fist draft of this report . The core group (listed below) includes (24 – to be revised?) members, who have contributed so far. They represent 9 EU countries (currently – increase?). All have a special interest in the treatment of patients with medically unexplained symptoms; most have a research interest as well as clinical one and all are motivated to see an improvement in the treatment of these patients who are served poorly by most, if not all, health care systems across Europe.”

———————-

NB:

Francis Creed (UK), Peter Henningsen (Germany) and Per Fink (Denmark) are the co-ordinators of this European EACLPP MUS Work Group.

Francis Creed, Peter Henningsen and Per Fink were also members of the International CISSD Project (Co-ordinator: Dr Richard Sykes, Principal Administrators: Action for M.E., now engaged in London MUPSS Project).

Per Fink is a member of the Danish Working Group on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, established in August 2008 and expected to complete its work in spring 2009.

[I understand that there has been controversy over psychiatrist, Per Fink's, influence and the choice of treatment and management models. Perhaps a Danish advocate could provide readers with an update on the progress of this Danish CFS Working Group?]

Prof Creed is a member of the board of the EACLPP which is administered out of University of Manchester. The official journal of the EACLPP is the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, which is co-edited by Prof Creed.

Prof Creed and Prof Michael Sharpe are the UK members of the APA’s DSM-V “Somatic Distress Disorders” Work Group. Prof Michael Sharpe was also a member of the CISSD Project and served as the Project’s UK Chair.

The April 2009 report of the APA DSM-V Somatic Distress Disorders Work Group by Joel Dimsdale, M.D. (DSM-V Work Group Chair) can be read on the APA’s site here:

http://tinyurl.com/DSMSDDWGApril09

An Editorial by Francis Creed and Joel Dimsdale entitled:

The proposed diagnosis of Somatic Symptom disorders in DSM-V to replace Somatoform disorders in DSM-IV – A preliminary report”

(an expansion of the brief report of the April 09 DSM-V Somatic Distress Disorders Work Group) will be published in the June edition of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research and is currently available online as “In Press” for subscribers.

DSM-V is anticipated to be finalised in May 2012, with a draft expected in 2009. DSM-V is to be “harmonized” for congruency with the chapter on Mental and behavioural disorders in ICD-11 (currently Chapter V in ICD-10).

And why aren’t our patient orgs monitoring and scrutinising these processes?

A DSM-V and ICD-11 Directory and previous reports in this series can be accessed at: http://tinyurl.com/dsm-vdirectory 

18 May 2009

New Journal “FATIGUE”: What’s in a name?

[Note that the proposed journal "FATIGUE" has no connection with the International Journal of Fatigue, a publication dedicated to the science and technology of structural fatigue.]

New Journal “FATIGUE”: What’s in a name?

Dr Charles Shepherd, Trustee and Medical Advisor to the ME Association, has accepted an invitation to sit on the Editorial Board of this forthcoming publication which is to be edited by Dr Derek Enlander. 

Various informal comments from Dr Enlander in response to expressions of concern from ME patients and advocates around the journal’s proposed title, and in response to requests for clarification of the Editorial Board’s intentions are in circulation.  Any formal statements of clarification, notices or press releases issued on behalf of the Editorial Board will be published here, as they become available.

The launch of a new international scientific journal around ME/CFS would always require careful handling and particularly right now, in the current economic and ME/CFS political climates, with continuing dissatisfaction here in the UK and Europe over service provision for people with ME, the reluctance of governments to commit to research programmes, potential changes to the US system of health care provision, international apprehension around the implications for the revision and “harmonization” processes towards DSM-5 and ICD-11 and the pervasive influence of those who would have treatments for this illness restricted to psychosocial programmes for the management of “fatigue” and for the modification of the so-called “faulty illness beliefs” they claim perpetuate the “fatigue”, and on the basis of which they seek to redefine and claim ownership of this illness.

How come the Editorial team behind the development of this new journal did not have the sensitivity and nous to predict that in proposing the title “FATIGUE”, they would likely generate considerable controversy?

News of this journal was released with no clear outline of the concept behind it, the nature and scope of its remit or the rationale behind the choice of the journal’s name.  The notice issued on 12th May, coinciding with the start of International ME Awareness Week, told us very little at all.

It’s still not clear whether this new publication is intended to be published as a peer reviewed, mainstream academic and scientific journal or in some other format, for example, as the official organ of a patient organisation, or some other body. It’s not yet known whether it is envisaged that the journal will be published in print form as well as online editions; or as a subscription only journal or accessible to non subscribers or whether its content will be aimed at both the medical/academic community and patients.

It’s not known where the funding for this publication is coming from nor the extent of its affiliations. Dr Shepherd has said that the journal is affiliated to the New York CIFDS Association, but this has yet to be confirmed by the journal’s Editor.

Although he has already accepted a seat on its Editorial Board, Dr Shepherd has said he does not know what the journal will contain in the way of papers and other items, or whom it will be aimed at; he says he shares people’s concerns about the title and that he will be taking this up with Dr Enlander in due course, but that he did not want to approve or condemn a title of a new journal until he had all the facts and had heard the reason why the “FATIGUE” title has been chosen. 

Why was he not motivated to make these enquiries before he signed up to this project? 

Perhaps Dr Enlander should have waited until more information about this concept could be made available before publishing a sketchy little notice on 12th May. It would also have been appropriate for Dr Enlander to have involved ME and CFS patients in consultations throughout the development of his concept. And since this journal is apparently in the interests of Lyme Disease and Fibromyalgia patients, too – should they not also have been consulted?

The original announcement, circulated via the HelpMECircle mailing list, contained no information at all about the remit of this new publication:

“A new Journal FATIGUE will debut early 2010.

The Editor is Derek Enlander MD, a physician who is on the faculty of Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. He is active in the treatment of CFS/ME, Lyme’s Disease and Fibromyalgia

The Editorial board includes the leading physicians and researchers in CFS/ME, Lyme’s Disease, and Fibromyalgia.

The CFS/ME researchers include in alphabetical order

Dharam Ablashi , USA,
Paul Cheney, USA,
Kenny de Meirleir, Belgium,
Derek Enlander, USA .
Jonathan Kerr, UK ,
Charles Shepherd, UK”

Since issuing this notice, Dr Enlander has disclosed that Dr David Bell (US) has also agreed to become a member of the Editorial Board.  (See previous posting by Greg Crowhurst for comment from Dr Bell and others on the use of the term “fatigue”.)

One of the informal responses from Dr Enlander to a request for clarification has been published via Co-Cure mailing list (13.05.09):

“The Journal FATIGUE is not ONLY pointed to ME, CFS, CFIDS but to Post Viral Fatigue, Post Polio Fatigue, Lyme’s Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Erlichia, Babessiosis, rickettsial disease and other illnesses where fatigue is present.

In making a diagnosis all of these must be considered.

If we called the journal M.E. then the CFS group would complain, if we called it CFIDS the immunologists would complain, these politics are mind consuming. So relax and read a journal that bridges Fatigue in various disease states, we all will learn.

The Editorial board includes some of the best minds who believe that ME/CFS/CFIDS is a physical disease, a matter of prime importance that you should have focused on, at a time when the BMJ , New Scientist, Lancet and other journals proclaim the psychobabble theory.

Derek Enlander M.D., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.”

Dr Shepherd, who has said he knows very little about the editor’s plans, is inviting suggestions for alternative names and offering his thoughts on what a journal might usefully focus on.

But Dr Endander has yet to elaborate, himself, on how the editorial board will be defining “fatigue”; how it will be defining the scope of this publication or what is meant by “…other illnesses where fatigue is present”. It suggests that either policy is being formed on the hoof or that the editorial board is unwilling to set out its stall.

One thing is for sure – the news that this editorial team wants to push out a journal under the name of “FATIGUE” has left ME patients reeling.

From Dr Charles Shepherd, 14 May 2009

I suspect that some people will not like what I am going to say – but it does need to be said.

Having read and received some further comments about the title of this new journal, I think someone needs to make the point that while chronic fatigue syndrome/CFS is an awful name for this illness, there are good reasons for researching brain and muscle fatigue as a stand alone subject/symptom in ME/CFS.  And despite what appears on the internet, doctors do not automatically equate fatigue with psychiatric causation.

Fatigue in medical terms can be very simply divided into central fatigue and peripheral fatigue.

Central fatigue refers to fatigue that is caused by a problem in the brain, and this is a very significant and poorly understood clinical feature of many neurological illnesses, including multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease. Significant disabling fatigue also occurs in a variety of non neurological illnesses – good examples include most chronic infections (eg hepatitis C, HIV, Lyme, TB), rheumatoid arthritis and cancer – where immune  mechanisms/cytokines may well play an important role.  In fact, if you ask people with rheumatoid arthritis about disabling symptoms, many will mention fatigue – but you won’t find fatigue in the medical textbook descriptions of RA.

Peripheral fatigue refers to fatigue that has its origins in muscle and here the pathological explanation is often more straightforward.  And, there is of course some evidence to indicate that there are muscle abnormalities/peripheral fatigue in a sub-group of people with ME/CFS.

As central fatigue – involving both mental and physical components – is a significant feature of ME/CFS, and many other non psychiatric illnesses, it should therefore be investigated and researched as stand alone subject .  Unfortunately, this is not the case at present.

I therefore hope that one strand of future ME/CFS research will be to look at how there may be common mechanisms in the various diseases where central fatigue is a prominent feature – as this could lead to an effective form of treatment for the central fatigue.

In this respect, a medical journal that concentrates on the issue of central (brain and organic) fatigue is not something that should be dismissed.

But I would accept that there are difficulties in choosing a suitable title that reflects the fact that this is not just dealing with fatigue in ME/CFS.

So if anyone has any alternatives to FATIGUE then please say so.

Charles Shepherd

 

Stephen Ralph maintains the website MEactionUK. From Stephen Ralph, 14 May 2009

To: Dr Charles Shepherd

Everything you have said [below] is all well and good and believable but this is a perspective from one side of the looking glass.

You may have heard of a chap called Professor Simon Wessely. He works in the field of liaison psychiatry at a hospital in London.

I understand that he specialises in a condition known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

I hear and read that he has been specialising in Fatigue for 20 years and that he and his colleagues have a mountain of research relating to “Fatigue” that has become so convincing that his Fatigue research now influences Government Policy, NICE and the Medical Research Council.

Chronic Fatigue to Professor Wessely is a mental health disorder that can be cured by changing faulty illness beliefs.

CBT and GET are used to treat and “cure” “Fatigue” of a chronic nature.

A whole string of NHS clinics have been set up to treat “Fatigue” of a chronic nature and none of those clinics are addressing Fatigue in the context of anything you have written below.

You may also have heard that liaison psychiatry worldwide is trying to have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome reclassified under Somatoform Disorders in the forthcoming ICD-11 and in DSM-V.

So should this happen then where would a new Journal called “Fatigue” stand and how would it cover somatoform disorders or the other side of the looking glass?

Would liaison psychiatrists be excluded from contributing and peer reviewing?

On one side of the looking glass we have Central and Peripheral “Fatigue” as you describe and on the other side of the looking glass we have somatoform “Fatigue” – a concept currently supported by Governments in relation to CFS/ME and welded to CFS/ME by a shed load of dubiously peer reviewed research.

In my previous e-mail I was trying to explain that the word “Fatigue” as a medical term has become a broken word.

In reality “Fatigue” has become a medical double entendre that in relation to “CFS/ME” has been effectively stolen by liaison psychiatry.

Trying to shut a stable door after a horse has bolted seems a difficult endeavour.

How about a Journal called “Emerging Pathologies”?

Stephen Ralph

An economic analysis of this new fatigue Journal from a consumer point of view: Ciaran Farrell

An economic analysis of this new fatigue Journal from a consumer point of view

Ciaran Farrell  |  12 May 2009

Some sketchy details have emerged of a new “Journal” entitled “Fatigue”. It is not clear at this stage if this new publication will be a full peer reviewed mainstream academic and scientific Journal, or a lesser publication. I very much suspect that it will not take the form of a full peer reviewed mainstream academic journal, and may well be a sort of in-house magazine style Journal as published by some of the patient organisations in the US in order to make the science and medicine of professional doctors and researchers are accessible to the public.

In order to be a mainstream academic scientific and medical Journal, the word “Journal” is normally used in the title, such as, the “Journal of chronic fatigue syndrome” which closed down a couple of years ago due to the prohibitive costs involved and what could best be termed as a rather niche market within the mainstream academic and scientific marketplace. The Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was published by Howarth press, and even this organisation could not sustain the losses incurred by this publication. I do not consider that the individuals concerned in the venture of this new Fatigue Journal have either the financial backing or resources necessary to establish and maintain a front-line peer reviewed academic and scientific journal. Neither, it would appear, that they have the backing of an organisation such as the Howarth press in order to print paper copies of the Journal and ensure that they are distributed to various scientific academic and medical libraries throughout the world.

Nor do I see that the editorial group has the breadth and depth of the editorial board of the Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, so I cannot see that this enterprise can be mounted on the same basis, as those concerned  simply do not have the wherewithal to do so.

Therefore, it would be most likely that those concerned simply want a vehicle for their own work and a chance to be able to attract funders and donors for the organisations and institutions that carry out their research work, and those of their favoured colleagues by way of a magazine style publication which presumably would be available online only in order to reduce costs, and accessed principally through a website.

In my view, those concerned with this initiative have been around within the patient and carer communities in their  own countries and internationally to realise that a Journal of any sort simply entitled, ” Fatigue” would not be  acceptable to the patients and carers involved in the ME/CFS/ PVFS/CFIDS community is concerned. Perhaps they consider that the acceptance of their initiative by the patient and carer communities is secondary to the academic scientific and financial goals they seek. If so, they are simply wrong, because they failed to analyse and anticipate the demands of many of their readers, because presumably they consider that lay people are not important when it comes to the discussion of technical scientific and medical issues.

Perhaps they feel by broadening the appeal of their Journal to encompass the all embracing nature of fatigue that they will not suffer the fate of the Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. In this too, they are wrong, as in order to cover the vast swathe of ground that would be encompassed by fatigue they require far more human and financial resources than they obviously have at their disposal.

It is known for example that here in the UK, Charles Shepherd of the ME Association administers the Ramsay Research Fund on the behalf of thatcharity, and it is unknown at this time as to whether or not any charitable funds will be put into this venture by Charles Shepherd on behalf of the ME Association. This new Journal of Fatigue may be a means for the ME Association to publish the research that it has commissioned. However, the ME Association has a very poor record of being accountable both in terms of the research that they have published and the financial contributions the charity has made to the research concerned, and it is always been unclear where the charity has supported research financially, or has merely done so politically.

Dr. Kerr is a known recipient of charitable funds from various charities in the UK, and his research is also funded by the CDC in America and other organisations as well. The others involved no doubt also have links to various charities and organisations that fund their work or activities, or with which they are associated.

There is no indication given so far that this Journal of Fatigue will be open to the various patient and carer communities to participate in and contribute to the scientific academic and medical debates that concern us, because after all, we are the ones who suffer from the illness and disability which those involved in the fatigue Journal wish to debate, presumably in a high-flown environment which excludes us.

I believe this to be wrong, firstly because too many of these high-powered journals simply do not take into account the views of patients and carers as they are closed clubs for academics and doctors only, in which the public have no place. This is one of the reasons for the disconnect between activism on the part of patients and carers and the medical and scientific worlds inhabited by the researchers who presume to be acting upon our behalf, but who do not listen to us about the real nature of the illness we suffer from.

The second reason flows from the first, and it is this, if the patient and carer communities cannot influence or direct research into the illness that they suffer from, then the researchers are likely to look in the wrong places and in the  wrong ways for the cause of the illness, its treatment and the medical and social care of sufferers.

The third reason follows on from the other two, and it is that those doctors and researchers who take public money for their activities, and especially those who are funded by, or administer charitable funds must in my view be accountable to the patient and carer communities they serve, and upon whom they are dependent for funds.

Therefore my advice in getting the name of this Journal and its proposed contents changed, and opening it up to contributions from us lay people is very simple, we should vote with our purses and wallets, and deny those concerned our political, and most importantly our financial support, until such time as the editor and the editorial board of this fatigue Journal make public statements that they consider that the concepts of customer service apply to them in their enterprise just as much as they do in the high street.

These public statements should contain an explicit commitment to consult the patient and carer communities on the name of the journal, and an explicit commitment that patient and carer communities, that is lay people, may contribute to, and comment upon the research work conducted or reported through the journal concerned.

I therefore urge that no one make any form of financial contribution to any of the organisations concerned with any member of the editorial board, or the editor, or any organisation that funds any of the individuals research work or organisation.

Ciaran Farrell
UK ME Sufferer

12 May 2009

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: