ME agenda

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis | political issues | information | commentary | for the UK ME patient community

Archive for the ‘Institute of Psychiatry’ Category

Correspondence between Stephen Ralph and Dr Charles Shepherd

Posted by meagenda on November 6, 2009

Correspondence between Stephen Ralph and Dr Charles Shepherd

WordPress Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2jm

The opinion piece below, which includes extracts from recent correspondence with Dr Charles Shepherd is authored and published by Stephen Ralph; the views and opinions expressed are the views and opinions of Mr Ralph and any comments or queries resulting out of this opinion piece should be addressed to Mr Ralph and not to ME agenda.

Stephen Ralph maintains a website at  www.meactionuk.org.uk 

Dr Charles Shepherd is an Honorary Medical Advisor and a Trustee/Director of the ME Association http://www.meassociation.org.uk/

A copy of the statement which Stephen Ralph quotes from is here:

 XMRV and ME/CFS: WHAT DO WE KNOW SO FAR? AND WHAT DON’T WE KNOW? (VERSION 3) (04.11.09)  http://wp.me/p5foE-2kq

—————–

By Stephen Ralph  ME Action UK

Permission to Repost

06 November 2009

Like many of you, I was alarmed when I read the recent MEA XMRV Statement No.3 particularly because of one telling sentence.

I decided to ask Dr Shepherd a series of questions and although I had several answers, I had no answer at all to one important question that I asked several times.

I asked Dr Shepherd about this statement.

“Demonstrating a link between a retrovirus and ME/CFS does not, by itself, resolve the physical vs psychological debate.

Research studies have demonstrated links between retroviruses and diseases as diverse as autoimmune disorders (which could be relevant to ME/CFS), immunodeficiency diseases, multiple sclerosis, tumours, anaemias and even schizophrenia.”

In reply I got the following from Dr Shepherd.

“I don’t think this comment will have any effect whatsoever on psychiatry.

Psychiatrists already know that viruses and psychiatric illness can sometimes be linked.

I put this info into version 3 because some people are wrongly assuming that having a viral link in an illness means that it must be physical rather than psychological. And that the physical vs psychological battle in ME/CFS is now almost over. I only wish…..

Retroviruses may be involved in schizophrenia and it is being said the up to 40% of people with autism have XMRV.”

I then asked Dr Shepherd what he would do if he found he was XMRV negative and how this might impact on his judgment.

In reply I had the following from Dr Shepherd…

“I don’t know my XMRV status. I obviously could have access to XMRV testing facilities. But as knowing my XMRV result isn’t going to affect either my diagnosis of ME or the management of my illness at this stage I don’t see any point in being tested.”

Lastly, I asked Dr Shepherd if he did or did not support the views of Professors Simon Wessely, Michael Sharpe and Peter White.

I asked this question twice for the sake of clarification.

Dr Shepherd has decided not to answer that question.

I asked the question because on numerous occasions the MEA have released hedge betting, sitting-on-the-fence statements or cheek turning Statements that effectively support the agenda of Somatoform Psychiatry or completely ignore the agenda of Somatoform Psychiatry.

The statement regarding XMRV not ending the debate on mental v physical is for my eyes indicating that yet again the MEA and Dr Shepherd are entertaining the possibility that Wessely White and Sharpe are right.

Dr Shepherd – you should be actively ending the involvement of Professors Wessely, White and Sharpe and you should be representing the total “State of Science” from across the Atlantic as is the case with the ESME – see their website for example…

http://esme-eu.com/news/category7.html

…instead of selectively picking what you want to feed your members and back peddling on the profound implications of XMRV and what was said at the CFSAC last week.

As we all know, the liaison faction of psychiatry firmly and militantly assert that CFS is a functional psychosomatic syndrome and that ME does not exist at all.

We know that the likes of Wessely, White and Sharpe are trying to get CFS into the next edition of the DSM – DSM-V and reclassified in ICD-11.

Both Action for ME and the ME Association are doing nothing to stop this agenda.

I asked Dr Shepherd some time ago if he or the MEA were going to do anything about the CSSID DSM-V ICD-11 agenda and Dr Shepherd said he was too busy and it wasn’t on his list of things to do.

In my view, the ME Association is not a lot more than the Public Relations arm of Action for ME.

Yes they seem approachable and yes they seem to press all the buttons that please some of their members.

But as soon as you ask anything considered “controversial” or important – then Dr Shepherd and/or the MEA goes silent and refuses to answer the question as is the case by default with Action for ME.

It seems to me that here in the UK and for many years, the ME population are being held hostage by the mental health movement who seem to have castrated both Action for ME and the ME Association who between them dominate the arena yet lay silent and do nothing to counter the mental health agenda…

So it seems to me that neither charity actually give a damn about the concerns of the ME community unless those views accord with their agenda that they will not discuss when challenged in ANY detail.

They say the devil is in the detail but we do not know what the detail is because when we ask we get nothing back.

Under these circumstances we need those over in the USA and those in the UK with Independence of mind and purposes such as ME Research UK, the 25% ME Group and Invest in ME – to come to the rescue of the UK ME patient population.

If people are not happy with this e-mail I have written and you think I am being unfair then you should ask Dr Shepherd and the MEA yourselves and get the answers he would not give to me or the many others who have asked similar questions over the years that never get answered.

Why does the MEA turn the other cheek and choose not to robustly challenge the views of Professor Wessely and his colleagues and instead state that “they already know” so that these individuals are therefore beyond challenging…

How exactly does liaison psychiatry “already know” that retro-viruses cause mental illness and does the MEA believe that XMRV potentially causes functional mental illness in people with ME? If not then why stay silent – creating a space for the opposition to occupy.

Why does the MEA put out neutered statements that reflect the views of liaison psychiatry instead of using all the evidence available to robustly and technically challenge those views?

Why is the ME Association calling for the use of the CDC Fukuda Criteria in UK XMRV research when the Fukuda criteria has been and is still being exploited by Wessely et al due to its well known ability to produce a heterogeneous patient group and therefore research results that are by default inconclusive and “mixed” and challengeable by those with a mental health agenda?

Why does the ME Association not firmly call for the use the Canadian criteria or use both Fukuda and the Canadian criteria in parallel research to make the research outcomes more meaningful and less open to exploitative deconstruction when the ME Association at one time adopted the Canadian Criteria by a democratic vote and then quietly swept that democratic vote under their carpet?

This is all about accountability. We should be given full answers to all of the above questions.

What is wrong in asking?  Why does that make us bad?

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Ralph

www.meactionuk.org.uk

Posted in AfME, Action for M.E., CBT/GET, CFS Clinics, CFS Research, CFS in the media, CFSAC, CISSD Project, Canadian Criteria, Criticism of DSM-V, ICD revision process, ICD-11, Institute of Psychiatry, ME Association, ME Research, ME in journals, ME in the media, Professor Peter White, Simon Wessely, WHO (World Health Organization), XMRV, XMRV Retrovirus | Comments Off

Journal of Psychosomatic Research: In Press: Is there a better term than “Medically unexplained symptoms”?

Posted by meagenda on October 24, 2009

elephant3

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 Three:

Journal of Psychosomatic Research In Press: Is there a better term than “Medically unexplained symptoms”?

WordPress Shortlink for this posting: http://wp.me/p5foE-2d6

24 October 2009

 

An In Press version of the Editorial: Is there a better term than “Medically unexplained symptoms”?, to be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, is already available online (purchase required). The Editorial needs to be read in conjunction with a white paper from:

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

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  (Gillian.D.Dunkerley@manchester.ac.uk )

The White Paper can be downloaded from the EACLPP site here: http://www.eaclpp.org/working_groups.html

The document is approx 76 pages long, including tables and charts.  I had considerable difficulty opening this document, in May, due to a corrupted table and I note that the file on the EACLPP site is still glitchy. A copy of the document was therefore obtained directly from the EACLPP and can be opened by clicking the link below.  Note that there may have been revisions to the document as supplied on 19 May, but it will serve as reference for those who might also experience difficulties opening the file from the EACLPP website. If you would like a copy of the file sent to you as a Word.doc, email ME agenda with “EACLPP MUS DOC” in the subject line and I will forward a copy [600 KB].  The tables and charts are slow to load.

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

EACLPP Working group on MUS version 16 Jan 2009

The current issue of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research is Volume 67, Issue 5, Pages A1-A4, 367-466 (November 2009)  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00223999

Journal of Psychosomatic Research

In Press

Editorial
Is there a better term than “Medically unexplained symptoms”?

Abstract: http://tinyurl.com/jpsychoresMUS

doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.09.004

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Editorial

Francis Creed a, Elspeth Guthrie a, Per Fink b, Peter Henningsen c, Winfried Rief d, Michael Sharpe e and Peter White f

a University of Manchester, Manchester, UK 
b University Hospital Aarhus, Denmark
c Technical University, Munich Germany
d University of Marburg, Germany
e University of Edinburgh, UK
f Queen Mary University of London, UK

Received 24 August 2009; revised 24 August 2009; accepted 7 September 2009. Available online 17 October 2009.

Article Outline

Introduction

“Medically unexplained symptoms” – one advantage, but many reasons to discontinue use of the term

Criteria to judge the value of alternative terms for “medically unexplained symptoms”

Terms suggested as alternatives for “medically unexplained symptoms”

Implications for treatment

Implications for DSM-V and ICD-11

Conclusion

References

Note:

Francis Creed is Co-Editor of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Francis Creed, Per Fink, Peter Henningsen and Winfried Rief were all members of the international CISSD Project, (Principal Administrators: Action for M.E.; Co-ordinator: Dr Richard Sykes. Dr Sykes is now engaged in the “London MUPSS Project” in association with the Institute of Psychiatry).

Michael Sharpe was UK Chair for the CISSD Project.

Michael Sharpe and Francis Creed have been members of the APA’s DSM-V Somatic Distress Disorders Work Group since 2007.

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

Francis Creed and Peter Henningsen were the authors of “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”, January 2009.

Draft white paper here: http://www.eaclpp.org/working_groups.html

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.

 

An 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 on behalf of the DSM-V Workgroup on Somatic Symptom Disorders was published in the June 2009 issue of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Full text of the June 2009 DSM-V SSD Work Group preliminary report can be accessed here:

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

See section: Psychological factor affecting general medical condition 

“…The conceptual framework that we propose will allow a diagnosis of somatic symptom disorder in addition to a general medical condition, whether the latter is a well-recognized organic disease or a functional somatic syndrome such as irritable bowel syndrome or chronic fatigue syndrome…”

No updates or reports have been published on the APA’s website by DSM-V Task Force or Work Groups since brief reports issued in April 2009. DSM-V is anticipated to be finalised in May 2012 with field trials expected to start this October. No detailed Timeline for DSM-V is available.

Previous DSM Task Force chairs, Robert L Spitzer and Allen Frances, have been two of the most vocal critics of the current Task Force’s oversight of the revision process. Read their joint letter to the APA Board of Trustees here:  Letter to APA Board of Trustees July 09. In Dr Frances Responds to Dr Carpenter: A Sharp Difference of Opinion, Psychiatric Times, 9 July, Frances called for the posting of all the suggested wordings for DSM-V criteria sets well before considering field trials.

 

Javier Escobar, co-author of the Special Report: Unexplained Physical Symptoms: What’s a Psychiatrist to Do? Psychiatric Times, Aug 2008, was also a member of the Work Group for the “Conceptual Issues in Somatoform and Similar Disorders (CISSD) Project.

Javier Escobar is a member of the DSM-V Task Force, serves as a Task Force liaison to the Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group and said to work closely with this work group.

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1171223

01 August 2008
Psychiatric Times. Vol. 25 No. 9
Special Report

PSYCHIATRY AND MEDICAL ILLNESS
Unexplained Physical Symptoms What’s a Psychiatrist to Do?

Humberto Marin, MD and Javier I. Escobar, MD

According to Escobar and Marin:

“The list of somatoform disorders kept expanding with the addition of vague categories, such as “undifferentiated somatoform disorder” or “somatoform disorder NOS [not otherwise specified],” which, unfortunately, are the most common diagnoses within the somatoform genre. These terms failed to transcend specialty boundaries. Perhaps as a corollary of turf issues, general medicine and medical specialties started carving these syndromes with their own tools. The resulting list of “medicalized,” specialty-driven labels that continues to expand includes fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndome, multiple chemical sensitivity, and many others (Table 1).

Table 1

Functional somatic syndromes

Irritable bowel syndrome
Chronic fatigue syndrome
Fibromyalgia
Multiple chemical sensitivity
Nonspecific chest pain
Premenstrual disorder
Non-ulcer dyspepsia
Repetitive strain injury
Tension headache
Temporomandibular joint disorder
Atypical facial pain
Hyperventilation syndrome
Globus syndrome
Sick building syndrome
Chronic pelvic pain
Chronic whiplash syndrome
Chronic Lyme disease
Silicone breast implant effects
Candidiasis hypersensivity
Food allergy
Gulf War syndrome
Mitral valve prolapse
Hypoglycemia
Chronic low back pain
Dizziness
Interstitial cystitis
Tinnitus
Pseudoseizures
Insomnia
Systemic yeast infection
Total allergy syndrome”

These labels fall under the general category of functional somatic syndromes and seem more acceptable to patients because they may be perceived as less stigmatizing than psychiatric ones. However, using DSM criteria, virtually all these functional syndromes would fall into the somatoform disorders category given their phenomenology, unknown physical causes, absence of reliable markers, and the frequent coexistence of somatic and psychiatric symptoms.”

DSM-V and ICD-11 have committed as far as possible “to facilitate the achievement of the highest possible extent of uniformity and harmonization between ICD-11 mental and behavioural disorders and DSM-V disorders and their diagnostic criteria” with the objective that “the WHO and APA should make all attempts to ensure that in their core versions, the category names, glossary descriptions and criteria are identical for ICD and DSM.”

The International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders most recent meeting took place on 28 – 29 September. It is anticipated that a Summary Report of the meeting will be available in late November/December.

For detailed information on the proposed structure of ICD-11, the Content Model and operation of iCAT, the collaborative authoring platform through which the WHO will be revising ICD-10, please scrutinise key documents on the ICD-11 Revision Google site:

https://sites.google.com/site/icd11revision/
https://sites.google.com/site/icd11revision/home/documents

For information around the DSM and ICD revision processes see DSM-V and ICD-11 Directory page: http://meagenda.wordpress.com/dsm-v-directory/

Posted in CBT, CBT/GET, CISSD Project, Criticism of DSM-V, DSM revision process, Elephant Series DSM-V, ICD revision process, ICD-11, Institute of Psychiatry, MUPSS Project, MUS, Professor Peter White, WHO (World Health Organization), WHO Collaborating Centre, WHO Somatisation Project | Comments Off

Reference to Psychological Medicine manuscripts in Summary of 4th meeting of Advisory Group for Revision of ICD-10 Chapter V

Posted by meagenda on September 20, 2009

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 Three:

Reference to Psychological Medicine manuscripts in the Summary of the 4th meeting of the Advisory Group for Revision of ICD-10 Chapter V (Mental and Behavioural Disorders)

WordPress shortlink for this posting:  http://wp.me/p5foE-22o

On 18 September, I posted a copy of the Summary Report of the 4th Meeting of the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders held on 1-2 December 2008, which has only just been published by the WHO.

When reading the Advisory Group’s latest report, bear in mind that it is a summary of a meeting held nine months ago. It has not yet been established when the Advisory Group anticipates publishing a summary of its next meeting which is scheduled for the end of this month (28-29 September).

Since the December 2008 meeting took place, the DSM-V “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group has published an 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 (Chair) and Francis Creed. The report, published in the June 2009 issue of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, expands on proposals in the very brief DSM-V Work Group update, published on the APA’s website, in April.

Page 1 of the Summary of the 4th Meeting of the International Advisory Group reports:

2. Update on proposal for large groupings of mental and behavioural disorders: Overview of Psychological Medicine articles

Presenter: Dr. David Goldberg

“Dr. Goldberg described key changes and additional specifications in the proposal for large groupings of mental disorders discussed at the AG meeting in March, 2008. Manuscripts based on this proposal are now in press in Psychological Medicine. The current version of the proposals includes five clusters of disorders. Each of these clusters meets some, though not all, of the validation criteria as modified from Robins and Guze by Hyman and colleagues. Similarities within the proposed clusters make it reasonable to view the different disorders within the cluster as variations on a single theme rather than separate and ‘comorbid’ disorders. The AG emphasized that decisions about an overarching architecture of categories will need to be made within the next year, keeping in mind WHO’s emphasis on clinical utility in a broad range of settings and countries…”

and goes on to discuss the relevance of large groupings to ICD revision and the testing of clinical utility in various contexts.

The “Cluster” manuscripts referred to as “in Press in Psychological Medicine” are listed on the APA’s recently published webpage:

“Peer-Reviewed Publications from DSM-V Development”

http://www.psychiatry.org/MainMenu/Research/DSMIV/DSMV/DSMRevisionActivities/DSMV-Publications.aspx

“As part of the efforts to make information about DSM-V development as widely disseminated as possible, the American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education is maintaining an ongoing list of peer-reviewed journal publications arising from the DSM-V planning conference series (2002-08) and from DSM-V Task Force and Work Group discussions (e.g., empirical literature reviews, secondary data analyses). This list will be continually updated.”

[...]

“119. Andrews G, Goldberg DP, Krueger RF, Carpenter Jr WT, Hyman SE, Sachdev P & Pine DS. Exploring the Feasibility of a Meta-Structure for DSM-V and ICD-11: Could It Improve Utility and Validity? Psychological Medicine; in press.

120. Sachdev P, Andrews G, Hobbs MJ, Sunderland M & Anderson TM. Neurocognitive Disorders: Cluster 1 of the Proposed Meta-Structure for DSM-V and ICD-11. Psychological Medicine; in press.

121. Andrews G, Pine DS, Hobbs MJ, Anderson TM & Sunderland M. Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Cluster 2 of the Proposed Meta-Structure for DSM- V and ICD-11. Psychological Medicine; in press.

122. Carpenter Jr WT, Bustillo JR, Thaker GK, van Os J, Krueger RF & Green MJ. Psychoses: Cluster 3 of the Proposed Meta-Structure for DSM-V and ICD-11. Psychological Medicine; in press.

123. Goldberg DP, Krueger RF, Andrews G & Hobbs MJ. Emotional Disorders: Cluster 4 of the Proposed Meta Structure for DSM-V and ICD-11. Psychological Medicine; in press.

124. Krueger RF & South SC. Externalizing Disorders: Cluster 5 of the Proposed Meta-Structure for DSM-V and ICD 11. Psychological Medicine; in press.

125. Goldberg DP, Andrews G & Hobbs MJ. Where Should Bipolar Appear in the Meta-Structure? Psychological Medicine; in press.”

Gavin Andrews, MD, is a member of the DSM-V Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum, Posttraumatic, and Dissociative Disorders Work Group.

Sir David Goldberg, MD, is a member of the DSM-V Mood Disorders Work Group

Robert Krueger, PhD, is a member of the DSM-V Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group

William T Carpenter, Jr., MD, chairs the DSM-V Psychotic Disorders Work Group and is a member of the DSM-V Task Force

Steven E Hyman, MD, is a member of the DSM-V Task Force and chairs the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD Mental and Behavioural Disorders

Perminder Sachdev MD, PhD, FRAZCP, is a member of the DSM-V Neurocognitive Disorders Work Group

Daniel S. Pine, MD, chairs the DSM-V Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence Work Group and is a member of the DSM-V Task Force

Juan R. Bustillo, MD, is a member of the DSM-V Psychotic Disorders Work Group

————

The June 2009 Journal of Psychosomatic Research Editorial: The proposed diagnosis of somatic symptom disorders in DSM-V to replace somatoform disorders in DSM-IV – a preliminary report by Joel Dimsdale and Francis Creed was published as free access.

It is not yet known which issue of Psychological Medicine these manuscripts are to be published in or whether they will be freely available to non subscribers to the journal.

Given that the DSM-V Task Force insists that its oversight of the DSM revision is a transparent process, one assumes that these manuscripts are going to be made freely accessible to all stakeholders irrespective of whether the proposals contained within them still stand or are now superseded by alternative proposals.

See also: Summary Report of 3rd Meeting International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders 11 – 12 March 2008, Geneva

See also: Pages 3 and 4 Diagnostic Issues Symposium programme

————

Psychological Medicine is published by Cambridge Journals

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=PSM

The Editors of Psychological Medicine are:

Kenneth S. Kendler
Psychiatric Genetics Research Program
Dept of Psychiatry
P O Box 980710
Richmond, VA 23298-0710 USA

and

Robin M. Murray
Institute of Psychiatry
de Crespigny Park
Denmark Hill
London SE5 8AF

The Editorial Board for Psychological Medicine includes:

Sir David Goldberg*
Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK

Professor Matthew Hotopf
Institute of Psychiatry, UK

Dr James Levenson*
Virginia Commonwealth University, USA

and

Professor S. C. Wessely
King’s College London, UK

———————–

*Dr James Levenson, MD, is a member of the DSM-V Somatic Symptoms Disorders Work Group and had been a member of the CISSD Project.

*Professor Sir David Goldberg, MD, Professor (Emeritus) Institute of Psychiatry, has been a member of the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders and is a member of the APA’s DSM-V Work Group for Mood Disorders.

Professor Goldberg was a member of the UK National Editorial Team and UK National Consensus Group for the WHO “Diagnostic and Management Guidelines for Mental Disorders in Primary Care: ICD-10 Chapter V Primary Care Version”.

For archived correspondence between Connie Nelson, the WHO, Geneva, and the WHO Collaborating Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, from 2001, concerning the issue of the WHO Collaborating Centre’s flexible use of terminology around chronic fatigue, fatigue syndrome and neurasthenia, and chronic fatigue syndrome and ME see:

http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/whomisc.htm

I will update when these manuscripts have been published.

————

On the DSM-V Peer-Reviewed Publications from DSM-V Development page under “Somatoform Disorders” is listed the paper: 

88. Kanaan RAA, Lepine JP, & Wessely SC. The association or otherwise of the functional somatic syndromes. Psychosomatic Medicine, 2007; 69:855-859.

This paper can be accessed via Google Books “Preview”, published as Chapter 2 of:

“Somatic Presentations of Mental Disorders: Refining the Research Agenda for DSM-V”

Monograph published by the American Psychiatric Association, in 2009, summarising the proceedings of the September 2006 APA/WHO Beijing Symposium: Somatic presentations of mental disorders

See Chapter 2: Pages 9-18   http://tinyurl.com/somaticpresentationsDSM-V

————

For latest “Elephant in the Room” series report (compiled before the release of the Advisory Group’s 4th meeting Summary Report)

see: DSM, ICD: transparency and timelines 03 September 2009.

Posted in AfME, Action for M.E., CISSD Project, Criticism of DSM-V, Elephant Series DSM-V, ICD revision process, ICD-11, Institute of Psychiatry, MUPSS Project, MUS, Simon Wessely, WHO (World Health Organization), WHO Collaborating Centre, WHO Somatisation Project | Comments Off

The Elephant in the Room Series Three: Action for M.E. stuffs the elephant back into the cupboard

Posted by meagenda on August 25, 2009

elephant3

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 Three:

Action for M.E. stuffs the elephant back into the cupboard

WordPress Shortlink for this posting: http://wp.me/p5foE-1TO

————

The Conceptual Issues in Somatoform and Similar Disorders (CISSD) Project ran from 2003 and was wrapped up by autumn 2007. But the Project’s principal administrator, Action for M.E., has only just this week published an article around the Project.

Were it not for the fact that I and a small number of others have been agitating for information on the CISSD Project since early 2007, it is likely that Action for M.E. would have published nothing at all.

“Classification conundrum” is published on pages 16 and 17 of the August 2009 issue of Action for M.E.’s membership magazine, InterAction (Issue 69).

Note that although the Project had been initiated by Dr Richard Sykes PhD, Dr Sykes does not appear to have contributed to this article, which is authored by Dr Derek Pheby. In fact, Dr Sykes and his role as instigator and co-ordinator of the Project is not mentioned at all. Nor is the Project’s funder – the charitable Trust run by Dr Sykes’ brother, Sir Hugh Sykes, a non-executive director of A4e, the largest European provider of Welfare to Work programmes.

A considerable portion of this article’s second page is given over to an image of a man, most aptly holding up a large question mark. There have been a very large number of questions about the nature and implications of the CISSD Project, the most obvious one being: why has Action for M.E. sought to keep the lid on it for so long?

Action for M.E. could have used this space to expand on the nature of the Project and list the names of those involved in it.

But I guess there is no easy way of broaching that the Project was chaired by psychiatrists, Professors Michael Sharpe and Kurt Kroenke; or that the workgroup comprised a couple of dozen international researchers and clinicians from the field of liaison psychiatry and psychosomatics and that not a single researcher outside this field was a member of the workgroup; or that the sole patient rep on board just happens to have co-authored books on CFS with the Project’s UK Chair, Michael Sharpe; or that none of our other national ME patient organisations were consulted; or that as stakeholders, we were kept in the dark about this Project for six years; or that the workgroup included influential, international researchers like Francis Creed, Kurt Kroenke, Arthur Barsky, Charles Engel, James Levenson, Javier Escobar, Per Fink, Peter Henningsen, Wolfgang Hiller, Bernd Löwe, Richard Mayou, Winfried Rief et al… several of whom now sit on the DSM-V Somatic Symptoms Disorders Work Group and the DSM Task Force, at the very core of the APA’s DSM revision process.

Easier by far to pad out this apologia piece with a stock photo…

Action for M.E. could usefully have linked to the review paper published by Project leads, Sharpe, Kroenke and Sykes, in July 2007, that resulted out of the CISSD workshops, but hasn’t done so; it could have linked to the CISSD Project “summary report” published on the ME Association’s website, in association with Dr Sykes, in June; it could have published a link to a copy of the CISSD “Final report” it received from Dr Sykes, in December 2007, which contains material omitted from the “summary report” as provided to the ME Association – but it has not published this document, either.

For links to these documents and an unauthorised version of the December 2007 “Final report” see:

The Elephant in the Room Series Two: Status of the CISSD Project unscrambled: http://wp.me/p5foE-1GL

Appended is the article published in InterAction, yesterday, which represents all that Action for M.E. does want you to know.

Before it stuffs this Project back into the cupboard, I call on Action for M.E. to publish a copy of the December 2007 “Final report” by Dr Richard Sykes on its website, prefaced with an erratum note addressing the errors of coding within “Appendix B” of the document and also addressing Dr Sykes’ misconception that “Chronic fatigue syndrome” does not appear in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems: 10th Revision Version for 2006, Volume 3, the Alphabetical Index:

( Indexed on page 528, top right hand column: http://www.scribd.com/doc/7350978/ICD10-2006-Alphabetical-Index-Volume-3 )

Once again, I call on the ME Association to publish a commentary and analysis of the CISSD Project, because to date, the MEA has made no comment whatsoever on the Project, itself, nor around the revision and “harmonization” processes towards DSM-V and ICD-11 that the CISSD Project was set up to inform.  The ME Association has yet to publish a copy of the “summary report” provided by Dr Sykes in its own magazine, ME Essential.

In June, an Editorial: The proposed diagnosis of somatic symptom disorders in DSM-V to replace somatoform disorders in DSM-IV – a preliminary report: Francis Creed and Joel Dimsdale was published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, for which Francis Creed is co-editor.

Neither Action for M.E., the ME Association, Dr Sykes or Dr Derek Pheby has published commentary on the most recent proposals of the DSM-V Somatic Symptoms Disorders Work Group, as set out in this Editorial and in a very brief report on the APA’s DSM-V webpages:

JPsychRes: http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(09)00088-9/fulltext
April ‘09 report of the DSM-V Somatic Symptoms Disorder Work Group: http://tinyurl.com/DSMSDDWGApril09

I also call on the ME Association to approach Dr Sykes to set out the nature, aims and objectives of 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 for a new project that is once again being funded by the Hugh and Ruby Sykes Charitable Trust.

For information on the DSM-V and ICD-11 revision processes, and on the CISSD Project see: http://meagenda.wordpress.com/dsm-v-directory/

“Classification conundrum” by Dr Derek Pheby, InterAction 69, Action for M.E. membership magazine, August 2009, pp 16 and 17:

We are at a moment in time when the underlying pathology of M.E. is on the point of elucidation at last, writes Dr Derek Pheby. It is becoming apparent that the syndrome we know as M.E. consists of several different phenotypes, each with its own distinctive pathological basis…

These should in due course be recognised as individual disease entities, a process that would be helped by the identification of specific biomarkers. This will be a major historical change. It should bring to an end the long running concern about the nature of M.E. and what sort of illness it should be regarded as being. In particular, it will end the argument that has been a serious concern of many people with M.E., that many doctors and others have regarded the illness as primarily psychiatric and that this is reflected in the main classification systems by which diseases are recorded.

Much concern has centred around so-called ’somatoform disorders,’ as people with M.E. have frequently been assigned to this category and its position in the main statistical classification in current use, which is the International Classification of Diseases (10th. revision) (ICD-10).

‘Somatoform disorders’ are located in the ‘Mental and behavioural disorders’ chapter of ICD-10. They are also a category within a specifically psychiatric classification, widely used by psychiatrists, entitled the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (4th edition) (DSM-IV).

Both ICD-10 and DSM-IV are statistical classifications. They are simply tools that doctors and researchers need if they are to examine trends in the occurrence of disease and assess the effectiveness of treatments and other interventions designed to reduce the occurrence of disease or mitigate its impact.

There is a paradox though, in that medical research looks forward into a future in which medical knowledge is increasing all the time, while medical terminology, including classification systems, essentially looks backwards to a time when medical knowledge was less advanced than it is today.

Thus ICD-10, which was introduced into the UK in 1994, was the product of thinking that mostly took place in the 1980s. It is therefore now a quarter of a century old, so it is not surprising if it is now beginning to look somewhat frayed around the edges.

Indeed in two areas it was already out of date when it was introduced into the UK, having already been supplanted by new classifications developed as a result of new scientific knowledge acquired since ICD-10 was first developed. These two areas were brain tumours and lymphomas and the new classifications were the Kleihuis histological classification of neurological tumours and the REAL (Revised European American Lymphoma) classification.

CISSD

ICD-10 and DSM-IV will both soon be replaced by lCD-11 and DSM-V respectively. One input into the development of ICD-11 has come from a project entitled Conceptual Issues in Somatoform and Similar Disorders (CISSD). This was an international project, coordinated from Westcare.

When Action for M.E. merged with Westcare a few years ago, it found itself the residual legatee of this project. This caused unease among some people with M.E. who concluded, mistakenly, that the charity had committed itself to a party line which treats M.E. as a somatoform and hence essentially as a psychiatric condition. This is not the view of Action for M.E., which supports the World Health Organisation’s classification of M.E. as a neurological condition.

The CISSD project did not resolve the key question of whether the category of somatoform disorders should be retained in the classifications of mental disorders or not. However, it did recommend that if the category were to be retained, the diagnosis should not be made solely on the basis of the patient manifesting ‘medically unexplained’ symptoms but should require that the patient manifest ‘positive psychological criteria’ as well.

The authors also recommended that the subcategory in DSM-IV of ‘undifferentiated somatoform disorder’ – which is a pigeon hole into which it has not been uncommon for people with M.E. to be pushed – should be abolished.

These two changes should be beneficial to people with M.E. That benefit is likely to be marginal though, because it is not unknown for ‘positive psychological criteria’ to be wrongly attributed to people with M.E., in a process of post hoc rationalisation, in order to justify an inappropriate diagnostic label.

What is really needed to resolve this diagnostic problem is not a change in classifications but an increase both in scientific knowledge so that there is no longer any doubt as to how M.E. should be classified and in the respect in which people with M.E. are held and in the quality of health care they receive. There would be a few problems if all doctors and other health professionals deployed the same level of clinical knowledge and skill that the best do already.

Knowledge gap

Realistically, our knowledge of the various phenotypes within the M.E. umbrella is not yet adequate for this to be reflected in the revised classification. It remains to be seen also whether the CISSD recommendations are acted upon or not. However, one thing that is very clear is that ICD-11, on the day it is promulgated, will like ICD-10 already be  in part out of date and will become increasingly so over the decade or so that it will be in use.

Much of the difficulty arises from the concept of ‘medically unexplained’ symptoms. There is nothing innate about this. What may be medically unexplained to one generation of doctors may be perfectly capable of explanation to  the next, given the onward march of science.

It is entirely wrong to assign a person to a category of psychiatric illness because his or her symptoms are medically unexplained. Such a label points more to a deficiency in doctors because of their inability to explain symptoms, than in the patient. Indeed to assign someone to the wrong category on the basis of a false understanding of the nature of the illness and its context is an example of a well-known phenomenon which psychologists term ‘fundamental attribution error.’

Freud’s legacy

This tendency to regard people as having a primary psychiatric diagnosis when they are physically ill is probably a consequence of the baleful influence of Sigmund Freud on 20th century medicine.

Sarah Vaughan, a GP from Bristol, writing recently in the British Medical Journal, refers to Freud’s: “…most damaging legacy – namely, the widespread belief that all symptoms that elude diagnosis are psychosomatic in origin. This assumption has caused untold frustration and distress to patients who, on top of having illnesses that elude medical diagnosis, have to face being misdiagnosed as having psychological illness despite their protestations to the contrary.

“With the benefit of modern medical knowledge, Freud’s patients can be seen to have been relating histories that point clearly towards physical illnesses that weren’t known or diagnosable at the time.”

She concludes: “All too often, the medical profession ignores one of the most important lessons to be learned from Freud’s story – that, if we are unable to explain a patient’s symptoms, the reason may not be that the symptoms are psychosomatic but simply that our knowledge is imperfect.” (The dark side of Freud’s legacy (letter). BMJ 2009; 338: b1606).

Eventually, ICD-11 will be replaced by ICD-12, which in turn will rapidly become out of date.

CISSD is not a devious plot to “psychiatrise” M.E. Rather it should be seen as an honest attempt to rationalise an issue which has only arisen because medical knowledge is incomplete and which, at the end of the day, is no substitute for detailed scientific research to unravel the fundamental basis of this illness.

Dr Pheby is Project Coordinator for the National CFS/M.E. Observatory. He was formerly Chair of the Project Assurance Team at the NHS Centre for Coding and Classification. Read his report of the IACFS conference on p 12.

InterAction 69 August 2009

http://www.afme.org.uk

Posted in A4e, AfME, Action for M.E., CISSD Project, DSM revision process, Elephant Series DSM-V, ICD revision process, ICD-11, Institute of Psychiatry, ME Association, MUPSS Project, MUS, WHO (World Health Organization), WHO Collaborating Centre | Comments Off

The Elephant in the Room Series Three: Channel 4: Benefit Busters; A4e and the Sykes brothers

Posted by meagenda on August 14, 2009

elephant3

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 Three:

Channel 4: Benefit Busters, A4e and the Sykes brothers

WordPress Shortlink for this posting: http://wp.me/p5foE-1RY 

The CISSD Project (Conceptual Issues in Somatoform and Similar Disorders), co-ordinated by Dr Richard Sykes, PhD, between 2003 and 2007, and administered by UK patient organisation, Action for M.E., was funded by The Hugh and Ruby Sykes Charitable Trust to the tune of £62,750.

The recommendations of the CISSD Project and papers that resulted out of its workshops have fed into the revision processes towards DSM-V and ICD-11.

Dr Sykes is currently engaged in the London Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms and Syndromes (MUPSS) Project for which he receives a research award from the Institute of Psychiatry for £27,000 per year.

This award is also funded by a grant from The Hugh and Ruby Sykes Charitable Trust.

We are still waiting for the ME Association and for Action for M.E. to provide analyses of the CISSD Project and commentary on the DSM and ICD revision processes.

I call upon both organisations to report on the nature and purpose of the MUPSS Project, too, for it is not yet known how the MUPSS Project is being carried out, who is involved in it or who its stakeholders are, but Dr Sykes is reported as having said that the Project has relevance to “all conditions characterised by medically unexplained symptoms, not just CFS/ME”.

Virtually nothing is known at present other than that the Project relates to what Dr Sykes perceives as “medically unexplained symptoms (MUS)” and that he includes within this category, “CFS/ME”.

Dr Richard Sykes and Sir Hugh Sykes are brothers.

Sir Hugh Sykes is a non executive director of A4e (Action for Employment) – the largest European provider of Welfare to Work programmes.

For links for information on A4e see:  The WHO Somatisation Project: The Elephant in the Room Part Six

Sir Hugh has authored pamphlets for the right-wing think-tank “Politeia”, see:

http://www.politeia.co.uk/about/default.asp

“Politeia, a forum for social and economic thinking, opened in November 1995 as a focus for thinking on social and economic policy. Its aim is to encourage reflection, discussion and debate about the place of the state in the daily lives of men and women across the range of issues which affect them, from employment and tax to education, health and pensions.”

Current areas for work include:

Tax and benefits: a fairer framework for incentives;
The potential consequences of the Euro or other European measures for British social and economic policy, employment, taxation and trade;
International comparisons of educational standards;
Policies for high employment: the role of the state, the employer and the employee;
Covering for lost income: health, long term care, pensions and unemployment Welfare reform, pensions, benefits and taxation;
Constitutional change and stability;
Policing in the UK”

Sir Hugh is the author of

“Working for Benefit”
Hugh Sykes
£5.00

Although it continues to fall, unemployment remains a serious problem both economically and socially. Does it not make better sense, asks Hugh Sykes, to pay people to work than, as the present benefits system does, to remain idle? The workfare scheme he proposes here would achieve a reduction of at least 200,000 in unemployment over three years. Developing from and extending the government’s own schemes, it is – unlike other schemes suggested by left and right – both straightforward and detailed enough to be put into practice immediately. It gives incentives to employers to create, and to the unemployed to take, real productive jobs, whilst also providing opportunity to work where such jobs are not available. NERA, the leading experts on the economies of workfare, have provided technical advice and data for the scheme.”

and

“Welfare to Work – The New Deal: Maximising the Benefits”
Hugh Sykes
£5.00

The New Deal – the government’s welfare to work scheme – aims to increase employment in the long term by helping some of the unemployed to become more employable, thereby increasing the pool of effective labour and so facilitating sustainable economic expansion. Sir Hugh Sykes, until recently Chairman of the Sheffield Development Corporation, welcomes the scheme and its aims. But, he argues, there are serious problems in implementing the scheme which should be urgently addressed. The fact that the scheme does not aim to create new jobs in the short term will cause widespread disappointment, unless the public is given a better understanding of the scheme’s aims. Sir Hugh also contends that the scheme should aim at short-term job creation – something which will be possible if it can be flexibly implemented in the regions, rather than rigidly run from the centre, and if it takes proper account of regional and local priorities.”

 

Later this month, Channel 4 begins a series called “Benefit Busters”:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/benefit-busters

Benefit Busters

Series Summary

In 2009, Britain will pay out more in benefits than it raises in income tax. Welfare and pension payments cost more than education, health or defence.

Now, as the government attempts to revolutionise the welfare system – controversially rewarding private companies according to their ability to coax people off benefits and into jobs – this documentary series follows the people on both sides of this new welfare state.

Watch again on:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/benefit-busters/4od

Series | Episode 1 | Benefit Busters  [48 mins]

Hayley Taylor’s job is to persuade single mothers on benefits to go back to work.

The company she works for, A4E, which is helping to tackle the Government’s target of getting 70 per cent of lone parents into paid work by 2010, is the largest welfare reform company in the world.

A4E is run by multimillionaire entrepreneur Emma Harrison, who believes her business is ‘improving people’s lives by getting them into work.’

Until recently, the 700,000 lone parents receiving benefit didn’t have to look for work until their youngest child was 16. Soon, they must either work, or be looking for work, once their youngest child is seven.

At Doncaster A4E, Hayley runs a course called Elevate that aims to give lone parents the skills and confidence to enter the workplace and convince them they’ll be better off doing so. Cameras follow her group of ten single mothers during their intensive six-week course to prepare them for work.

Next Episode: Thu 20 Aug, 9PM on Channel 4, Monday 24 August 4AM Channel 4

 

Series 1 | Episode 2 | Benefit Busters

Unemployment is rife in Hull, but for one company business is booming: A4E has won the lucrative contract to help get the long-term unemployed back to work. Mark Pilkington is an ex-soldier who hasn’t worked for 10 years. He welcomes help and within a fortnight he finds a job. But the joy of receiving his first pay cheque is short-lived; after just four weeks a business downturn results in Mark being laid off.

Facing a return to A4E and potentially a four-week wait to restart his benefit payments, Mark begins to wonder if there is more security in a life on benefits.

It appears to be a shockingly common perception amongst the clients at A4E, who are at the mercy of an increasingly casual labour market.

Date Time Channel
Thursday 27 August 9PM Channel 4

 

Series 1 | Episode 3 | Benefit Busters

One of the government’s targets is to shift one million people off long-term sickness benefits and get them back to work.

In Oldham, the charity Shaw Trust* has won the contract to implement this policy.

Sherrie Jepson, a former car saleswoman, has the job of selling the idea of employment to people who were previously considered too sick to work.

Keiron Tandy fell from a third-floor balcony while celebrating his 18th birthday in Turkey. He has metal pins in his back and has restricted mobility.

His family doctor had confirmed him as ‘unfit for work’ but under the new system he’s examined by an independent medical examiner employed by a private health care company, which will determine whether he is fit enough to return to work. Meanwhile, Sherrie starts to try to convince Keiron that he could work if a suitable job that allowed for his condition could be found.

*The Shaw Trust

 

Shaw Trust accounts show crippling cost of DWP contracts

By John Plummer | Third Sector Online |10 August 2009

Charity blames Pathways to Work programme for huge deficit

The Shaw Trust made a £2.8m loss in 2008/09 compared with a surplus of £7.4m the previous year, according to its annual report.

The charity, which is the largest voluntary sector provider of employment services for disabled people, blamed the loss on the huge start-up costs involved in delivering Pathways to Work programmes on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions.

“The DWP funding structure is making it more difficult for charities to deliver services,” said Catherine A’Bear, chief officer for corporate affairs at the trust.

“We are one of the few charities still in the business of providing services for disabled people under DWP contracts, and when you see how heavily we have had to invest in it you can see why.”

She said the start-up costs involved in setting up services and recruiting staff for Pathways to Work were so high that private companies were increasingly the only ones that could afford to bid. “The voluntary sector is seen as a sub-contractor,” said A’Bear.

The trust’s annual income increased by £8.48m to £81.39m during the same period, of which £45.8m came from the DWP. But this was offset by rising costs. Wages and salaries rose from £37m to £43m.

John Briffitt, chairman of the trust, says in the annual report: “There’s no denying that the Shaw Trust’s financial performance, like that of many other organisations in our field, has been adversely affected by the challenging economic environment.”

He said “past prudence” had built up sufficient cash resources to help it cope.

The 2008/09 financial year was a turbulent one for the trust, with chief executive Ian Charlesworth put on gardening leave pending dismissal in July 2008. The annual accounts say he resigned on 12 December.

——————————

For information on the development of DSM-V which is to be harmonised for congruency with ICD-11, and on the CISSD Project, see:

http://meagenda.wordpress.com/dsm-v-directory/

Compiled by Suzy Chapman
http://meagenda.wordpress.com

Posted in A4e, Benefits, CISSD Project, DSM revision process, DWP, Elephant Series DSM-V, Employment legislation, ICD revision process, Institute of Psychiatry, MUPSS Project, MUS, WHO (World Health Organization), Welfare reform | Comments Off

Amendments to the WHO Guide to Mental and Neurological Health in Primary Care website

Posted by meagenda on August 4, 2009

From Suzy Chapman

04 August 2009

Amendments to the WHO Guide to Mental and Neurological Health in Primary Care website

For some time now, significant errors in WHO ICD codings have stood on the website for the WHO Guide to Mental and Neurological Health in Primary Care:

http://www.mentalneurologicalprimarycare.org/

On 17 July 2009, I wrote to Professor Rachel Jenkins, Director, WHO Collaborating Centre, Institute of Psychiatry and requested that this matter be given urgent attention.

I advised Professor Jenkins that on the webpage at:

http://www.mentalneurologicalprimarycare.org/content_show.asp?c=16&fid=1252&fc=011065

“Unexplained medical symptoms (including chronic fatigue)”

“Unexplained medical symptoms – F45.0 including chronic fatigue – G48.0″

that where the webpage said “including chronic fatigue – G48.0″ this still needed correcting to read “F48.0″ not “G48.0″ (as it had been amended to read, earlier this year).

Additionally, Professor Jenkins was advised that there were errors in two associated download files at:

http://www.mentalneurologicalprimarycare.org/downloads.asp

http://www.mentalneurologicalprimarycare.org/downloads/primary_care/Unexplained_medical_symptoms.rtf
http://www.mentalneurologicalprimarycare.org/downloads/primary_care/Unexplained_medical_symptoms.pdf

“Unexplained medical symptoms (including chronic fatigue)”

“Unexplained medical symptoms – F45.0 including chronic fatigue – G93.3″

where the two download files said “including chronic fatigue – G93.3″

this needed correcting to read “including chronic fatigue – F48.0″

Action for M.E. and the ME Association were sent a copy of my correspondence with Professor Jenkins.

I am pleased to confirm that this request for corrections has now been effected and that the webpage and the two files on the download page have all been amended to read “F48.0″ .

————————-

“Chronic fatigue syndrome” is indexed at G93.3 in the WHO International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision Version for 2006, Volume 3 Alphabetical Index.

The code G93.3 is classified in Chapter VI of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10) Version for 2007 under

Diseases of the nervous system (G00-G99)
Other disorders of the nervous system (G90-99)

http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gg90.htm+g933

 

The “F” codes are classified in ICD-10 Chapter V: Mental and behavioural disorders under

Mental and behavioural disorders (F00-F99)
Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders (F40-F48)

http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/index.htm?gF40.htm+F454

_______________________

Suzy Chapman
04.08.09
http://meagenda.wordpress.com

Posted in AfME, Action for M.E., CISSD Project, DSM revision process, Elephant Series DSM-V, ICD revision process, Institute of Psychiatry, ME Association, ME in children, MUS, WHO (World Health Organization), WHO Collaborating Centre, WHO Somatisation Project | Comments Off

The Elephant in the Room Series Three: Latest proposals from DSM-V Work Group

Posted by meagenda on July 9, 2009

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 Three: Latest proposals from DSM-V Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group

Update:

For commentary on this broadcast on the Co-Cure mailing list see:

http://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0909b&L=co-cure&T=0&F=&S=&P=3193

ACT: Update on MUS article  12 Sep 2009, Susanna Agardy

http://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0908a&L=co-cure&T=0&F=&S=&P=2204

ACT: Medically Unexplained Symptoms = Failure to Diagnose  04 August 2009, Susanna Agardy

———–

BBC Radio 4

On Wednesday, 1 July, BBC Radio 4 broadcast a programme presented by Laurie Taylor in the “Thinking Allowed” series which included a strand on “Exploring medically unexplained symptoms”.

This broadcast (which raised the BP of many listeners) can be heard again at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lbn9y#synopsis

“From dizziness to chronic pain, the overstretched health service is faced with increasing numbers of patients with symptoms that defy a medical explanation. They are often subject to repeated tests and treatment yet their illness persists. Laurie Taylor is joined by Monica Greco, whose research suggests the practice of patient choice ensures that many such patients get worse rather than better.”

Dr Monica Greco, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London, is author of a paper: “Medically unexplained symptoms: The failure of categories and the paradox of care” .

Also contributing to the broadcast was Dr Simon Cohn, Medical Anthropologist and Senior University Lecturer at Cambridge University, who has published on GWS with Professor Simon Wessely.

The broadcast can also be listened to here, on BBC iPlayer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00lbn9y/Thinking_Allowed_01_07_2009/

Thinking Allowed – Wed, 01 Jul 2009

Broadcast on: BBC Radio 4, 4:00pm Wednesday 1st July 2009
Duration: 30 minutes
Available until: 12:00am Thursday 1st January 2099

The Feedback slot for this broadcast included extracts from a number of concerned responses received from members of the ME community in the wake of last Wednesday’s programme.

For more on Monica Greco see:

http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/page/361/greco.htm

Monica Greco (Goldsmiths, University of London)

Medically unexplained symptoms: the failure of categories and the paradox of care

The case of medically unexplained symptoms (or MUS) is one that draws our attention to situations where care, more often than not, is perceived to fail. The role of inadequate diagnostic categories in producing such failures of care is frequently acknowledged in the literature, particularly now that a fifth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is in preparation, offering the opportunity to revise existing nomenclature. This paper offers a reading of this debate to argue that the failure associated with MUS points to the limits and paradoxes inherent not in specific diagnostic categories, but in the practice of diagnostic categorising more generally.

Monica Greco is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London, and a Research Fellow of the Alexander Von Humboldt Stiftung. She is the author of Illness as a Work of Thought (Routledge, 1998), co-editor (with Mariam Fraser) of The Body: A Reader (Routledge, 2005) and co-editor (with Paul Stenner) of The Emotions: A Social Science Reader (Routledge, 2008).

See also:

Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities

Promoting interdisciplinary research and innovation in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities

Borders, Boundaries and Thresholds of the Body
Friday, 12 June to Saturday, 13 June

Event programme

http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/events/612/programme/

———–

In April 09, the DSM-V Somatic Distress Disorders Work Group (also known as the  Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group) published a brief progress report which can be read on the APA’s website here: 

http://tinyurl.com/DSMSDDWGApril09

The Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group reported that they are exploring the potential for eliminating criteria such as “medically unexplained symptoms” because the term was considered “unreliable”, “divisive between doctor and patient” and “lead to mind-body dualism”. 

This was followed, in June, by an Editorial by DSM-V Task Force member and Work Group Chair, Joel Dimsdale, and fellow Work Group member, Francis Creed, published on behalf of the Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group and which expands on the themes in the APA’s update.

The Editorial:

The proposed diagnosis of somatic symptom disorders in DSM-V to replace somatoform disorders in DSM-IV – a preliminary report was published in the June 2009 issue of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, for which Francis Creed is a co-editor.

Free access to full text and PDF versions here:  http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(09)00088-9/fulltext

Under the section “Psychological factor affecting a general medical condition” the Dimsdale/Creed Editorial reports that some authors have recommended wider use of this existing DSM-IV category as “a diagnosis that encompasses the interface between psychiatric and general medical disorders” and it references the 2005 paper by Mayou R, Kirmayer LJ, Simon G, Kroenke K, Sharpe M: Somatoform disorders: time for a new approach in DSM-V. Am J Psychiat. 2005;162:847–855

Free access to full paper at:  http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/162/5/847

The Editorial reports that the [Psychological factors affecting a general medical condition] diagnosis “has been underused because of the dichotomy, inherent in the “Somatoform” section of DSM-IV, between disorders based on medically unexplained symptoms and patients with organic disease”, and that by doing away with the “controversial concept of medically unexplained”, the proposed classification might diminish the problem.

The conceptual framework the Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group currently proposes “will allow a diagnosis of somatic symptom disorder in addition to a general medical condition, whether the latter is a well-recognized organic disease or a functional somatic syndrome such as irritable bowel syndrome or chronic fatigue syndrome”.

It goes on to list a variety of different subtypes included within the diagnosis of “Psychological factors affecting a general medical condition” including a specific psychiatric disorder which affects a general medical condition; psychological distress in the wake of a general medical condition and personality traits or poor coping that contribute to worsening of a medical condition. It suggests that these might be considered in the rubric “adjustment disorders” but that the location of this type of adjustment disorder had yet to be settled within the draft of DSM-V and that the text and placement for these different variants of the interface between psychiatric and general medical disorders was still under review.

The current use of the diagnosis “Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Condition” in DSM-IV is set out here:  http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/psyfactorsmedcon.htm
  

The proposal that the concept of “medically unexplained symptoms” might usefully be eliminated is interesting as Francis Creed is currently working with EACLPP colleagues, Henningsen and Fink* on a draft white paper for the EACLPP MUS Study Group called: “Patients with medically unexplained symptoms and somatisation – a challenge for European health care systems”

A copy of the MUS Study Group working draft, which is still out for consultation, can be downloaded here:  http://www.eaclpp.org/documents/Patientswithmedicallyunexplainedsymptomsandsomatisation.doc

See section [5] of previous ME agenda posting for contact details for submission of comments to the EACLPP:

http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/the-elephant-in-the-room-series-two-more-on-mups/

Extract from draft White Paper: “Patients with medically unexplained symptoms and somatisation – a challenge for European health care systems”

Classifications

There is no simple way to classify MUS in medicine and many doctors, especially in primary care, are rather reluctant to code them at all. These facts seriously hamper recognition, research and treatment of MUS and somatisation and communication with patients and among health professionals about them.

Classification depends on two related differentiations: classification on the level of either symptoms, syndromes or disorders and classification either as physical, mental or unspecified.

Classification as a single symptom is done for instance with the ICD-9 code 780-789 “Signs, symptom and ill-defined conditions” or its equivalent in ICD-10, chapter XVIII (R00-R99). This classification is easy to use and respects the fact that, at least early in its course, it is hard to tell whether a symptom can be organically explained, or has a physical or mental nature. But it is therefore very unspecific, and it is not adequate for multiple symptoms and severe accompanying distress.

Classification as a specific functional somatic syndrome (FSS) is possible for those patients who have a constellation of (usually more than one) medically unexplained symptoms that fit with the description of this FSS. Examples are Irritable bowel syndrome(IBS), fibromyalgia (now called chronic widespread pain), chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), temporomandibular joint pain. A large proportion of patients with one FSS also meet the criteria for one or more other FSS (see: Comorbidity); fatigue, for example, is a recognised feature of both chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. This classification is used widely in somatic special care, where a major proportion of new patients are found to have a functional somatic syndrome – irritable bowel syndrome in gastroenterology, chronic widespread pain in rheumatology etc. One major advantage of terms like “FSS”, “IBS”, or “CFS” is that they are less stigmatising than the terms “somatisation” and “somatoform disorders”. It is important to note, however, that gradation of severity and a description of psychological and behavioural characteristics are not part of the description of Functional somatic syndromes.

Classification as a somatoform disorder (SFD) within the ICD-10 chapter V (F) on mental disorders and the DSM-IV. In contrast to classification as FSS, subgroups of somatoform disorders allow some gradation according to number of symptoms/severity and delineation of the subgroup with predominant health anxiety. The SFD classifications mention psychological and behavioural characteristics like preoccupation with organic disease or dysfunctional illness behaviour, but they are not operationalized for single disorder categories. This classification is more difficult to use because it requires judgements about the fact that symptoms are medically unexplained and not part of another mental disorder like depression or anxiety. The term encourages a “lumping” perspective compared to the “splitting” tendency of FSS. It is, however, disliked by many patients, in some countries more than in others, because of its implication that the MUS are part of a mental disorder. New editions of the SFD classifications in ICD-11 and DSM-V are currently under way…

Note that Fibromyalgia is referred to in this draft MUS White Paper as “now called chronic widespread pain”.

Fibromyalgia is currently classified in ICD-10 under:

M79 Other soft tissue disorders, not elsewhere classified
M79.0 Rheumatism, unspecified
Fibromyalgia
Fibrositis

*Creed, Henningsen and Fink were members of the CISSD Project.

—————————

According to the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, DSM-V Task Force member, Javier Escobar, also functions as a collaborator for the Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group.

Dr Escobar’s DSM-V Task Force member bio and COI disclosure lists the following interests:

http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Research/DSMIV/DSMV/MeettheTaskForce/JavierEscobarMDMSc.aspx

Principal Investigator and Director of the “MUPS Research Center in Primary Care”.
Associate Dean for Global Health and Professor of Psychiatry and Family Medicine at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey–Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.
Member of the National Advisory Committee for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Physicians Faculty Scholars Program.
Former senior advisor to the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in 2004.
Former member of NIMH’s National Advisory Mental Health Council.
Former advisor to the World Health Organization, Geneva.
Member of the Food and Drug Administration’s Advisory Committee on Psychiatric Drugs.
Standing member of several research review committees for the National Institutes of Health (NIMH, NIDA, and NIA) and the Veterans Administration, and other national task forces.

“Dr. Escobar has been an active researcher in the areas of clinical psychopharmacology, psychiatric epidemiology, psychiatric diagnosis, and cross-cultural medicine and Psychiatry. Currently Dr. Escobar is the principal investigator of two projects funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and also collaborates as mentor, co-investigator or consultant in several other NIH-funded projects in the areas of mental disorders in primary care, treatment of somatoform disorders, cross-cultural psychiatry, psychiatric epidemiology and development and mentoring of new psychiatric researchers. He has published more than 200 scientific articles in national and international books and journals.”

Dr. Escobar’s APA DSM-V disclosure statement declares income from or interests in Eli Lilly, Pfizer, BMS, Forest, Wyeth, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and American Association of General Psychiatry.

In 2008, a Special Report by Humberto Marin, Javier I. Escobar, MD: Unexplained Physical Symptoms What’s a Psychiatrist to Do? was published in Psychiatric Times. Vol. 25 No. 9, August 1, 2008

(Free access to full paper here: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1171223 )

Escobar and his co-author define “Functional Somatic Syndromes” (FSS) to include:

Irritable bowel syndrome, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Fibromyalgia, Multiple chemical sensitivity, Nonspecific chest pain, Premenstrual disorder, Non-ulcer dyspepsia, Repetitive strain injury, Tension headache, Temporomandibular joint disorder, Atypical facial pain, Hyperventilation syndrome, Globus syndrome, Sick building syndrome, Chronic pelvic pain, Chronic whiplash syndrome, Chronic Lyme disease, Silicone breast implant effects, Candidiasis hypersensivity, Food allergy, Gulf War syndrome, Mitral valve prolapse, Hypoglycemia, Chronic low back pain, Dizziness, Interstitial cystitis, Tinnitus, Pseudoseizures, Insomnia, Systemic yeast infection and Total allergy syndrome.

and that:

“These labels fall under the general category of functional somatic syndromes and seem more acceptable to patients because they may be perceived as less stigmatizing than psychiatric ones. However, using DSM criteria, virtually all these functional syndromes would fall into the somatoform disorders category given their phenomenology, unknown physical causes, absence of reliable markers, and the frequent coexistence of somatic and psychiatric symptoms.”

In this Special Report, the authors recommend “Rather than reassuring patients, unwarranted consultations or tests may feed their belief that they have a serious physical illness.”

That “fatigue” should be addressed with “an aerobic exercise program (eg, walking, jogging, biking, swimming) at least 4 days a week but ideally, every day…” and that clinicians should “Discourage secondary gains such as missing work or class or avoiding home chores”.

Javier Escobar was a member of the workgroup for the “Conceptual Issues in Somatoform and Similar Disorders (CISSD) Project”, co-ordinated by Dr Richard Sykes, PhD, between 2003 and 2007, and administered by UK patient organisation, Action for M.E. Recommendations and proposals resulting out of the CISSD Project have informed the APA’s development of DSM-V and fed into the revision process of ICD-10: Chapter V. The chapter on Mental and behavioural disorders in ICD-11 is to be “harmonized” for uniformity with DSM-V.

Four other members of the CISSD Project’s 24 member international Work Group (Arthur J. Barsky, Francis Creed, James L. Levenson, Michael Sharpe) have been members of the APA’s DSM-V Work Group on Somatic Symptom Disorders since 2007.

Dr Richard Sykes is now engaged in a new project -  the “London Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms and Syndromes (MUPSS) Project” in association with the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, through which funding is provided by the Hugh and Ruby Sykes Charitable Trust.  The nature, aims and objectives of this project have yet to be established.

—————————

Related links:

Psychiatric Times  maintains a page of resources for the current edition of DSM, DSM-IV, with updates, articles and commentary around the development of DSM-V.

American Psychiatric Association (APA) DSM-V revision web pages:

DSM-V: The Future Manual:

http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Research/DSMIV/DSMV.aspx

DSM Revision Activities:

http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Research/DSMIV/DSMV/DSMRevisionActivities.aspx

DSM-V Somatic Distress Disorders (Somatic Symptom Disorders) Work Group member bios and COI disclosures:

http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Research/DSMIV/DSMV/WorkGroups/SomaticDistress.aspx

Make a Suggestion:

http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Research/DSMIV/DSMV/MakeaSuggestion.aspx

 

WHO ICD revision:

ICD Revision Steering Group which includes chairs of the Topic Advisory Groups (TAGs):

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/RSG/en/index.html

ICD Update and Revision Platform Entry Page:

https://extranet.who.int/icdrevision/nr/login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2ficdrevision%2fdefault.aspx

Posted in CBT, CBT/GET, CISSD Project, Canadian Criteria, Criticism of DSM-V, DSM revision process, Elephant Series DSM-V, FINE Trial, ICD revision process, ICD-11, Institute of Psychiatry, ME in the media, MUPSS Project, MUS, NICE CFS/ME guideline, PACE Trials, Simon Wessely, WHO (World Health Organization), WHO Collaborating Centre | Comments Off

The Elephant in the Room Series Two: ICD-10 Version for 2006 Volume 3 Alphabetical Index

Posted by meagenda on June 21, 2009

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:

ICD-10, 10th Revision Version for 2006, Volume 3 Alphabetical Index

On 17 June, I received a communication from the Legal Compliance Officer for the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, in which I was advised:

“Dr Sykes’ original report, which was submitted to Action for ME and the Hugh and Ruby Sykes Charitable Trust, contained an inaccuracy, as has been previously discussed (since Chronic Fatigue Syndrome [CFS] is not listed in the main list of neurological disorders in Vol. I of ICD-10, the original report stated, wrongly, that there was no mention of CFS in ICD-10. In fact there is a mention of CFS in Vol.3, the Index).”

“…This inaccuracy was brought to the attention of Action for ME and the Hugh and Ruby Sykes Charitable Trust. The summary report (sent to you on 2 June) corrects the inaccuracy, and has been communicated to them. Dr Sykes believes that this inaccuracy makes no substantial difference to the conclusions of the report.”

This statement from Legal Compliance confirms that the unofficial CISSD Project was initiated, funded, administered and supported by Action for M.E. and co-ordinated by Dr Richard Sykes on the premise that there was no mention of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in ICD-10.

A copy of ICD-10 Volume 3 Alphabetical Index, to which the Institute of Psychiatry’s Legal Compliance Officer refers, can be accessed, via Scribd at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7350978/ICD10-2006-Alphabetical-Index-Volume-3

ICD-10

International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems

10th Revision Version for 2006

Volume 3 Alphabetical Index

(770 pages For the entry in question, see page 528, top right hand column)

The following documents are also available from the same page:

ICD 9-CM 2005

ICD-10 2006 Tabular List
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7350990/ICD10-2006-Tabular-List

Standard Coding Guideline ICD-10-TM 2006

ICD-10 [Update 2007]

———————

This statement in the original December 2007 CISSD Project report:

“Despite claims to the contrary, the classification of CFS is still an open issue. CFS and CFS/ME are not mentioned either in the latest edition of ICD (ICD-10), or in the latest edition of DSM (DSM-IV).”

was amended in the “Summary report” provided by Dr Sykes to the ME Association (published 3 June 2009) to read:

2.2 Somatoform Disorders, the International Classifications and CFS

There are still problems associated with the classification of CFS. It is true that CFS is listed under “syndrome” in Volume III, the Index, of ICD-10 and placed in G93.3, a category of neurological illness. But there remain the problems:

“(1) some psychiatrists and others contest this classification of CFS as a neurological disorder,

(2) “fatigue syndrome” is listed in ICD-10 as F48, a mental disorder – which creates the apparent anomaly that “fatigue syndrome” is a mental disorder, but “chronic fatigue syndrome” is a neurological disorder, and

(3) the classification of CFS as a neurological disorder does not seem to be fully integrated into ICD-10.

As far as I have discovered this seems to be the only reference to CFS in all the relevant ICD -10 volumes. For example, CFS is not mentioned in main Volume 1, the Tabular List, of ICD-10 – where one would expect it to be – nor is it included in the current (2007) online version of ICD-10.

It is also true that the WHO gave permission in 2004 for the UK adaptation of the WHO primary care management and diagnostic guidelines on mental health, which in this edition expanded to include some common neurological conditions. This edition of the good practice diagnostic and management guidelines follows the ICD-10 Index code for CFS as G93. It remains to be seen, however, whether this practice will be followed in ICD-11.”

The “Summary report” on the CISSD Project, published by the ME Association on 3 June, can be read here:

http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/cissd-project-report-from-dr-richard-sykes/

———————

The “Summary report” drew upon content in the December 2007 report provided to Action for M.E. at the end of the Project’s life. But some sections are worded differently and Appendix B in the December 2007 report does not appear at all in the document that has been published by the ME Association.

The full December 2007 report for Action for M.E. can be read here:

http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/the-redacted-bits-sykes-cissd-report-for-the-mea/

The CISSD Project and CFS/ME, Report on the CISSD Project (Conceptual Issues in Somatoform and Similar Disorders) for Action for ME Richard Sykes
December 2007

———————

I include some extracts, below, including the missing Appendix B, followed by a brief commentary:

[...]

CFS and the International Classifications

[...]

Despite claims to the contrary, the classification of CFS is still an open issue. CFS and CFS/ME* are not mentioned either in the latest edition of ICD (ICD-10), or in the latest edition of DSM (DSM-IV).**

[*Ed: The WHO does not use the composite term "CFS/ME" and describes NICE's use of this term as "unfortunate". **This statement was revised in the "Summary report" published by the ME Association, as set out, above.]

[...]

It is true that in 2004 permission was given by the WHO for the UK to adapt the WHO classification for the purposes of Primary Care in the UK and that on this basis a classification has been produced for use in the UK which lists CFS and CFS/ME as a neurological disorder. While many consider that this is a step in the right direction, this classification is a UK adaptation only and has not been formally adopted by the WHO. It has no validity in other countries. No formal decision has yet been made by the WHO and it is still an open question what the official WHO classification of CFS and CFS/ME will be in the next revision. (See also App B.)

[Ed: This statement was also revised in the "Summary report" published by the ME Association, see above.]

[...]

In addition to coordinating the CISSD project and taking part in the CISSD workshops, my own activities have included travel to meet the main international figures involved in these issues and the organization of a separate workshop on CISSD topics as part of an international conference in Croatia. In addition I gave two presentations at that workshop and further presentations at two other international conferences (in Germany and The Netherlands) and at professional conferences in London*, Oxford and Leeds (See App C). I have also produced the co-ordinator’s report on the project.

[Ed: *Melvin Ramsay Society Meeting, April 2007, attended by Dr Charles Shepherd, ME Association, who also gave a presentation. The presentation given by Dr Richard Sykes: "Conceptual Issues in the Classification of ME/CFS" and the Meeting Agenda were advertised by the ME Association on their website.]

[...]

While it is not a foregone conclusion that in the next international revisions CFS will be classified as a “general medical condition” or physical disorder and not as a mental disorder, the CISSD project will increased the likelihood that CFS and CFS/ME* will be so classified.

[*Ed: WHO ICD does not use the composite term CFS/ME.]

[...]

[Ed: Notes 1-3 do appear in the June '09 "Summary report" published by the ME Association but are included here, for context.]

Notes

Note 1, I am most appreciative of the help given by Professor John Bradfield, former Professor of Histopathology at Bristol University, in compiling this report. In addition, he has made numerous other most valuable contributions as Project Advisor to the CISSD Project.

Note 2. There are, most confusingly, a few exceptions to this rule in ICD-10. For example, Irritable Bowel Syndrome is classified both as a disorder of the Digestive System (K 58) and as a Somatoform Autonomic Function Disorder (F45.32) – a mental disorder.

Note 3. The situation is more complex in ICD-10, since ICD-10 includes, besides Somatoform Disorders, a further possible pigeonhole for CFS/ME. This is the subcategory of “Neurasthenia” which ICD-10 includes in addition to the category of Somatoform Disorders. While the project did not specifically address the problems associated with Neurasthenia, there are some strong objections to the subcategory of Neurasthenia and it is possible that this subcategory will be omitted in the next revision of ICD-10.

CFS and CFS/ME are not listed in ICD-10* and of the 4 related conditions that are listed (post-viral fatigue syndrome, benign myalgic encephalomyelitis, neurasthenia, fatigue syndrome), 2 are listed as neurological disorders and 2 as mental disorders. On the one hand “post-viral fatigue syndrome” is classified as a neurological disorder with the code number G33.3 [sic]. In CDDG this is said to include “benign myalgic encephalomyelitis”. Although the adjective  “benign” has long since been dropped and although most users of the term ME now say that ME should stand for Myalgic Encephalopathy, rather than Myalgic Encephalomyelitis** (since there is no evidence of encephalomyelitis), this would appear to be a good reason for saying that ME is implicitly classified as a neurological disorder. (Since G33.4 [sic] is the code for encephalopathy, it would seem that this code rather than G33.3 [sic] is now the more appropriate code for ME.***)

[...]

Appendix B How does the WHO currently classify CFS/ME?

“CFS/ME” (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis or Myalgic Encephalopathy) is the composite name used by the UK Department of Health and other organizations to refer to a condition that has been named and defined in a variety of ways. Generally speaking, “CFS” tends to be preferred by health professionals, “ME” by patients.

Background

The main WHO (World Health Organization) classification of diseases and disorders is the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and related Health Problems (ICD). This classification is a classification of all disorders and related health problems and contains one chapter, chapter V, which is concerned solely with “mental and behavioural disorders”. The classification is revised periodically: the latest revision is the tenth revision (ICD-10) which was published in 3 volumes; Vol P A Tabular List in 1992, Vol 2: Instruction Manual in 1993 and Vol 3: Index in 1994.

Also produced from 1992 onwards was a separate series of volumes that dealt solely with mental and behavioural disorders, the subject of chapter V of ICD. Although the glossary provided by chapter V of ICD was considered adequate for use by coders or clerical workers, it was not recommended for use by health professionals. The first and central volume of the additional series was The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines (CDDG), produced in 1992, which was intended for general clinical, educational and service use. (Other volumes in this series included The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. Diagnostic Criteria for Research (DCR), and Diagnostic and Management Guidelines for Mental Disorders in Primary Care; ICD-10 Chapter V Primary Care Version.)

Is CFS/ME classified as a neurological or as a mental disorder in ICD-10?

[Ed: *This statement has been corrected in the "Summary report" published by the ME Association.

**Dr Sykes provides no supporting evidence for this statement.

***Dr Sykes provides no medical evidence to support his proposal that it would be more appropriate for "Myalgic Encephalopathy" to be classified at the same coding as "Encephalopathy" (G93.4), rather than at G93.3, where "Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis" has been coded for many years.]

On the other hand “neurasthenia” is classified as a neurotic disorder with the code number F48.0 and CDDG states that this includes “fatigue syndrome”. So it could be argued that CFS should be classified as a neurotic, and hence, a mental disorder. A case could also be made for coding some cases of CFS as F45 Somatoform Disorders, either as F45.1, the code for Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder or as F45:3, the code for Somatoform Autonomic Dysfunction, or as F45.9, the code for Somatoform Disorder, Unspecified. All these are codes for mental disorders.

This presents a problem for CFS/ME. If ME is stressed, then it could be argued that CFS/ME should be classified as a physical disorder, since benign myalgic encephalomyelitis is classified as a neurological disorder. On the other hand, if Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is stressed then it could be argued that CFS/ME should be classified as a mental disorder, since fatigue syndrome is classified as a neurotic disorder.

Developments since 1992

In 2004 the WHO Guide to Mental and Neurological Health in Primary Care, Second Edition, was published by the Royal Society of Medicine Press. This was described on the cover and in the frontispiece as “Adapted for the UK, with permission, from Diagnostic and Management Guidelines for Mental Disorders in Primary Care: ICD-10 Chapter V Primary Care Version”.

In this volume the main term used is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), which is said to be also referred to as ME (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis or Myalgic Encephalopathy) or as CFS/ME, and this is coded as G93.3. G.93.3 is the code for post-viral fatigue syndrome, a neurological disorder.

So does this settle the matter? Is CFS/ME now officially classified by the WHO as a neurological, not as a mental disorder?

Unfortunately the matter is not quite so simple, for a number of reasons. In the first place the 2004 publication is described as “adapted for the UK, with permission”. This means that it is not applicable in countries outside the UK, in Germany or France etc.. It does not have international applicability. Secondly, even in the UK it applies only to Primary Care (GP level). It does not claim to be applicable to Secondary Care (hospital level).

Thirdly, even in the UK it does not claim to be an official WHO classification. It is an initiative of the UK WHO Collaborating Centre, one of many of the Collaborating Centres worldwide, and is backed by the English Department of Health and a number of other organizations and individuals. It is not an authoritative WHO classification but is intended simply to provide helpful recommendations which UK GPs may use or not use as they wish. In the UK a GP may use any of a number of competing classifications. These include the International Classification of Health Problems in Primary Care (ICHPPP), the Read Codes, and a triaxial classification. They can also choose not to use a classification system at all.

Summary

“CFS” and “CFS/ME” are not listed in ICD-10 and this leaves room for debate as to how they should be listed. The UK WHO Collaborating Centre, with the support of the Department of Health and other organizations, proposed in 2004 that they should be coded as G33.3 [sic], the code for a neurological disorder. These proposals are undoubtedly encouraging for the ME patients’ organizations, who will hope that this initiative will be confirmed in the next revision of ICD-10, but they are not yet official recommendations by the WHO. There remains confusion and debate about how CFS/ME fits in to the official WHO classification.

A note on DSM-IV.

DSM-IV is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, produced by the American Psychiatric Association. It has been extensively researched and is in widespread use worldwide.

In DSM-IV there is equally no mention of CFS, but neurasthenia is mentioned and is subsumed under Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder, one of the Somatoform  Disorders. There is an extensive overlap between the symptoms of neurasthenia and of CFS and consequently some argue that this is where CFS should be placed. Against this it could be argued that CFS or ME or CFS/ME should be classified as G93.3 in ICD and hence should not have a place in a manual of mental disorders at all.

So for DSM-IV, too, there is the same uncertainty as to how CFS/ME should be classified.

[Extracts end]

Since the WHO doesn’t use and doesn’t like the composite term “CFS/ME” – it’s all rather muddled, isn’t it? And when presenting to the Ramsay Society meeting, in 2007, around the work of the CISSD Project, Dr Sykes used “ME/CFS”.

Read the review paper published by the CISSD Project leads in July 2007 (Psychosomatics) and you would not know that ME existed as a term in ICD; there is not a single mention of “CFS/ME” or “ME/CFS” or of existing ME and PVFS codings, because ICD and ICD codings are not mentioned at all, and “chronic fatigue syndrome” is only mentioned in passing as one of the so-called “Functional Somatic Syndromes”.

But the Project was described by Action for M.E. in 2006 as the “WHO Somatisation Project” and that “This grant is provided to help lobby the World Health Organisation for the recognition of M.E. and its re-catergorisation as a physical illness”.

What did Action for M.E. understand by that statement? What does it understand, now?

Dr Sykes has published no commentary on the most recent proposals of the DSM-V Somatic Symptoms Disorders Work Group.

In addition to the misconception around Volume 3, there are also other errors in the December 2007 report to Action for M.E. There are several instances in Appendix B where “G33.3″ and “G33.4″ have been used where this should have been “G93.3″ and (presumably) “G93.4″ (the classification code for Encephalopathy).

When Dr Sykes provides the Institute of Psychiatry’s Legal Compliance Officer with an authorised version of the text of the December 2007 report in order to  fulfil my outstanding request for information under the FOI Act, it is hoped that Dr Sykes will have acted on my suggestion that the document is accompanied by a Erratum Notice which addresses the errors and misconceptions in his original report.

One of the recommendations of the CISSD Project workgroup was support for the APA and WHO’s commitment “…to facilitate the achievement of the highest possible extent of uniformity and harmonization between ICD-11 mental and behavioural disorders and DSM-V disorders and their diagnostic criteria” with the objective that “the WHO and APA should make all attempts to ensure that in their core versions, the category names, glossary descriptions and criteria are  identical for ICD and DSM.”

It is worth noting that alliances of rare diseases patient organisations are already actively engaged in dialogue with  the ICD Rare Diseases Topic Advisory Group as it works on its proposals towards ICD-11.

But we have two chapters of ICD-11 to monitor – Chapter VI (G93.3 codes) and Chapter V: Mental and Behavioural Disorders (F45-F48 codes).

The chapter on ICD Mental and Behavioural Disorders is to be harmonized with DSM-V.

The target date for the release of DSM-V is 2012 and some field trials are expected to start this summer.

How many of our UK and international ME advocacy groups, patient organisations,  ME clinicians and researchers are currently engaged in dialogue with the APA and the WHO over the revisions of these complex and enmeshed classification systems?

———————

For the most recent update on the progress of the DSM-V Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group:
http://tinyurl.com/DSMSDDWGApril09

For a more expansive report on the progress of this Work Group:

The proposed diagnosis of somatic symptom disorders in DSM-V to replace somatoform disorders in DSM-IV – a preliminary report  Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Editorial: June 2009
Joel Dimsdale and Francis Creed on behalf of the DSM Workgroup on Somatic Symptom Disorders
http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(09)00088-9/fulltext

(See section: “Psychological factor affecting general medical condition”)

For The Status of the CISSD Project unscrambled:
http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/the-elephant-in-the-room-series-two-status-of-the-cissd-project-unscrambled /

For WHO statement on the use of the composite term “CFS/ME” see paragraph eight:
ME/CFS: TERMINOLOGY, Margaret Williams, 27 April 2009

http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/ME_CFS_TERMINOLOGY.htm

Psychiatric Times  maintains a page of resources for the current edition of DSM, DSM-IV, with updates, articles and commentary around the development of DSM-V.

Posted in AfME, Action for M.E., CBT/GET, CISSD Project, Criticism of DSM-V, Elephant Series DSM-V, Freedom of Information, GWS, ICD revision process, Institute of Psychiatry, ME Association, MUPSS Project, MUS, NICE, NICE CFS/ME guideline, WHO (World Health Organization), WHO Collaborating Centre, WHO Somatisation Project | Comments Off

The Elephant in the Room Series Two: Status of the CISSD Project unscrambled

Posted by meagenda on June 10, 2009

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: Status of the CISSD Project unscrambled

10 June 2009

This posting is intended to unscramble the status and authority of the CISSD Project.

1] The official APA DSM-V Work Group tasked with developing proposals towards the revision of the current DSM-IV section for “Somatoform Disorders” (code categories 300.xx) is the

The DSM-V “Somatic Distress Disorders” Work Group

This is one of 13 DSM-V Work Groups announced by the APA in May 2008. The APA is also using a considerable number of external advisors to the DSM-V Task Force and to individual Work Groups, whose names are not being released.

You might also see this committee referred to by the APA as the Somatic Symptom Disorders (SSD) Work Group or the Somatic Symptoms Workgroup (SSW).

Its members (with bios and Conflict of Interest Disclosures) are listed here on the APA’s website:

http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Research/DSMIV/DSMV/WorkGroups/SomaticDistress.aspx

The most recent update on the progress of this Work Group is this one:

http://tinyurl.com/DSMSDDWGApril09

The April 2009 Report of the DSM-V Somatic Distress Disorders Work Group

A more expansive report on the progress of this Work Group is here:

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

The proposed diagnosis of somatic symptom disorders in DSM-V to replace somatoform disorders in DSM-IV – a preliminary report Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Editorial: June 2009: Joel Dimsdale and Francis Creed on behalf of the DSM Workgroup on Somatic Symptom Disorders Journal of Psychosom Research, Volume 66, Issue 6, Pages 473-476 (June 2009)
 
A PDF of this Editorial is also available.

See relevant section under: “Psychological factor affecting general medical condition”

————————————-

2] More information on the APA’s DSM-V revision process can be found here:

http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Research/DSMIV/DSMV.aspx

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) DSM revision process has been underway since 1999. The target date for the final, approved version of DSM-V is May 2012.

Field trials of some of the new diagnostic criteria are expected to begin in October 2009.

The APA participates with the WHO in a DSM-ICD Harmonization Coordination Group.

The task of this group is “to facilitate the achievement of the highest possible extent of uniformity and harmonization between ICD-11 mental and behavioural disorders and DSM-V disorders and their diagnostic criteria” with the objective that “the WHO and APA should make all attempts to ensure that in their core versions, the category names, glossary descriptions and criteria are identical for ICD and DSM.”

————————————-

3] The WHO is revising the classification of its chapter on Mental and Behavioural Disorders (currently Chapter V) as part of the overall revision of ICD-10, a process that has been underway since April 2007.

Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD):

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/ICDRevision/en/index.html

The most recent timeline was published in March 2008:

“The Alpha draft version of ICD-11 should be completed in 2010, followed by 1 year for commentary and consultation.
The Beta draft version should be completed in 2011, followed by field trials, analysis of field trial data, and revision during the subsequent 2 years. The final version for public viewing should be completed in 2013, with approval by the World Health Assembly in 2014.”

So the timelines for DSM-V and ICD-11 are not running entirely in parallel.

The classifications for ICD-10 Somatoform Disorders are currently under Chapter V: Mental and Behavioural Disorders (F45-F48 codes) here:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/index.htm?gF40.htm+F454

The classifications for ICD-10 Diseases of the nervous system (G00-G99); Other disorders of the nervous system (G90-99) are here:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gg90.htm+g933

For the purpose of revision of WHO ICD-10 Chapter V: Mental and Behavioural Disorders, a number of committees have been established:

International Advisory Group (AG) for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders

Sub committees:

Global Scientific Partnership Coordination Group
Stakeholder Input and Partnership Coordination Group
Global Health Practice Network (GHPN)
DSM-ICD Harmonization Coordination Group

For the International Advisory Group (AG) for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders Terms of Reference and members see:

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/TagMH/en/index.html

The most recent meeting of the Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders was held in Geneva on 1-2 December 2008. The WHO has yet to publish a summary of this meeting. [Ed: Update: Summary Report has since been published on 18 September 2009, see: http://wp.me/p5foE-21S ]

————————————-

4] The CISSD Project ran from 2003 to 2007, that is, before the DSM Work Groups were announced.

The full name of the CISSD Project is:

The Conceptual Issues in Somatoform and Similar Disorders Project

The Project was initiated by Dr Richard Sykes, PhD, chaired by Professor Kurt Kroenke (US Chair) and Professor Michael Sharpe (UK Chair). It comprised an organising committee and a workgroup of 28 members with a large number of additional advisors to the Project. It held three workshops in 2005-2006.

Action for M.E. were the principal administrators for the CISSD Project and received one retrospective payment of £1750 in administration fees.

The Principal Collaborator was Rachel Jenkins, Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, London, to which Dr Sykes is affiliated.

From 2003, Dr Sykes was an “Honorary Member” of the WHO Collaborating Centre. He is now attached to the WHO Collaborating Centre as a “Visiting Research Associate” and is currently engaged on the London Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms and Syndromes Project (MUPSS) for which he receives funding of £27,000 per year.

The CISSD Project received three years funding from the Hugh and Ruby Sykes Charitable Trust and was completed in October 2007.

The paper: Kroenke K: Somatoform disorders and recent diagnostic controversies. Psychiatr Clin North Am 2007 Dec;30(4):593-619. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17938036

contains the caveat:

“Although the CISSD is an ad hoc group that includes many international experts on somatoform disorders, it was neither appointed nor sanctioned by the APA or WHO, the organizations authorized to approve revisions of DSM and ICD, respectively. As such, the CISSD recommendations should be considered advisory rather than official. Also, there were some suggestions for which the CISSD achieved near consensus but other issues where opinions diverged considerably.”

Recommendations and proposals resulting out of the work of the CISSD Project have fed into the DSM-V revision process. Proposals have also been submitted to the WHO ICD Update and Revision Platform to the Topic Advisory Group Mental Health (TAGMH) section by Dr Sykes, specifically in respect of F45-F48 codes. No proposals appear to have been submitted by Dr Sykes to any other Topic Advisory Group (TAG) via the ICD Update and Revision Platform.

There are three documents relevant to the work of this unofficial CISSD Project:

a) In July 2007, the CISSD Project leads published the following review paper:

Review: Kroenke K, Sharpe M, Sykes R: Revising the Classification of Somatoform Disorders: Key Questions and Preliminary Recommendations. Psychosomatics 2007 Jul-Aug;48(4):277-85.

FREE Text: http://psy.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/48/4/277

A PDF is also available.

This paper was presented to the APA in 2007 and also presented to the WHO.

In April 2006, eight papers resulting out of the proceedings of the first CISSD Project Workshop (London, 20 May 2005) were published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research. The Editor of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research is Francis Creed, a CISSD Project Work Group member and now a member of the APA’s DSM-V Somatic Distress Disorders Work Group.

 

b) In December 2007, Dr Richard Sykes presented his “Final Report” to the Project’s principal administrators, Action for M.E.

The CISSD Project and CFS/ME   Report on the CISSD Project for Action for M.E.

Richard Sykes (Report to be read in conjunction with the Co-ordinator’s Final Report) December 2007

Neither of these two documents has been published by Action for M.E.

Unofficial texts of the December 2007 “Final Report” and the “Co-ordinator’s Final Report” to Action for M.E. were placed in the public domain on 8 June.

The text of these documents can be accessed at:

http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/the-redacted-bits-sykes-cissd-report-for-the-mea/ 

and also from http://www.meactionuk.org.uk

When the original versions of the reports held by Action for M.E. and the Institute of Psychiatry have been made available these will be added to ME agenda site.

* Note that within the text of the “Final Report”, ICD code G33.3 appears where one would expect this to have been G93.3 and G33.4 where one would expect G93.4.

 

c) On 3 June 2009, the ME Association published a “Summary Report” of the CISSD Project in association with Dr Richard Sykes.

THE CISSD PROJECT 2003-2007  (Conceptual Issues in Somatoform and Similar Disorders)
SUMMARY REPORT

This document can be read on the ME Association’s website here:

http://www.meassociation.org.uk/content/view/878/161/ 

and on ME agenda site, with brief commentary, here:

http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/cissd-project-report-from-dr-richard-sykes/

Although the material published by the ME Association “Summary Report” on 3 June, on behalf of Dr Richard Sykes, draws on his December 2007 “Final Report” to Action for M.E. it cannot be considered a substitute.

Important content, which includes an entire appendix devoted to discussion of current and potential future ICD codings and classifications has been omitted from the material published on the ME Association’s website (see Appendix B in the “Final Report”).

The text of the redacted Appendix B and full CISSD Project Final Reports to Action for M.E. can be read here:

http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/the-redacted-bits-sykes-cissd-report-for-the-mea/ 

Although the CISSD Project workgroup comprised many very influential and internationally published researchers and clinicians from the field of psychiatry and psychosomatics, five of whom are now directly involved with the DSM revision process as members of the Task Force and “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group, I hope this compilation will serve to clarify:

  • that the work of the CISSD group was not sanctioned or authorised by the APA or the WHO;
  • that recommendations and proposals published in the name of the CISSD Project should be considered proposals only and do not have the authority of the APA or the WHO;
  • that although there were suggestions for which the CISSD workgroup achieved near consensus, there were other issues where opinions diverged considerably.

——————–

DSM-V and ICD-11 Directory page:  http://meagenda.wordpress.com/dsm-v-directory/

Psychiatric Times maintains a page of resources for the current edition of DSM, DSM-IV, with updates, articles and commentary around the development of DSM-V.

Posted in AfME, Action for M.E., CBT, CBT/GET, CISSD Project, Criticism of DSM-V, DSM revision process, Elephant Series DSM-V, Freedom of Information, ICD revision process, Institute of Psychiatry, ME Association, MUPSS Project, MUS, PACE Trials, Professor Peter White, Simon Wessely, WHO (World Health Organization), WHO Collaborating Centre, WHO Somatisation Project | Comments Off

The redacted bits (Sykes’ CISSD report for the MEA)

Posted by meagenda on June 8, 2009

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

 

If you have arrived at this site via a link on a CFS related Wikipedia article or Talk page please read this posting first:

http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/the-elephant-in-the-room-series-two-status-of-the-cissd-project-unscrambled/

The redacted bits (Richard Sykes’ CISSD report for the MEA)

This Report on the CISSD Project, dated December 2007, and the Co-ordinators’ Report are published as provided.  ME agenda accepts no responsibility for errors or omissions in unauthorised versions of these documents.  The copy below will be replaced by an authorised copy once this has been provided.

The CISSD Project and CFS/ME

Report on the CISSD Project

(Conceptual Issues in Somatoform and Similar Disorders)

for Action for ME   Richard Sykes

(Report to be read in conjunction with the Co-ordinator’s Final Report)

“An international and expert project supported by AfME”

December 2007

 

Open Word document here or read extracts, below:

CISSD Final Report to AfME 2007

 

Extracts from document: Report on the CISSD Project December 2007

[...]

CFS and the International Classifications

[...]

Despite claims to the contrary, the classification of CFS is still an open issue. CFS and CFS/ME* are not mentioned either in the latest edition of ICD (ICD-10), or in the latest edition of DSM (DSM-IV).**

[*Ed: WHO ICD does not use composite terms such as CFS/ME.]

[**See Footnote 1 for amendment to this statement.]

It is true that in 2004 permission was given by the WHO for the UK to adapt the WHO classification for the purposes of Primary Care in the UK and that on this basis a classification has been produced for use in the UK which lists CFS and CFS/ME as a neurological disorder. While many consider that this is a step in the right direction, this classification is a UK adaptation only and has not been formally adopted by the WHO. It has no validity in other countries. No formal decision has yet been made by the WHO and it is still an open question what the official WHO classification of CFS and CFS/ME will be in the next revision. (See also App B.)

[Ed: The text in the June '09  "Summary report" published by the ME Association reads:

"It is also true that the WHO gave permission in 2004 for the UK adaptation of the WHO primary care management and diagnostic guidelines on mental health, which in this edition expanded to include some common neurological conditions. This edition of the good practice diagnostic and management guidelines follows the ICD-10 Index code for CFS as G93. It remains to be seen, however, whether this practice will be followed in ICD-11."]

Redacted material

[...]

In addition to coordinating the CISSD project and taking part in the CISSD workshops, my own activities have included travel to meet the main international figures involved in these issues and the organization of a separate workshop on CISSD topics as part of an international conference in Croatia. In addition I gave two presentations at that workshop and further presentations at two other international conferences (in Germany and The Netherlands) and at professional conferences in London*, Oxford and Leeds (See App C). I have also produced the co-ordinator’s report on the project.

[Ed: Melvin Ramsay Society Annual Meeting, April 2007, attended by Dr Charles Shepherd, ME Association, who also gave a presentation.  The presentation given by Dr Richard Sykes: "Conceptual Issues in the Classification of ME/CFS" and the Meeting Agenda were advertised by the ME Association on their website.]

[...]

While it is not a foregone conclusion that in the next international revisions CFS will be classified as a “general medical condition” or physical disorder and not as a mental disorder, the CISSD project will increased the likelihood that CFS and CFS/ME* will be so classified.

[*Ed: WHO ICD does not use composite terms such as CFS/ME.]

[...]

[Ed: Notes 1-3 do appear in the June '09  "Summary report" published by the ME Association but are included here, for context.]

Notes

Note 1, I am most appreciative of the help given by Professor John Bradfield, former Professor of Histopathology at Bristol University, in compiling this report. In addition, he has made numerous other most valuable contributions as Project Advisor to the CISSD Project.

Note 2. There are, most confusingly, a few exceptions to this rule in ICD-10. For example, Irritable Bowel Syndrome is classified both as a disorder of the Digestive System (K 58) and as a Somatoform Autonomic Function Disorder (F45.32) – a mental disorder.

Note 3. The situation is more complex in ICD-10, since ICD-10 includes, besides Somatoform Disorders, a further possible pigeonhole for CFS/ME*. This is the subcategory of “Neurasthenia” which ICD-10 includes in addition to the category of Somatoform Disorders. While the project did not specifically address the problems associated with Neurasthenia, there are some strong objections to the subcategory of Neurasthenia and it is possible that this subcategory will be omitted in the next revision of ICD-10.

[*Ed: WHO ICD does not use composite terms such as CFS/ME.]

Appendices

Appendix A Somatoform Disorders in DSM-IV

[Ed. Appendix A appears as Appendix D in the June '09  "Summary report" published by the ME Association and is being repeated, here, for context)]

DSM-IV introduces the category of Somatoform Disorders in the following way:* “The common feature of the Somatoform Disorders is the presence of physical symptoms that suggest a general medical condition (hence the tern somatoform) and are not fully explained by a general medical condition, by the direct effects of a substance, or by another mental disorder…

The grouping of these disorders in a single section is based on clinical utility rather than on assumptions regarding shared aetiology or mechanism.”

The individual somatoform disorders are introduced as follows:*

“Somatization Disorder (historically referred to as hysteria or Briquet’s syndrome) is a polysymptomatic disorder that begins before age 30 years, extends over a period of years and is characterized by a combination of pain, gastrointestinal, sexual, and pseudoneurological symptoms.

Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder is characterized by unexplained physical complaints, lasting at least 6 months, that are below the threshold for a diagnosis of Somatization Disorder.

Conversion Disorder involves unexplained symptoms or deficits affecting voluntary motor or sensory functions that suggest a neurological or other general medical condition. Psychological factors are judged to be associated with the symptoms or deficits.

Pain Disorder is characterized by pain as the predominant focus of clinical attention. In addition psychological factors are judged to have an important role in its onset, severity, exacerbation or maintenance.

Hypochondriasis is the preoccupation with the fear of having, or the idea that one has, a serious disease based on the person’s misinterpretation of bodily symptoms or bodily functions.

Body Dysmorphic Disorder is the preoccupation with an imagined or exaggerated defect in physical appearance.

Somatoform Disorder Not Otherwise Specified is included for coding disorders with somatoform symptoms that do not meet the criteria for any of the specific Somatoform Disorders.”

*From Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Washington, DC. American Psychiatric Association, 1994.

(The characterisation of Somatoform Disorders in ICD-10 is along the same lines though there are some important differences.)

[Ed: The following text, originally "Appendix B", in the December 2007 document was omitted from the "Summary report" published by the ME Association on 3 June.]

Appendix B How does the WHO currently classify CFS/ME*?

[*Ed: WHO ICD does not use composite terms such as CFS/ME.]

“CFS/ME” (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis or Myalgic Encephalopathy) is the composite name used by the UK Department of Health and other organizations to refer to a condition that has been named and defined in a variety of ways. Generally speaking, “CFS” tends to be preferred by health professionals, “ME” by patients.

Background

The main WHO (World Health Organization) classification of diseases and disorders is the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and related Health Problems (ICD). This classification is a classification of all disorders and related health problems and contains one chapter, chapter V, which is concerned solely with “mental and behavioural disorders”. The classification is revised periodically: the latest revision is the tenth revision (ICD-10) which was published in 3 volumes; Vol P A Tabular List in 1992, Vol 2: Instruction Manual in 1993 and Vol 3: Index in 1994.

Also produced from 1992 onwards was a separate series of volumes that dealt solely with mental and behavioural disorders, the subject of chapter V of ICD. Although the glossary provided by chapter V of ICD was considered adequate for use by coders or clerical workers, it was not recommended for use by health professionals. The first and central volume of the additional series was The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines (CDDG), produced in 1992, which was intended for general clinical, educational and service use. (Other volumes in this series included The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. Diagnostic Criteria for Research (DCR), and Diagnostic and Management Guidelines for Mental Disorders in Primary Care; ICD-10 Chapter V Primary Care Version.)

Is CFS/ME classified as a neurological or as a mental disorder in ICD-10?

CFS and CFS/ME are not listed in ICD-10* and of the 4 related conditions that are listed (post-viral fatigue syndrome, benign myalgic encephalomyelitis, neurasthenia, fatigue syndrome), 2 are listed as neurological disorders and 2 as mental disorders. On the one hand “post-viral fatigue syndrome” is classified as a neurological disorder with the code number G33.3 [sic]. In CDDG this is said to include “benign myalgic encephalomyelitis”. Although the adjective “benign” has long since been dropped and although most users of the term ME now say that ME should stand for Myalgic Encephalopathy, rather than Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (since there is no evidence of encephalomyelitis)**, this would appear to be a good reason for saying that ME is implicitly classified as a neurological disorder. (Since G33.4 [sic] is the code for encephalopathy, it would seem that this code rather than G33.3 [sic] is now the more appropriate code for ME.***)

[Ed: *This statement has been corrected in the "Summary report" published by the ME Association. **Dr Sykes provides no supportive evidence for this statement. ***Dr Sykes provides no medical evidence to support the classification of "Myalgic Encephalopathy" at the same coding as "Encephalopathy" (currently coded in ICD-10 at G93.4, not at G33.4 as the document states).]

On the other hand “neurasthenia” is classified as a neurotic disorder with the code number F48.0 and CDDG states that this includes “fatigue syndrome”. So it could be argued that CFS should be classified as a neurotic, and hence, a mental disorder. A case could also be made for coding some cases of CFS as F45 Somatoform Disorders, either as F45.1, the code for Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder or as F45:3, the code for Somatoform Autonomic Dysfunction, or as F45.9, the code for Somatoform Disorder, Unspecified. All these are codes for mental disorders.

This presents a problem for CFS/ME. If ME is stressed, then it could be argued that CFS/ME should be classified as a physical disorder, since benign myalgic encephalomyelitis is classified as a neurological disorder. On the other hand, if Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is stressed then it could be argued that CFS/ME should be classified as a mental disorder, since fatigue syndrome is classified as a neurotic disorder.

Developments since 1992

In 2004 the WHO Guide to Mental and Neurological Health in Primary Care, Second Edition, was published by the Royal Society of Medicine Press. This was described on the cover and in the frontispiece as “Adapted for the UK, with permission, from Diagnostic and Management Guidelines for Mental Disorders in Primary Care: ICD-10 Chapter V Primary Care Version“.

In this volume the main term used is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), which is said to be also referred to as ME (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis or Myalgic Encephalopathy) or as CFS/ME, and this is coded as G93.3. G.93.3 is the code for post-viral fatigue syndrome, a neurological disorder.

So does this settle the matter? Is CFS/ME* now officially classified by the WHO as a neurological, not as a mental disorder?

[*Ed: WHO ICD does not use composite terms such as CFS/ME.]

Unfortunately the matter is not quite so simple, for a number of reasons. In the first place the 2004 publication is described as “adapted for the UK, with permission”. This means that it is not applicable in countries outside the UK, in Germany or France etc.. It does not have international applicability. Secondly, even in the UK it applies only to Primary Care (GP level). It does not claim to be applicable to Secondary Care (hospital level).

Thirdly, even in the UK it does not claim to be an official WHO classification. It is an initiative of the UK WHO Collaborating Centre, one of many of the Collaborating Centres worldwide, and is backed by the English Department of Health and a number of other organizations and individuals. It is not an authoritative WHO classification but is intended simply to provide helpful recommendations which UK GPs may use or not use as they wish. In the UK a GP may use any of a number of competing classifications. These include the International Classification of Health Problems in Primary Care (ICHPPP), the Read Codes, and a triaxial classification. They can also choose not to use a classification system at all.

Summary

“CFS” and “CFS/ME” are not listed in ICD-10 and this leaves room for debate as to how they should be listed. The UK WHO Collaborating Centre, with the support of the Department of Health and other organizations, proposed in 2004 that they should be coded as G33.3 [sic], the code for a neurological disorder. These proposals are undoubtedly encouraging for the ME patients’ organizations, who will hope that this initiative will be confirmed in the next revision of ICD-10, but they are not yet official recommendations by the WHO. There remains confusion and debate about how CFS/ME fits in to the official WHO classification.

A note on DSM-IV.

DSM-IV is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, produced by the American Psychiatric Association. It has been extensively researched and is in widespread use worldwide.

In DSM-IV there is equally no mention of CFS, but neurasthenia is mentioned and is subsumed under Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder, one of the Somatoform Disorders. There is an extensive overlap between the symptoms of neurasthenia and of CFS and consequently some argue that this is where CFS should be placed. Against this it could be argued that CFS or ME or CFS/ME should be classified as G93.3 in ICD and hence should not have a place in a manual of mental disorders at all.

So for DSM-IV, too, there is the same uncertainty as to how CFS/ME should be classified.

[...]

Footnote [1]  This statement was amended in the “Summary report” published by the ME Association on 3 June to read:

2.2 Somatoform Disorders, the International Classifications and CFS

There are still problems associated with the classification of CFS. It is true that CFS is listed under “syndrome” in Volume III, the Index, of ICD-10 and placed in G93.3, a category of neurological illness. But there remain the problems:

(1) some psychiatrists and others contest this classification of CFS as a neurological disorder,

(2) “fatigue syndrome” is listed in ICD-10 as F48, a mental disorder – which creates the apparent anomaly that “fatigue syndrome” is a mental disorder, but “chronic fatigue syndrome” is a neurological disorder, and

(3) the classification of CFS as a neurological disorder does not seem to be fully integrated into ICD-10.

As far as I have discovered this seems to be the only reference to CFS in all the relevant ICD -10 volumes. For example, CFS is not mentioned in main Volume 1, the Tabular List, of ICD-10 – where one would expect it to be – nor is it included in the current (2007) online version of ICD-10.

It is also true that the WHO gave permission in 2004 for the UK adaptation of the WHO primary care management and diagnostic guidelines on mental health, which in this edition expanded to include some common neurological conditions. This edition of the good practice diagnostic and management guidelines follows the ICD-10 Index code for CFS as G93. It remains to be seen, however, whether this practice will be followed in ICD-11.

 

Co-ordinators’ Final Report

THE CISSD PROJECT 2003-2007

(Conceptual Issues in Somatoform and Similar Disorders)

FINAL REPORT OF CO-ORDINATOR (Richard Sykes PhD, CQSW)

Open document here in Word format: CISSD PROJECT Coordinators Final Report

—————————-

For further information around ICD codings and for comparison of current DSM and ICD-10 (Chapter V)  “Somatoform Disorder” codings and classifications see document: DSM-IV ICD-10 Classifications

For comparison of current DSM and ICD-10 (Chapter V) “Somatoform Disorder” codings in greater detail see document: DSM and ICD Somatoform Comparison

For copy of the ME Association version of Dr Sykes’ CISSD Report see previous posting: http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/cissd-project-report-from-dr-richard-sykes/

DSM-V and ICD-11 Directory page:  http://meagenda.wordpress.com/dsm-v-directory/

Psychiatric Times  maintains a page of resources for the current edition of DSM, DSM-IV, with updates, articles and commentary around the development of DSM-V.

Posted in AfME, Action for M.E., CISSD Project, Criticism of DSM-V, Elephant Series DSM-V, Freedom of Information, ICD revision process, Institute of Psychiatry, ME Association, MUPSS Project, MUS, WHO (World Health Organization), WHO Collaborating Centre, WHO Somatisation Project | Comments Off