2. ME, CFS and Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease (SEID): Three Distinct Clinical Entities
Although many researchers and clinicians consider ME and CFS to be synonyms, the case criteria for ME and CFS define two distinct clinical entities with partial overlap.
ME [
1,
2,
3,
4] is a neuromuscular disease with distinctive muscular symptoms, e.g., prolonged muscle weakness after minimal exertion, paresis and myalgia, symptoms related to neurological disturbances, especially of cognitive, autonomic and sensory functions, variable involvement of cardiovascular and other systems, and a chronic relapsing course. ME was recognized as a clinical entity in 1956 [
2] and has been classified as neurological disease by the World Health Organisation since 1969 [
6].
Much of the current confusion relating to diagnosis, causes and treatment of ME, originates from the introduction of the name and definition CFS in 1988 [
7], as was forecasted by a prominent ME researcher [
8]. According to the (re)definition of CFS in 1994 [
5] (unexplained) chronic fatigue, must be accompanied by at least four out of a list of eight symptoms, impairment in short-term memory or concentration, a sore throat; tender lymph nodes, muscle pain, multi-joint pain, headaches (new type, pattern, or severity), unrefreshing sleep, and post-exertional “malaise”. As a consequence of the polythetic nature of its definition, the case criteria [
5] define a heterogeneous population of patients with chronic fatigue as principle complaint.
As a consequence of its case criteria, ME [
2,
3,
4] and CFS [
5] are two distinct, partially overlapping, clinical entities. A part of the CFS [
5] patient group qualifies as ME [
2,
3,
4] patients, and a ME [
2,
3,
4] patient subgroup meets the diagnostic criteria of CFS [
5]. As can be seen in
Figure 1, the only common symptoms of ME and CFS are cognitive impairment and myalgia, which are very often experienced by ME [
2,
3,
4] patients, and optional for the diagnosis of CFS [
5]. Post-exertional “malaise” (a long-lasting increase of symptoms after physical or mental exertion), an ill-defined, optional symptom for the diagnosis CFS [
5], is not equivalent to post-exertional muscle weakness, a very specific symptom mandatory for the diagnosis ME [
2,
3,
4].
In 2015, the US Institute of Medicine (IOM), now called the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), proposed new case criteria and a new name, Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease (SEID) [
9], to replace the diagnoses ME [
2,
3,
4] and CFS [
5] and the labels ME and CFS. SEID is defined by chronic fatigue, unrefreshing sleep, and post-exertional “malaise” and orthostatic intolerance and/or cognitive deficits [
9]. However, since the case criteria of ME [
2,
3,
4] and CFS [
5] define two distinct entities, this is impossible. That’s not a matter of opinion, but a matter of definition [
10]. Moreover, introducing a new set of new diagnostic criteria will create even more confusion. Especially since the overlap between, ME [
2,
3,
4], CFS [
5] and SEID [
9] is relatively small [
11]. As can be seen in
Figure 1, the only common symptoms of ME [
2,
3,
4] and SEID [
9] are cognitive impairment and orthostatic intolerance, often present in ME [
2,
3,
4] and facultative for the diagnosis SEID [
9]. The only common symptom of CFS [
5] and SEID [
9] is chronic fatigue, mandatory for both CFS [
5] and SEID [
9]. Post-exertional “malaise” and unrefreshing sleep are mandatory for the diagnosis SEID [
9] and optional for the diagnosis CFS [
5], while cognitive deficits are optional for both CFS [
5] and SEID [
9]. For that reason, it is not surprising that a recent study [
12] found that 25% of the CFS [
5] patients in a community epidemiology database did not meet the diagnostic criteria of SEID [
9].
4. Due to the New Definition of “ME/CFS” the Four Recommendations Will Have Negative Consequences for Patients with ME and Patients with CFS
ME and CFS are two different notions, which cannot be replaced by a third notion [
10]. The Health Council should have made it clear that the case criteria for ME [
2,
3,
4] and CFS [
5] define two distinct clinical entities [
11]. Instead the Health Council proposes a third definition: “ME/CFS”. Using a new definition of “ME/CFS” [
9] in research and clinical practice has profound negative consequences on the outcome of the recommendations, which will be discussed in the next paragraphs.
“ME/CFS” as proposed by the Health Council (SEID) [
17] is an ill-defined concept based on five abstract notions (symptoms): chronic fatigue, unrefreshing sleep, post-exertional “malaise”, orthostatic intolerance, and cognitive impairment. Psychological disorders which could account for the symptoms are not excluded.
Due to the definition, substantial subgroups of patients with well-known medical diseases and psychological disorders also qualify as “ME/CFS” patient in the future. A study [
12] found that 33% of the patients with MS, 47% of patients with Lupus, and 27% of patients with major depressive disorder met the case criteria of “ME/CFS” [
9]. Not only patients with other medical diseases and psychological disorders, but a substantial number of patients with ME [
2,
3,
4] and CFS [
5] will be misdiagnosed also using the new definition of “ME/CFS”. This is illustrated by the finding in the same study [
12] that 25% of the CFS [
5] patients did not qualify as a “ME/CFS” patient [
9].
4.1. The Consequences of the Wrong Definition for Research into ME
The first recommendation of the Health Council [
17] is to conduct more research into organic abnormalities. Although this recommendation is commendable, taking the case criteria of “ME/CFS” [
9] as a starting point for research is not the right choice.
As can be seen in
Figure 2, the diagnostic criteria for “ME/CFS” [
9] exclude ME [
2,
3,
4] and CFS [
5] patient subgroups and include patients with other diseases, e.g., MS, mitochondrial disease, and burnout, and psychological disorders, e.g., depression. When you investigate an ill-defined, heterogeneous patient group [
10,
12], the risk of finding no significant differences, e.g., due to data smoothing, increases drastically. Even more, if certain other patient groups meeting the case criteria for “ME/CFS” [
9], e.g., people with burnout [
18] or patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), are over-represented in a study, a study can draw the wrong conclusions. For example, when looking at to the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, hypercortisolism was found in 40–60% of drug-free MDD patients [
19], while hypocortisolism [
20] and blunted cortisol responses [
21] have been observed in ME/CFS subgroups, and HPA-axis functioning in clinically diagnosed burnout patients seems to be normal [
22].
The heterogeneity of the CFS patient group [
23] due to its vague definition, is one of the important reasons why research into CFS [
5] has not been very effective, yielding positive findings, no significant differences and contradictive results in CFS [
9,
24]. So, research into patients with “ME/CFS” [
9], an even more heterogonous patient population than CFS [
5], most likely will not yield any significant findings and discriminative abnormalities, which will “confirm” the incorrect perception [
9] that ME [
2,
3,
4], CFS [
5], “ME/CFS” (SEID) [
9] are “functional somatic syndromes” [
25]. Since patients with other diseases, like burnout, and psychic disorders, e.g., major depression, could respond to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET), the controversy [
26,
27,
28] with regard to the effect and safety of CBT and/or GET for ME [
2,
3,
4] and CFS [
5] will likely perpetuate.
Even when results of studies are stratified by case criteria for ME [
2,
3,
4] and CFS [
5], as proposed, findings and conclusions cannot be generalized to ME or CFS, since a group of patients with ME and CFS does not qualify as being a “ME/CFS” patient [
12].
In conclusion, due to the patients studied, research into the organic abnormalities in “ME/CFS” [
9] most likely will yield no significant results or contradictory results. Moreover, introducing a new definition of “the” disease implicates that the outcomes of all existing research studies into ME [
2,
3,
4] (1936–1990) and/or CFS [
5] (1988–2018), more than 7700 studies in the PubMed data base, will lose their scientific significance.
4.2. The Consequences of the Wrong Definition for the Scope of Academic Expertise Centers and Instalment of a Care Network for Patients with ME and Patients with CFS
The consequences of using a wrong definition of ME [
2,
3,
4] for research conducted by the future academic expertise centres have been addressed to in the previous paragraph. This paragraph focuses on access to care, diagnosis and treatment.
Patients report difficulties in gaining access to medical care [
29] and the vast majority of patients are dissatisfied with the quality of care received [
30]. A study concluded: “Dissatisfied patients were significantly more likely to describe delay, dispute or confusion over diagnosis; to have received and rejected a psychiatric diagnosis; to perceive doctors as dismissive, sceptical or not knowledgeable about CFS [..]” [
31]. Note that the label CFS in this quote refers to ME and/or CFS.
Instalment of a care network and outpatient clinics at academic hospitals based for “ME/CFS” [
9] has several implications. As explained, a part of the ME [
2,
3,
4] and CFS [
5] patient group will not be diagnosed as “ME/CFS” [
9] patient, and therefore will have difficulties to have access to the medical care supplied by the care network. People with other medical diseases, e.g., MS, and psychological condition are at risk of being misdiagnosed as “ME/CFS” [
9] patient. This risk of misdiagnosis is illustrated by the observation [
32] that 8.8% of patients with mitochondrial disease were first diagnosed as being CFS [
5] patients. Due to its heterogeneity, the group of patients with ME [
2,
3,
4], CFS [
5] and various other medical and psychological diseases meeting the diagnosis “ME/CFS” are at risk of not receiving appropriate care. Most importantly patients with severe ME [
2,
3,
4], which are bedbound or housebound, will likely experience large difficulties to get access to proper medical care.
All in all, using new case criteria [
9] to define the “ME/CFS” patient group increases the risk of excluding patients with ME [
2,
3,
4] and/or CFS [
5] and misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment of people with medical diseases and psychiatric disorders. Access to and satisfaction with medical care likely will not improve substantially, which, looking at the current dissatisfaction of patients, is a missed opportunity.
4.3. The Consequences of a Wrong Definition of ME for the (Re)education of Medical Professionals and Care Takers
Another recommendation of the Dutch Health Council [
17] is to (re)educate medical professionals and other care takers about the “serious chronic disease” “ME/CFS”. While the intention of the advice is commendable, if medical professionals and care takers are not (re)educated properly, it will have no effect or even a negative effect.
“ME/CFS” [
9] does not do justice to the nature of ME [
2,
3,
4], which is a neuromuscular disease, not a “fatigue syndrome”. In the case of ME [
2,
3,
4], history seems to repeat itself. The ill-defined notion “ME/CFS” [
9] will create a wrong perception of ME [
2,
3,
4], just like CFS [
5] did in the last decades. This is illustrated by a survey from 2011 [
33] which found that 84% of the responding members of Association of British Neurologists did not consider CFS [
5] to be a neurological condition, despite the fact that the World Health Organisation (WHO) has acknowledged ME as a neurological disease since 1969 [
5] and considers the labels CFS and ME to be exchangeable since 1992 [
34].
ME [
2,
3,
4] and CFS [
5] are two different diagnoses by definition. When (re)educating medical professionals and care takers, it should be made clear that ME [
2,
3,
4] is not a “fatigue syndrome”/CFS [
5], but a distinct a neuromuscular disease. Replacing ME [
2,
3,
4] and CFS [
5] by “ME/CFS” [
9], with a new definition, does not solve problems, but rather adds to the current confusion with regard to diagnosis and treatment [
35].
Due to its chronic fatigue-cantered definition [
36] and its name [
37], patients with CFS [
5], part of which qualifies as ME [
2,
3,
4] patient, experience significant stigma [
38]. The label “ME/CFS” is inappropriate and its fatigue-cantered definition will not reduce the stigma attached to ME [
2,
3,
4] nor will it change the wrong perception. This is illustrated by media coverage of the release of the report of the Health Council [
17], reflected in headings like “Chronic fatigue remains enigmatic” [
39] and “Acknowledgement for ME patients: Chronic fatigue classified as serious illness” [
40].
4.4. The Consequences of a Wrong Definition of ME (and CFS) and Not Using Objective Tests for the Rights to~Receive a Disability Income, Care and Medical Aid
The existence and magnitude of various characteristic symptoms of ME [
2,
3,
4] and CFS [
5] can be assessed objectively [
41,
42]. For example, loss of muscle power and prolonged muscle weakness after physical exertion [
43] can be established by measuring muscle power during repeated contractions using dynamometers with 24 h rest in-between. Cognitive deficits, e.g., impairments in information processing speed, (working) memory, reaction time, and sustained attention, “can be identified if appropriate measures are used” [
44]. Post-exertional “malaise” can be assessed objectively by comparing performance indicators (maximum workload, maximum oxygen uptake, anaerobic threshold and corresponding oxygen uptake) of two cardiopulmonary exercise tests with 24 h in-between [
45] and comparing cognitive performance before and after a cardiopulmonary exercise test [
46]. Orthostatic intolerance can be reflected by postural orthostatic tachycardia and instantaneous/delayed orthostatic hypotension during tilt table or active standing tests [
47,
48], and/or disequilibrium established by neurological tests, e.g., tandem gait test, standing on one leg test, and the Romberg test [
49]. Sitting intolerance can be reflected by tachycardia and/or hypotension during an active sitting test [
49].
Two of the three core symptoms of “ME/CFS” [
9], fatigue and unrefreshing sleep, are ill-defined symptoms, which cannot be assessed objectively. Various aspects of post-exertional “malaise”, the third mandatory symptom, can be “quantified” [
42]. This implies that the diagnosis “ME/CFS” [
9] will largely be dependent on self-report.
Mainly as a consequence of “the misconception that it is a psychogenic illness or even a figment of the patient’s imagination” [
9] patients “continue to struggle to have their condition recognised as disabling in the face of public and professional prejudice and discrimination” [
50], despite often being severely disabled [
50,
51], as acknowledged by the Dutch Health Council [
17]. Due to their disability patients work fewer hours and have lower incomes, e.g., when compared to MS patients [
50], and have substantially higher direct medical costs [
52]. Looking at the scepticism among medical professionals, insurance physicians and occupational health experts [
9], it is crucial that relevant symptoms can be assessed objectively. Introducing a hybrid diagnosis, “ME/CFS” [
9], which does not do justice to both ME [
2,
3,
4] and CFS [
5], and is defined by three abstract symptoms, based on self-report, does not help patients. Looking at the negative response of Dutch Association of medical insurance professionals to the advisory report of the Health Council [
53], patients will be stuck in the middle.
5. Discussion
The purpose of the Health Council advisory report is to effect a change of course, which is commendable. While the Health Council acknowledges that “ME/CFS” is “a serious chronic multisystemic disease” and makes important recommendations to improve the situation for patients in The Netherlands, these recommendations likely turn out to be counterproductive when using the wrong definition of ‘ME/CFS’ [
17].
This definition does not accurately reflect the original definition of ME [
2,
3,
4]. One might argue that the Dutch Health Council, instead of introducing a new definition of “ME/CFS” [
9] or embracing the original criteria for ME [
2,
3,
4], should have adopted the International Consensus Criteria for ME [
54], which are meant to replace the Canadian Consensus Criteria for ME/CFS [
55]. However, as long as the International Consensus Criteria for ME (ME-ICC) [
54] are not validated and the discrepancies between ME [
2,
3,
4] and ME-ICC [
55] are not resolved, replacing ME [
2,
3,
4] by ME-ICC [
55] is not a good alternative (yet).
One might also argue that the positive elements of the advisory report [
17] (recognition of the suffering of patients and a change of course) outweigh the use of the new definition of “ME/CFS”, but the problem is that the definition of “ME/CFS” largely determines the outcome of the recommendations. Good intentions can turn out negatively just due to a wrong definition.