1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 1st March 2021 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease: Three Distinct Clinical Entities; 2018; Twisk

Discussion in 'BioMedical ME/CFS Research' started by Eagles, Apr 13, 2018.

  1. Eagles

    Eagles Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    2,757
    Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease: Three Distinct Clinical Entities

    Frank N.M. Twisk

    http://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/9/1/19
     
    Melanie, Forbin, Skycloud and 9 others like this.
  2. TigerLilea

    TigerLilea Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    6,105
    Location:
    Metro Vancouver, BC
    Until we have some form of testing available, I don't think that anyone can know if they are the same or not. If what this article says is correct, then I'd guess that at least half of us don't belong here on S4ME.
     
    Melanie, strategist, Forbin and 9 others like this.
  3. Webdog

    Webdog Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,184
    Likes Received:
    13,173
    Location:
    Holodeck #3
    Note that if the 2015 Institute of Medicine report recommendations are followed, then "SEID" criteria may change less than 2 years from now.
    Not referring the Twisk paper here, but using SEID criteria for any medical study is a really bad idea. It's not just difficult to compare an SEID study to a ICC/CCC/Fukuda etc. study, you can't even compare SEID to SEID if it changes after 5 years.
     
    Melanie, Forbin, Barry and 4 others like this.
  4. Andy

    Andy Committee Member & Outreach

    Messages:
    12,153
    Likes Received:
    87,426
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Full text open access at http://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/9/1/19/htm
     
  5. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,558
    Likes Received:
    43,613
    I think that when the truth is eventually discovered, there will (as many people believe) be various subsets with what we currently know as ME/CFS. As I see it (my personal view), the people who belong in S4ME are those who fit within the overall understanding we have of what ME/CFS means to people today, with today's best understanding of that. And just because good science might in future sub-classify within that, I do not that see any reason at all for some members to suddenly feel like they would not belong - far from it. We are quite literally all in this together.
     
    sea, Melanie, alktipping and 14 others like this.
  6. TiredSam

    TiredSam Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,907
    Likes Received:
    43,403
    Location:
    Germany
    According to the diagram there is hardly any overlap between Ramsey ME and SEID. I would like to see where CCC fits in.
     
  7. Inara

    Inara Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,714
    Likes Received:
    11,088
    The picture ("Venn diagram") he shows is actually what I meant in another thread where I thought about sets and subsets. My claim was that ME is not a subset of CFS but that ME and CFS may have an intersection set. I didn't include SEID though. I wonder if we can really answer the question whether this intersection is empty or non-empty.

    I find this paper interesting and important.
     
    Melanie, Mij, Mithriel and 4 others like this.
  8. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,811
    Likes Received:
    146,833
    Location:
    UK
    I agree that some of us probably won't fit the criteria for ME as described and defined in this paper, but this forum is for everyone - ME, CFS, SEID, and anyone else who thinks they might have any of these. But I guess you knew that really!

    Roll on the day when we have biomedical tests and treatments for all us them and don't need to discuss endlessly about definitions. :)
     
    sea, Melanie, strategist and 10 others like this.
  9. Forbin

    Forbin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,301
    Likes Received:
    9,472
    So, they're not the same, except when they are. The definitions are different but not mutually exclusive.

    Post exertional malaise, for example, may fulfill a requirement for the 1994 CFS definition, but it is not mentioned in Ramsay's 1990 ME definition. I have to wonder when the term post-exertional malaise was first used in the literature. I wouldn't be surprised if it originated in the 1994 CFS definition paper. I didn't hear about it until more than a decade later.

    If a future definition requires an abnormal 2-day CPET are we going to say that that definition represents a completely different disease from ME and CFS because their older case definitions didn't require that test?
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2018
    sea, Melanie, Inara and 2 others like this.
  10. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,496
    Likes Received:
    90,052
    I think Twist has got this in a muddle.

    Reiter's syndrome and reactive arthritis are defined differently and have some overlap and some not. But a doctor would not say they are distinct clinical entities. They would say there is a spectrum and that the most typical cases fit both definitions. That would be the way I see ME.

    The fact that definitions are not the same does not mean that what they are trying to describe are separate entities. It just means that the definitions are different.
     
    sea, Melanie, TigerLilea and 12 others like this.
  11. Manganus

    Manganus Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    337
    Location:
    Canary islands, Spain
    I don't take that diagram as literally. ;)
     
    Melanie and Andy like this.
  12. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,811
    Likes Received:
    146,833
    Location:
    UK
    I find it an interesting exercise, but are we really any the wiser?

    It's a bit like asking three people to describe an animal's key features. One says it has an elongated nose as it's defining feature, another a bulky body, and the third big flappy ears, each listing several other features as secondary.

    You then draw a lovely Venn diagram showing they are not the same animal on the basis of those definitions, but they have some overlapping features.

    You still don't know if all three are describing an elephant, or they are actually an elephant, a rhino and Prince Charles.
     
    sea, Melanie, Arnie Pye and 14 others like this.
  13. Mij

    Mij Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,231
    Likes Received:
    22,148
    Actually, it does here

    "(2) Neurological disturbance – an unpredictable state of central nervous system exhaustion following mental or physical exertion which may be delayed and require several days for recovery; an unique neuro-endocrine profile which differs from depression in that the hypothalamic/pituitary/adrenal response to stress is deficient; dysfunction of the autonomic and sensory nervous systems; cognitive problems."
     
  14. Mithriel

    Mithriel Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,713
    Likes Received:
    13,692
    Ramsay did not talk about PEM but he did talk about an abnormal reaction to exercise. Describing the Royal Free epidemic they said that even examining patients made them sicker.

    There were a lot of things implicit about ME, we all seemed to be talking about the same thing in the days before CFS was invented. Getting worse with exercise was felt to be the most important thing about ME with mental exertion causing physical fatigue and vice versa.

    It is really hard for people today to understand how CFS turned everything upside down. ME came in epidemics so it was obvious that an infection was involved, even if that infection had been subclinical. Then there was the variability of symptoms so that you could be unable to talk in the morning, have excruciating muscle pain in the afternoon and be blind in the evening (as I have had) - we have now gotten PEM acknowledged again but the variability has still not returned for research.

    It became all about fatigue, a minor consideration with ME in the old days where it was treated in the it is with MS. In fact, rather than 6 months of unexplained fatigue the typical ME patient was said to be fairly normal for a few months, then having a collapse for a while, then recovering, more variability. (Of course, 25% were said to recover and 25% to keep getting worse).

    I have NEVER fit the criteria for CFS. It may be that no one gets ME anymore or that ME is an energy production disease that is just one of many but making it all about fatigue has really screwed everything up.

    Much better description Mij :)
     
  15. Mij

    Mij Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,231
    Likes Received:
    22,148
    I believe the term PEM only came into existence around the year 2000-2001.
     
  16. Forbin

    Forbin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,301
    Likes Received:
    9,472
    Good find! I was going by the 1990 Ramsay paper cited by Twisk. It mentions "a complaint of general or local muscular fatigue following minimal exertion with prolonged recovery time," but doesn't mention other post-exertional symptoms that one might associate with PEM. It also doesn't mention the onset being delayed in some cases. It's interesting that Ramsay's 1986 definition does, however.


    The term "postexertional malaise" does appear in the 1994 CFS definition cited in the Twisk paper.

    The chronic fatigue syndrome: A comprehensive approach to its definition and study. Ann. Intern. Med. 1994, 121, 953–959.
    Fukuda, K.; Straus, S.E.; Hickie, I.; Sharpe, M.; Dobbins, J.G.; Komaroff, A.L.
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.325.4042&rep=rep1&type=pdf
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2018
  17. TigerLilea

    TigerLilea Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    6,105
    Location:
    Metro Vancouver, BC
    Yes! I totally agree 100%.
     
    It's M.E. Linda and Melanie like this.
  18. Melanie

    Melanie Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    2,360
    That's just it. The case definitions are important because we don't have a biomarker. And PEM is important even if it was not in the first case defintion describing ME. ICC did not exist then but most agree it most correctly defines ME. I have been diagnosed with CFS and I believe I first met SEID (even though SEID did not exist in late 70') and my disease progressed in severity and symptoms through the years and I now believe I meet CCC.

    It would not surprise me that there are types and ME may very well be its own disease while CFS and SEID are more alike and it may be a severity issue with them. But I also believe ME and CFS lie on a spectrum.
     
    Forbin likes this.
  19. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,735
    Likes Received:
    47,301
    Location:
    UK
    In all definitions of ME I would like so see the word 'fatigue' replaced with 'exhaustion'.
     
    Amw66, Inara, adambeyoncelowe and 2 others like this.
  20. sea

    sea Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    3,277
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
    Yes I agree. This paper upset me probably more than it should have. I do think it is a useful exercise to compare definitions and see what kind of cohort they lead to, but the conclusions in this paper are misplaced. Until biomedical tests can differentiate subsets patients will be harmed by trying to include or exclude on the basis of arbitrary definitions. Added to that is that patients are stuck with the diagnosis their country prefers to use regardless of the criteria used to diagnose.
     

Share This Page