Cervical cancer update: The latest on screening & management

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 12/10/2021 - 15:38
Display Headline
Cervical cancer update: The latest on screening & management

The World Health Organization estimates that, in 2020, worldwide, there were 604,000 new cases of uterine cervical cancer and approximately 342,000 deaths, 84% of which occurred in developing countries.1 In the United States, as of 2018, the lifetime risk of death from cervical cancer was 2.2 for every 100,000, with a mean age of 50 years at diagnosis.2

In this article, we summarize recent updates in the epidemiology, prevention, and treatment of cervical cancer. We emphasize recent information of value to family physicians, including updates in clinical guidelines and other pertinent national recommendations.

Spotlight continues to shine on HPV

It has been known for several decades that cervical cancer is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Of more than 100 known HPV types, 14 or 15 are classified as carcinogenic. HPV 16 is the most common oncogenic type, causing more than 60% of cases of cervical cancer3,4; HPV 18 is second, causing 16.5% of cases—taken together, the 2 types account for more than 75% of cervical cancers.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection, with as many as 80% of sexually active people becoming infected during their lifetime, generally before 50 years of age.5 HPV also causes other anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers; however, worldwide, more than 80% of HPV-associated cancers are cervical.6 Risk factors for cervical cancer are listed in TABLE 1.7 Cervical cancer is less common when partners are circumcised.7

Table of variables associated with cervical cancer
Table 1: Variables associated with cervical cancer

Most cases of HPV infection clear in 1 or 2 years. In approximately 1% of untreated cases, cancer develops. Once infection progresses to high-grade dysplasia (ie, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] 3), further progression to invasive cervical cancer occurs in approximately 30% of untreated cases.8 Patients who develop cervical cancer generally test positive for a high-risk HPV genotype for at least 3 to 5 years before infection progresses to cancer.9

At least 70% of cervical cancers are squamous cell carcinoma (SCC); 20% to 25% are adenocarcinoma (ADC); and < 3% to 5% are adenosquamous carcinoma.10 Almost 100% of cervical SCCs are HPV+, as are 86% of cervical ADCs. The most common reason for HPV-negative status in patients with cervical cancer is false-negative testing because of inadequate methods.

Primary prevention through vaccination

HPV vaccination was introduced in 2006 in the United States for girls,a and for boysa in 2011. The primary reason for vaccinating boys is to reduce the rates of HPV-related anal and oropharyngeal cancer. The only available HPV vaccine in the United States is Gardasil 9 (9-valent vaccine, recombinant; Merck), which provides coverage for 7 high-risk HPV types that account for approximately 90% of cervical cancers and 2 types (6 and 11) that are the principal causes of condylomata acuminata (genital warts). Future generations of prophylactic vaccines are expected to cover additional strains.

Continue to: Vaccine studies...

 

 

Vaccine studies have been summarized in a Cochrane review,11 showing that vaccination is highly effective for prevention of cervical dysplasia, especially when given to young girls and womena previously unexposed to the virus. It has not been fully established how long protection lasts, but vaccination appears to be 70% to 90% effective for ≥ 10 years.

Dosing schedule. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends a 2-dose schedule 6 to 15 months apart, for both girls and boys between 9 and 14 years of age.12 A third dose is indicated if the first and second doses were given less than 5 months apart, or the person is older than 15 years or is immunocompromised. No recommendation has been made for revaccination after the primary series.

In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil 9 for adults 27 to 45 years of age. In June 2019, ACIP recommended vaccination for mena as old as 26 years, and adopted a recommendation that unvaccinated men and women between 27 and 45 years discuss HPV vaccination with their physician.13

The adolescent HPV vaccination rate varies by state; however, all states lag behind the CDC’s Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%.14 Barriers to vaccination include cost, infrastructure limitations, and social stigma.

Secondary prevention: Screening and Tx of precancerous lesions

Cervical cancer screening identifies patients at increased risk of cervical cancer and reassures the great majority of them that their risk of cervical cancer is very low. There are 3 general approaches to cervical cancer screening:

  • cytology-based screening, which has been implemented for decades in many countries
  • primary testing for DNA or RNA markers of high-risk HPV types
  • co-testing with cytology-based screening plus HPV testing.

Continue to: USPSTF guidance

 

 

USPSTF guidance. Recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for cervical cancer screening were updated in 2018 (TABLE 215). The recommendations state that high-risk HPV screening alone is a strategy that is amenable to patient self-sampling and self-mailing for processing—a protocol that has the potential to improve access to testing for patients who are inadequately screened.

Table of US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for cervical cancer screening
Table 2: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for cervical cancer screening

ASCCP guidance. The American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) makes nearly the same recommendations for cervical cancer screening. An exception is that ASCCP guidelines allow for the possibility of screening using primary high-risk HPV testing for patients starting at 25 years of age.16

Screening programs that can be initiated at a later age and longer intervals should be possible once the adolescent vaccination rate is optimized and vaccination registries are widely implemented.

Cervical cytology protocol

Cervical cytologic abnormalities are reported using the Bethesda system. Specimen adequacy is the most important component of quality assurance,17 and is determined primarily by sufficient cellularity. However, any specimen containing abnormal squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or atypical glandular cells (AGCs) is considered satisfactory, regardless of the number of cells. Obscuring factors that impair quality include excessive blood; inflammation; air-drying artifact; and an interfering substance, such as lubricant. The presence of reactive changes resulting from inflammation does not require further evaluation unless the patient is immunosuppressed.

Abnormalities are most often of squamous cells, of 2 categories: low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs). HSILs are more likely to be associated with persistent HPV infection and higher risk of progression to cervical cancer.

Continue to: Cytologic findings...

 

 

Cytologic findings can be associated with histologic findings that are sometimes more, sometimes less, severe. LSIL cytology specimens that contain a few cells that are suspicious for HSIL, but that do not contain enough cells to be diagnostic, are reported as atypical squamous cells, and do not exclude a high-grade intraepithelial lesion.

Glandular-cell abnormalities usually originate from the glandular epithelium of the endocervix or the endometrium—most often, AGCs. Less frequent are AGCs, favor neoplasia; endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ; and ADC. Rarely, AGCs are associated with adenosquamous carcinoma. Endometrial polyps are a typical benign pathology that can be associated with AGCs.

High-risk HPV screening alone is amenable to patient selfsampling and self-mailing for processing—a protocol that has the potential to improve access to testing.

In about 30% of cases, AGCs are associated with premalignant or malignant disease.18 The risk of malignancy in patients with AGCs increases with age, from < 2% among patients younger than 40 years to approximately 15% among those > 50 years.19 Endometrial malignancy is more common than cervical malignancy among patients > 40 years.

AGC cytology requires endocervical curettage, plus endometrial sampling for patients ≥ 35 years. Patients with a history of AGCs are at higher risk of cervical cancer for as long as 15 years.

Cytology-based screening has limitations. Sensitivity is relatively low and dependent on the expertise of the cytologist, although regular repeat testing has been used to overcome this limitation. A substantial subset of results are reported as equivocal—ie, ASCUS.

Continue to: Primary HPV screening

 

 

Primary HPV screening

Primary HPV testing was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2015 and recommended as an appropriate screening option by professional societies.

In contrast to cytology-based screening, HPV testing has high sensitivity (≥ 90%); the population-based negative likelihood ratio is near zero.20 This degree of sensitivity allows for extended screening intervals. However, primary HPV testing lacks specificity for persistent infection and high-grade or invasive lesions, which approximately doubles the number of patients who screen positive. The potential for excess patients to be referred for colposcopy led to the need for secondary triage.

Instituting secondary triage. Cytology is, currently, the primary method of secondary triage, reducing the number of referrals for colposcopy by nearly one-half, compared to referrals for all high-risk HPV results, and with better overall accuracy over cytology with high-risk HPV triage.21 When cytology shows ASCUS, or worse, refer the patient for colposcopy; alternatively, if so-called reflex testing for HPV types 16 and 18 is available and positive, direct referral to colposcopy without cytology is also appropriate.

In the future, secondary triage for cytology is likely to be replaced with improved technologies, such as immunostaining of the specimen for biomarkers associated with cervical precancer or cancer, or for viral genome methylation testing.22

table on cervical cancer recommendations
ASCPP guiding principles for 2019 recommendations

Management of abnormal cervical cancer screening results

Routine screening applies to asymptomatic patients who do not require surveillance because they have not had prior abnormal screening results. In 2020, ASCCP published risk-based management consensus guidelines that were developed for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and for cancer precursors.16 Guiding principles, and screening situations in which the guidelines can be applied, are summarized in TABLE 3.16

Continue to: ASCCP guidelines...

 

 

ASCCP guidelines provide a framework to incorporate new data and technologies without major revision. The web-based ASCCP resource can be obtained at no cost at http://asccp.org; there is also a smartphone app resource ($9.99).

Some noteworthy scenarios in ASCCP risk-based management are:

  • For unsatisfactory cytology with a negative HPV test or no HPV test, repeat age-based screening in 2 to 4 months. (Note: A negative HPV test might reflect an inadequate specimen; do not interpret this result as a true negative.)
  • An absent transformation zone (ie, between glandular and squamous cervical cells) with an otherwise adequate specimen should be interpreted as satisfactory for screening in patients 21 to 29 years of age. For those ≥ 30 years and with no HPV testing in this circumstance, HPV testing is preferred; repeating cytology, in 3 years, is also acceptable.
  • After a finding of LSIL/CIN1 without evidence of a high-grade abnormality, and after 2 negative annual screenings (including HPV testing), a return to 3-year (not 5-year) screening is ­recommended.
  • A cytology result of an HSIL carries a risk of 26% for CIN3+, in which case colposcopy is recommended, regardless of HPV test results.
  • For long-term management after treatment for CIN2+, continue surveillance testing every 3 years after 3 consecutive negative HPV tests or cytology findings, for at least 25 years. If the 25-year threshold is reached before 65 years of age, continuing surveillance every 3 years is optional, as long as the patient is in good health (ie, life expectancy ≥ 10 years).
  • After hysterectomy for a high-grade abnormality, annual vaginal HPV testing is recommended until 3 negative tests are returned; after that, surveillance shifts to a 3-year interval until the 25-year threshold.

Treatment of cancer precursors

Treatment for cervical dysplasia is excisional or ablative.

Excisional therapy. In most cases, excisional therapy (either a loop electrosurgical excision procedure [LEEP; also known as large loop excision of the transformation zone, cold knife conization, and laser conization] or cone biopsy) is required, or preferred. Excisional treatment has the advantage of providing a diagnostic specimen.

In about 30% of cases, atypical glandular cells (AGCs) found on cytology are associated with premalignant or malignant disease. The risk of malignancy with AGCs increases with age.

The World Health Organization recommends LEEP over ablation in settings in which LEEP is available.23 ASCCP states that, in the relatively few cases in which treatment is needed and it is for CIN1, either excision or ablation is acceptable. TABLE 416 lists situations in which excisional treatment is required because a diagnostic specimen is needed.

table on cervical lesions
Table 4: cervical lesions and other patient factors that require a diagnostic specimen

Continue to: Ablative treatments

 

 

Ablative treatments are cryotherapy, CO2 laser ablation, and thermal ablation. Ablative therapy has the advantage of presenting less risk of adverse obstetric outcomes (eg, preterm birth); it can be used if the indication for therapy is:

  • CIN1 or CIN2 and HPV type 16 or 18 positivity
  • concordant cytology and histology
  • satisfactory colposcopy
  • negative endocervical curettage.

The most common ablative treatment is liquid nitrogen applied to a metal tip under local anesthesia.

Hysterectomy can be considered for patients with recurrent CIN2+ who have completed childbearing or for whom repeat excision is infeasible (eg, scarring or a short cervix), or both.

Cost, availability, and convenience might play a role in decision-making with regard to the treatment choice for cancer precursors.

Is care after treatment called for? Patients who continue to be at increased risk of (and thus mortality from) cervical and vaginal cancer require enhanced surveillance. The risk of cancer is more than triple for patients who were given their diagnosis, and treated, when they were > 60 years, compared to patients treated in their 30s.1 The excess period of risk covers at least 25 years after treatment, even among patients who have had 3 posttreatment screenings.

Continue to: Persistent HPV positivity...

 

 

Persistent HPV positivity is more challenging. Patients infected with HPV type 16 have an increased risk of residual disease.

Cancer management

Invasive cancer. Most cervical cancers (60%) occur among patients who have not been screened during the 5 years before their diagnosis.24 For patients who have a diagnosis of cancer, those detected through screening have a much better prognosis than those identified by symptoms (mean cure rate, 92% and 66%, respectively).25 The median 5-year survival for patients who were not screened during the 5 years before their diagnosis of cervical cancer is 66%.2

In unscreened patients, cervical cancer usually manifests as abnormal vaginal bleeding, especially postcoitally. In approximately 45% of cases, the patient has localized disease at diagnosis; in 36%, regional disease; and in 15%, distant metastases.26

For cancers marked by stromal invasion < 3 mm, appropriate treatment is cone biopsy or simple hysterectomy.27

Most patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergo modified radical hysterectomy. The ovaries are usually conserved, unless the cancer is adenocarcinoma. Sentinel-node dissection has become standard practice. Primary radiation therapy is most often used for patients who are a poor surgical candidate because of medical comorbidity or poor functional status. Antiangiogenic agents (eg, bevacizumab) can be used as adjuvant palliative therapy for advanced and recurrent disease.28

Continue to: After treatment for...

 

 

After treatment for invasive cervical cancer, the goal is early detection of recurrence, although there is no consensus on a protocol. Most recurrences are detected within the first 2 years.

After treatment for invasive cervical cancer, the goal is early detection of recurrence. Most recurrences are detected within the first 2 years.

Long-term sequelae after treatment for advanced cancer are considerable. Patients report significantly lower quality of life, comparatively, across multiple dimensions, including mental health, physical health, and sexual function.29

Hormone replacement therapy is generally considered acceptable after treatment of cervical cancer because it does not increase replication of HPV.

Recurrent or metastatic cancer. Recurrence or metastases will develop in 15% to 60% of patients,30 usually within the first 2 years after treatment.

Management depends on location and extent of disease, using mainly radiation therapy or surgical resection. Recurrence or metastasis is usually incurable.

Continue to: Last, there are promising...

 

 

Last, there are promising areas of research for more effective treatment for cervical cancer precursors and cancers, including gene editing tools31 and therapeutic vaccination,32 which is intended to target and kill infected cells.

Prospects for better cervical cancer care

Prevention. HPV vaccination is likely to have a large impact on population-based risk of both cancer and cancer precursors in the next generation.

Screening in the foreseeable future will gravitate toward reliance on primary HPV screening, with a self-sampling option.

Surveillance after dysplastic disease. The 2019 ASCCP guidelines for surveillance and intervention decisions after abnormal cancer screening results will evolve to incorporate introduction of new technology into computerized algorithms.

Treatment. New biologic therapies, including monoclonal antibodies and therapeutic vaccines against HPV, will likely be introduced for treating cancer precursors and invasive cancer.

A NOTE FROM THE EDITORS The Editors of The Journal of Family Practice recognize the importance of addressing the reproductive health of gender-diverse individuals. In this article, we use the words “women,” “men,” “girls,” and “boys” in limited circumstances (1) for ease of reading and (2) to reflect the official language of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The reader should consider the information and guidance offered in this discussion of cervical cancer and other human papillomavirus-related cancers to speak to the care of people with a uterine cervix and people with a penis.

CORRESPONDENCE
Linda Speer, MD, 3000 Arlington Avenue, MS 1179, Toledo, OH 43614; Linda.speer@utoledo.edu

References

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209-249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660

2. Cancer stat facts: cervical cancer. National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] Program. Accessed November 14, 2021. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html

3. Guan P, Howell-Jones R, Li N, et al. Human papillomavirus types in 115,789 HPV-positive women: a meta-analysis from cervical infection to cancer. Int J Cancer 2012;131:2349-2359. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27485

4. Winer RL, Hughes JP, Feng Q, et al. Early history of incident, type-specific human papillomavirus infections in newly sexually active young women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:699-707. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-1108

5. Chesson HW, Dunne EF, Hariri F, et al. The estimated lifetime probability of acquiring human papillomavirus in the United States. Sex Transm Dis. 2014;41:660-664. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000193

6. Human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer. Fact sheet. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; November 11, 2020. Accessed November 14, 2021. www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-papillomavirus-(hpv)-and-cervical-cancer

7. International Collaboration of Epidemiological Studies of Cervical Cancer. Comparison of risk factors for invasive squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the cervix: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 8,097 women with squamous cell carcinoma and 1,374 women with adenocarcinoma from 12 epidemiological studies. Int J Cancer. 2007;120:885-891. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22357

8. McCredie MRE, Sharples KJ, Paul C, et al. Natural history of cervical cancer neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2008:9:425-434. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70103-7

9. de Sanjose S, Quint WG, Alemany I, et al; Retrospective International Survey and HPV Time Trends Study Group. Human papillomavirus genotype attribution in invasive cervical cancer: a retrospective, cross-sectional worldwide study. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:1048-1056. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70230-8

10. Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2004. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2007. Accessed November 14, 2021. https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2004/#citation

11. Arbyn M, Xu L, Simoens C, et al. Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5:CD009069. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009069.pub3

12. Meites E, Kempe A, Markowitz LE. Use of a 2-dose schedule for human papillomavirus vaccination—updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016:65;1405-1408. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6549a5

13. Meites E, Szilagyi PG, Chesson HW, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:698-702. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6832a3

14. State-level data: Female adolescents receiving 2 or 3 doses of HPV vaccine by age 13-15 years (percent). HealthyPeople.gov. Accessed November 14, 2021. www.healthypeople.gov/2020/data/map/4657?year=2018

15. United States Preventive Services Task Force; Curry SJ, Krist AH, Owens DK, et al. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 2018;320:674-686. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.10897

16. Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, et al; 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines Committee. 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020;24:102-131. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000525

17. Nayar R, Wilbur DC. The Pap test and Bethesda 2014. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015;123;271-281. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21521

18. Schnatz PF, Guile M, O’Sullivan DM, et al. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:701-708. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000202401.29145.68

19. Zhao C, Florea A, Onisko A, et al. Histologic follow-up results in 662 patients with Pap test findings of atypical glandular cells: results from a large academic womens hospital laboratory employing sensitive screening methods. Gynecol Oncol 2009;114:383-389. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.05.019

20. Zazove P, Reed BD, Gregoire L, et al. Low false-negative rate of PCR analysis for detecting human papillomavirus-related cervical lesions. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36:2708-2713. doi: 10.1128/JCM.36.9.2708-2713.1998

21. Richardson LA, El-Zein M, Ramankumar AV, et al; PEACHS (Pap Efficacy After Cervical HPV Status) Study Consortium. HPV DNA testing with cytology triage in cervical cancer screening: influence of revealing HPV infection status. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015:123:745-754. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21596

22. Wentzensen N, Schiffman M, Palmer T, et al. Triage of HPV positive women in cervical cancer screening. J Clin Virol 2016;76:S49-S55. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2015.11.015

23. WHO Guidelines: Use of Cryotherapy for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2011. Accessed November 14, 2021. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK138476/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK138476.pdf

24. Spence AR, Goggin P, Franco EL. Process of care failures in invasive cervical cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2007:45:93-106. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.06.007

25. Rositch AF, Nowak RG, Gravitt PE. Increased age and race-specific incidence of cervical cancer after correction for hysterectomy prevalence in the United States from 2000-2009. Cancer. 2014:120:2032-2038. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28548

26. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, et al. Cancer statistics, 2021. CA: Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:7-33. doi: 10.3322/caac.21654

27. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: cervical cancer. Accessed June 15, 2021. www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf

28. Tewari KS, Sill MW, Penson RT, et al. Bevacizumab for advanced cervical cancer: final overall survival and adverse event analysis of a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial (Gynecologic Oncology Group 240). Lancet. 2017;390:1654-1663. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31607-0

29. Osann K, Hsieh S, Nelson EL, et al. Factors associated with poor quality of life among cervical cancer survivors: implications for clinical care and clinical trials. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;135:266-272. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.08.036

30. Ries LAG, Harkins D, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975 to 2003. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2007. Accessed November 14, 2021. https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2003/#citation

31. Hu Z, Ding M. The precision prevention and therapy of HPV-related cervical cancer: new concepts and clinical implications. Cancer Med. 2018;7:5217-5236. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1501

32. Wang R, Pan W, Jin L, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccine against cervical cancer: opportunity and challenge. Cancer Lett. 2020;471:88-102. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2019.11.039

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Family Medicine, University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, OH
Linda.speer@utoledo.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 70(10)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
499-505,509
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Family Medicine, University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, OH
Linda.speer@utoledo.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Family Medicine, University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, OH
Linda.speer@utoledo.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

The World Health Organization estimates that, in 2020, worldwide, there were 604,000 new cases of uterine cervical cancer and approximately 342,000 deaths, 84% of which occurred in developing countries.1 In the United States, as of 2018, the lifetime risk of death from cervical cancer was 2.2 for every 100,000, with a mean age of 50 years at diagnosis.2

In this article, we summarize recent updates in the epidemiology, prevention, and treatment of cervical cancer. We emphasize recent information of value to family physicians, including updates in clinical guidelines and other pertinent national recommendations.

Spotlight continues to shine on HPV

It has been known for several decades that cervical cancer is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Of more than 100 known HPV types, 14 or 15 are classified as carcinogenic. HPV 16 is the most common oncogenic type, causing more than 60% of cases of cervical cancer3,4; HPV 18 is second, causing 16.5% of cases—taken together, the 2 types account for more than 75% of cervical cancers.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection, with as many as 80% of sexually active people becoming infected during their lifetime, generally before 50 years of age.5 HPV also causes other anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers; however, worldwide, more than 80% of HPV-associated cancers are cervical.6 Risk factors for cervical cancer are listed in TABLE 1.7 Cervical cancer is less common when partners are circumcised.7

Table of variables associated with cervical cancer
Table 1: Variables associated with cervical cancer

Most cases of HPV infection clear in 1 or 2 years. In approximately 1% of untreated cases, cancer develops. Once infection progresses to high-grade dysplasia (ie, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] 3), further progression to invasive cervical cancer occurs in approximately 30% of untreated cases.8 Patients who develop cervical cancer generally test positive for a high-risk HPV genotype for at least 3 to 5 years before infection progresses to cancer.9

At least 70% of cervical cancers are squamous cell carcinoma (SCC); 20% to 25% are adenocarcinoma (ADC); and < 3% to 5% are adenosquamous carcinoma.10 Almost 100% of cervical SCCs are HPV+, as are 86% of cervical ADCs. The most common reason for HPV-negative status in patients with cervical cancer is false-negative testing because of inadequate methods.

Primary prevention through vaccination

HPV vaccination was introduced in 2006 in the United States for girls,a and for boysa in 2011. The primary reason for vaccinating boys is to reduce the rates of HPV-related anal and oropharyngeal cancer. The only available HPV vaccine in the United States is Gardasil 9 (9-valent vaccine, recombinant; Merck), which provides coverage for 7 high-risk HPV types that account for approximately 90% of cervical cancers and 2 types (6 and 11) that are the principal causes of condylomata acuminata (genital warts). Future generations of prophylactic vaccines are expected to cover additional strains.

Continue to: Vaccine studies...

 

 

Vaccine studies have been summarized in a Cochrane review,11 showing that vaccination is highly effective for prevention of cervical dysplasia, especially when given to young girls and womena previously unexposed to the virus. It has not been fully established how long protection lasts, but vaccination appears to be 70% to 90% effective for ≥ 10 years.

Dosing schedule. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends a 2-dose schedule 6 to 15 months apart, for both girls and boys between 9 and 14 years of age.12 A third dose is indicated if the first and second doses were given less than 5 months apart, or the person is older than 15 years or is immunocompromised. No recommendation has been made for revaccination after the primary series.

In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil 9 for adults 27 to 45 years of age. In June 2019, ACIP recommended vaccination for mena as old as 26 years, and adopted a recommendation that unvaccinated men and women between 27 and 45 years discuss HPV vaccination with their physician.13

The adolescent HPV vaccination rate varies by state; however, all states lag behind the CDC’s Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%.14 Barriers to vaccination include cost, infrastructure limitations, and social stigma.

Secondary prevention: Screening and Tx of precancerous lesions

Cervical cancer screening identifies patients at increased risk of cervical cancer and reassures the great majority of them that their risk of cervical cancer is very low. There are 3 general approaches to cervical cancer screening:

  • cytology-based screening, which has been implemented for decades in many countries
  • primary testing for DNA or RNA markers of high-risk HPV types
  • co-testing with cytology-based screening plus HPV testing.

Continue to: USPSTF guidance

 

 

USPSTF guidance. Recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for cervical cancer screening were updated in 2018 (TABLE 215). The recommendations state that high-risk HPV screening alone is a strategy that is amenable to patient self-sampling and self-mailing for processing—a protocol that has the potential to improve access to testing for patients who are inadequately screened.

Table of US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for cervical cancer screening
Table 2: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for cervical cancer screening

ASCCP guidance. The American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) makes nearly the same recommendations for cervical cancer screening. An exception is that ASCCP guidelines allow for the possibility of screening using primary high-risk HPV testing for patients starting at 25 years of age.16

Screening programs that can be initiated at a later age and longer intervals should be possible once the adolescent vaccination rate is optimized and vaccination registries are widely implemented.

Cervical cytology protocol

Cervical cytologic abnormalities are reported using the Bethesda system. Specimen adequacy is the most important component of quality assurance,17 and is determined primarily by sufficient cellularity. However, any specimen containing abnormal squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or atypical glandular cells (AGCs) is considered satisfactory, regardless of the number of cells. Obscuring factors that impair quality include excessive blood; inflammation; air-drying artifact; and an interfering substance, such as lubricant. The presence of reactive changes resulting from inflammation does not require further evaluation unless the patient is immunosuppressed.

Abnormalities are most often of squamous cells, of 2 categories: low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs). HSILs are more likely to be associated with persistent HPV infection and higher risk of progression to cervical cancer.

Continue to: Cytologic findings...

 

 

Cytologic findings can be associated with histologic findings that are sometimes more, sometimes less, severe. LSIL cytology specimens that contain a few cells that are suspicious for HSIL, but that do not contain enough cells to be diagnostic, are reported as atypical squamous cells, and do not exclude a high-grade intraepithelial lesion.

Glandular-cell abnormalities usually originate from the glandular epithelium of the endocervix or the endometrium—most often, AGCs. Less frequent are AGCs, favor neoplasia; endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ; and ADC. Rarely, AGCs are associated with adenosquamous carcinoma. Endometrial polyps are a typical benign pathology that can be associated with AGCs.

High-risk HPV screening alone is amenable to patient selfsampling and self-mailing for processing—a protocol that has the potential to improve access to testing.

In about 30% of cases, AGCs are associated with premalignant or malignant disease.18 The risk of malignancy in patients with AGCs increases with age, from < 2% among patients younger than 40 years to approximately 15% among those > 50 years.19 Endometrial malignancy is more common than cervical malignancy among patients > 40 years.

AGC cytology requires endocervical curettage, plus endometrial sampling for patients ≥ 35 years. Patients with a history of AGCs are at higher risk of cervical cancer for as long as 15 years.

Cytology-based screening has limitations. Sensitivity is relatively low and dependent on the expertise of the cytologist, although regular repeat testing has been used to overcome this limitation. A substantial subset of results are reported as equivocal—ie, ASCUS.

Continue to: Primary HPV screening

 

 

Primary HPV screening

Primary HPV testing was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2015 and recommended as an appropriate screening option by professional societies.

In contrast to cytology-based screening, HPV testing has high sensitivity (≥ 90%); the population-based negative likelihood ratio is near zero.20 This degree of sensitivity allows for extended screening intervals. However, primary HPV testing lacks specificity for persistent infection and high-grade or invasive lesions, which approximately doubles the number of patients who screen positive. The potential for excess patients to be referred for colposcopy led to the need for secondary triage.

Instituting secondary triage. Cytology is, currently, the primary method of secondary triage, reducing the number of referrals for colposcopy by nearly one-half, compared to referrals for all high-risk HPV results, and with better overall accuracy over cytology with high-risk HPV triage.21 When cytology shows ASCUS, or worse, refer the patient for colposcopy; alternatively, if so-called reflex testing for HPV types 16 and 18 is available and positive, direct referral to colposcopy without cytology is also appropriate.

In the future, secondary triage for cytology is likely to be replaced with improved technologies, such as immunostaining of the specimen for biomarkers associated with cervical precancer or cancer, or for viral genome methylation testing.22

table on cervical cancer recommendations
ASCPP guiding principles for 2019 recommendations

Management of abnormal cervical cancer screening results

Routine screening applies to asymptomatic patients who do not require surveillance because they have not had prior abnormal screening results. In 2020, ASCCP published risk-based management consensus guidelines that were developed for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and for cancer precursors.16 Guiding principles, and screening situations in which the guidelines can be applied, are summarized in TABLE 3.16

Continue to: ASCCP guidelines...

 

 

ASCCP guidelines provide a framework to incorporate new data and technologies without major revision. The web-based ASCCP resource can be obtained at no cost at http://asccp.org; there is also a smartphone app resource ($9.99).

Some noteworthy scenarios in ASCCP risk-based management are:

  • For unsatisfactory cytology with a negative HPV test or no HPV test, repeat age-based screening in 2 to 4 months. (Note: A negative HPV test might reflect an inadequate specimen; do not interpret this result as a true negative.)
  • An absent transformation zone (ie, between glandular and squamous cervical cells) with an otherwise adequate specimen should be interpreted as satisfactory for screening in patients 21 to 29 years of age. For those ≥ 30 years and with no HPV testing in this circumstance, HPV testing is preferred; repeating cytology, in 3 years, is also acceptable.
  • After a finding of LSIL/CIN1 without evidence of a high-grade abnormality, and after 2 negative annual screenings (including HPV testing), a return to 3-year (not 5-year) screening is ­recommended.
  • A cytology result of an HSIL carries a risk of 26% for CIN3+, in which case colposcopy is recommended, regardless of HPV test results.
  • For long-term management after treatment for CIN2+, continue surveillance testing every 3 years after 3 consecutive negative HPV tests or cytology findings, for at least 25 years. If the 25-year threshold is reached before 65 years of age, continuing surveillance every 3 years is optional, as long as the patient is in good health (ie, life expectancy ≥ 10 years).
  • After hysterectomy for a high-grade abnormality, annual vaginal HPV testing is recommended until 3 negative tests are returned; after that, surveillance shifts to a 3-year interval until the 25-year threshold.

Treatment of cancer precursors

Treatment for cervical dysplasia is excisional or ablative.

Excisional therapy. In most cases, excisional therapy (either a loop electrosurgical excision procedure [LEEP; also known as large loop excision of the transformation zone, cold knife conization, and laser conization] or cone biopsy) is required, or preferred. Excisional treatment has the advantage of providing a diagnostic specimen.

In about 30% of cases, atypical glandular cells (AGCs) found on cytology are associated with premalignant or malignant disease. The risk of malignancy with AGCs increases with age.

The World Health Organization recommends LEEP over ablation in settings in which LEEP is available.23 ASCCP states that, in the relatively few cases in which treatment is needed and it is for CIN1, either excision or ablation is acceptable. TABLE 416 lists situations in which excisional treatment is required because a diagnostic specimen is needed.

table on cervical lesions
Table 4: cervical lesions and other patient factors that require a diagnostic specimen

Continue to: Ablative treatments

 

 

Ablative treatments are cryotherapy, CO2 laser ablation, and thermal ablation. Ablative therapy has the advantage of presenting less risk of adverse obstetric outcomes (eg, preterm birth); it can be used if the indication for therapy is:

  • CIN1 or CIN2 and HPV type 16 or 18 positivity
  • concordant cytology and histology
  • satisfactory colposcopy
  • negative endocervical curettage.

The most common ablative treatment is liquid nitrogen applied to a metal tip under local anesthesia.

Hysterectomy can be considered for patients with recurrent CIN2+ who have completed childbearing or for whom repeat excision is infeasible (eg, scarring or a short cervix), or both.

Cost, availability, and convenience might play a role in decision-making with regard to the treatment choice for cancer precursors.

Is care after treatment called for? Patients who continue to be at increased risk of (and thus mortality from) cervical and vaginal cancer require enhanced surveillance. The risk of cancer is more than triple for patients who were given their diagnosis, and treated, when they were > 60 years, compared to patients treated in their 30s.1 The excess period of risk covers at least 25 years after treatment, even among patients who have had 3 posttreatment screenings.

Continue to: Persistent HPV positivity...

 

 

Persistent HPV positivity is more challenging. Patients infected with HPV type 16 have an increased risk of residual disease.

Cancer management

Invasive cancer. Most cervical cancers (60%) occur among patients who have not been screened during the 5 years before their diagnosis.24 For patients who have a diagnosis of cancer, those detected through screening have a much better prognosis than those identified by symptoms (mean cure rate, 92% and 66%, respectively).25 The median 5-year survival for patients who were not screened during the 5 years before their diagnosis of cervical cancer is 66%.2

In unscreened patients, cervical cancer usually manifests as abnormal vaginal bleeding, especially postcoitally. In approximately 45% of cases, the patient has localized disease at diagnosis; in 36%, regional disease; and in 15%, distant metastases.26

For cancers marked by stromal invasion < 3 mm, appropriate treatment is cone biopsy or simple hysterectomy.27

Most patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergo modified radical hysterectomy. The ovaries are usually conserved, unless the cancer is adenocarcinoma. Sentinel-node dissection has become standard practice. Primary radiation therapy is most often used for patients who are a poor surgical candidate because of medical comorbidity or poor functional status. Antiangiogenic agents (eg, bevacizumab) can be used as adjuvant palliative therapy for advanced and recurrent disease.28

Continue to: After treatment for...

 

 

After treatment for invasive cervical cancer, the goal is early detection of recurrence, although there is no consensus on a protocol. Most recurrences are detected within the first 2 years.

After treatment for invasive cervical cancer, the goal is early detection of recurrence. Most recurrences are detected within the first 2 years.

Long-term sequelae after treatment for advanced cancer are considerable. Patients report significantly lower quality of life, comparatively, across multiple dimensions, including mental health, physical health, and sexual function.29

Hormone replacement therapy is generally considered acceptable after treatment of cervical cancer because it does not increase replication of HPV.

Recurrent or metastatic cancer. Recurrence or metastases will develop in 15% to 60% of patients,30 usually within the first 2 years after treatment.

Management depends on location and extent of disease, using mainly radiation therapy or surgical resection. Recurrence or metastasis is usually incurable.

Continue to: Last, there are promising...

 

 

Last, there are promising areas of research for more effective treatment for cervical cancer precursors and cancers, including gene editing tools31 and therapeutic vaccination,32 which is intended to target and kill infected cells.

Prospects for better cervical cancer care

Prevention. HPV vaccination is likely to have a large impact on population-based risk of both cancer and cancer precursors in the next generation.

Screening in the foreseeable future will gravitate toward reliance on primary HPV screening, with a self-sampling option.

Surveillance after dysplastic disease. The 2019 ASCCP guidelines for surveillance and intervention decisions after abnormal cancer screening results will evolve to incorporate introduction of new technology into computerized algorithms.

Treatment. New biologic therapies, including monoclonal antibodies and therapeutic vaccines against HPV, will likely be introduced for treating cancer precursors and invasive cancer.

A NOTE FROM THE EDITORS The Editors of The Journal of Family Practice recognize the importance of addressing the reproductive health of gender-diverse individuals. In this article, we use the words “women,” “men,” “girls,” and “boys” in limited circumstances (1) for ease of reading and (2) to reflect the official language of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The reader should consider the information and guidance offered in this discussion of cervical cancer and other human papillomavirus-related cancers to speak to the care of people with a uterine cervix and people with a penis.

CORRESPONDENCE
Linda Speer, MD, 3000 Arlington Avenue, MS 1179, Toledo, OH 43614; Linda.speer@utoledo.edu

The World Health Organization estimates that, in 2020, worldwide, there were 604,000 new cases of uterine cervical cancer and approximately 342,000 deaths, 84% of which occurred in developing countries.1 In the United States, as of 2018, the lifetime risk of death from cervical cancer was 2.2 for every 100,000, with a mean age of 50 years at diagnosis.2

In this article, we summarize recent updates in the epidemiology, prevention, and treatment of cervical cancer. We emphasize recent information of value to family physicians, including updates in clinical guidelines and other pertinent national recommendations.

Spotlight continues to shine on HPV

It has been known for several decades that cervical cancer is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Of more than 100 known HPV types, 14 or 15 are classified as carcinogenic. HPV 16 is the most common oncogenic type, causing more than 60% of cases of cervical cancer3,4; HPV 18 is second, causing 16.5% of cases—taken together, the 2 types account for more than 75% of cervical cancers.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection, with as many as 80% of sexually active people becoming infected during their lifetime, generally before 50 years of age.5 HPV also causes other anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers; however, worldwide, more than 80% of HPV-associated cancers are cervical.6 Risk factors for cervical cancer are listed in TABLE 1.7 Cervical cancer is less common when partners are circumcised.7

Table of variables associated with cervical cancer
Table 1: Variables associated with cervical cancer

Most cases of HPV infection clear in 1 or 2 years. In approximately 1% of untreated cases, cancer develops. Once infection progresses to high-grade dysplasia (ie, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] 3), further progression to invasive cervical cancer occurs in approximately 30% of untreated cases.8 Patients who develop cervical cancer generally test positive for a high-risk HPV genotype for at least 3 to 5 years before infection progresses to cancer.9

At least 70% of cervical cancers are squamous cell carcinoma (SCC); 20% to 25% are adenocarcinoma (ADC); and < 3% to 5% are adenosquamous carcinoma.10 Almost 100% of cervical SCCs are HPV+, as are 86% of cervical ADCs. The most common reason for HPV-negative status in patients with cervical cancer is false-negative testing because of inadequate methods.

Primary prevention through vaccination

HPV vaccination was introduced in 2006 in the United States for girls,a and for boysa in 2011. The primary reason for vaccinating boys is to reduce the rates of HPV-related anal and oropharyngeal cancer. The only available HPV vaccine in the United States is Gardasil 9 (9-valent vaccine, recombinant; Merck), which provides coverage for 7 high-risk HPV types that account for approximately 90% of cervical cancers and 2 types (6 and 11) that are the principal causes of condylomata acuminata (genital warts). Future generations of prophylactic vaccines are expected to cover additional strains.

Continue to: Vaccine studies...

 

 

Vaccine studies have been summarized in a Cochrane review,11 showing that vaccination is highly effective for prevention of cervical dysplasia, especially when given to young girls and womena previously unexposed to the virus. It has not been fully established how long protection lasts, but vaccination appears to be 70% to 90% effective for ≥ 10 years.

Dosing schedule. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends a 2-dose schedule 6 to 15 months apart, for both girls and boys between 9 and 14 years of age.12 A third dose is indicated if the first and second doses were given less than 5 months apart, or the person is older than 15 years or is immunocompromised. No recommendation has been made for revaccination after the primary series.

In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil 9 for adults 27 to 45 years of age. In June 2019, ACIP recommended vaccination for mena as old as 26 years, and adopted a recommendation that unvaccinated men and women between 27 and 45 years discuss HPV vaccination with their physician.13

The adolescent HPV vaccination rate varies by state; however, all states lag behind the CDC’s Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%.14 Barriers to vaccination include cost, infrastructure limitations, and social stigma.

Secondary prevention: Screening and Tx of precancerous lesions

Cervical cancer screening identifies patients at increased risk of cervical cancer and reassures the great majority of them that their risk of cervical cancer is very low. There are 3 general approaches to cervical cancer screening:

  • cytology-based screening, which has been implemented for decades in many countries
  • primary testing for DNA or RNA markers of high-risk HPV types
  • co-testing with cytology-based screening plus HPV testing.

Continue to: USPSTF guidance

 

 

USPSTF guidance. Recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for cervical cancer screening were updated in 2018 (TABLE 215). The recommendations state that high-risk HPV screening alone is a strategy that is amenable to patient self-sampling and self-mailing for processing—a protocol that has the potential to improve access to testing for patients who are inadequately screened.

Table of US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for cervical cancer screening
Table 2: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for cervical cancer screening

ASCCP guidance. The American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) makes nearly the same recommendations for cervical cancer screening. An exception is that ASCCP guidelines allow for the possibility of screening using primary high-risk HPV testing for patients starting at 25 years of age.16

Screening programs that can be initiated at a later age and longer intervals should be possible once the adolescent vaccination rate is optimized and vaccination registries are widely implemented.

Cervical cytology protocol

Cervical cytologic abnormalities are reported using the Bethesda system. Specimen adequacy is the most important component of quality assurance,17 and is determined primarily by sufficient cellularity. However, any specimen containing abnormal squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or atypical glandular cells (AGCs) is considered satisfactory, regardless of the number of cells. Obscuring factors that impair quality include excessive blood; inflammation; air-drying artifact; and an interfering substance, such as lubricant. The presence of reactive changes resulting from inflammation does not require further evaluation unless the patient is immunosuppressed.

Abnormalities are most often of squamous cells, of 2 categories: low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs). HSILs are more likely to be associated with persistent HPV infection and higher risk of progression to cervical cancer.

Continue to: Cytologic findings...

 

 

Cytologic findings can be associated with histologic findings that are sometimes more, sometimes less, severe. LSIL cytology specimens that contain a few cells that are suspicious for HSIL, but that do not contain enough cells to be diagnostic, are reported as atypical squamous cells, and do not exclude a high-grade intraepithelial lesion.

Glandular-cell abnormalities usually originate from the glandular epithelium of the endocervix or the endometrium—most often, AGCs. Less frequent are AGCs, favor neoplasia; endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ; and ADC. Rarely, AGCs are associated with adenosquamous carcinoma. Endometrial polyps are a typical benign pathology that can be associated with AGCs.

High-risk HPV screening alone is amenable to patient selfsampling and self-mailing for processing—a protocol that has the potential to improve access to testing.

In about 30% of cases, AGCs are associated with premalignant or malignant disease.18 The risk of malignancy in patients with AGCs increases with age, from < 2% among patients younger than 40 years to approximately 15% among those > 50 years.19 Endometrial malignancy is more common than cervical malignancy among patients > 40 years.

AGC cytology requires endocervical curettage, plus endometrial sampling for patients ≥ 35 years. Patients with a history of AGCs are at higher risk of cervical cancer for as long as 15 years.

Cytology-based screening has limitations. Sensitivity is relatively low and dependent on the expertise of the cytologist, although regular repeat testing has been used to overcome this limitation. A substantial subset of results are reported as equivocal—ie, ASCUS.

Continue to: Primary HPV screening

 

 

Primary HPV screening

Primary HPV testing was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2015 and recommended as an appropriate screening option by professional societies.

In contrast to cytology-based screening, HPV testing has high sensitivity (≥ 90%); the population-based negative likelihood ratio is near zero.20 This degree of sensitivity allows for extended screening intervals. However, primary HPV testing lacks specificity for persistent infection and high-grade or invasive lesions, which approximately doubles the number of patients who screen positive. The potential for excess patients to be referred for colposcopy led to the need for secondary triage.

Instituting secondary triage. Cytology is, currently, the primary method of secondary triage, reducing the number of referrals for colposcopy by nearly one-half, compared to referrals for all high-risk HPV results, and with better overall accuracy over cytology with high-risk HPV triage.21 When cytology shows ASCUS, or worse, refer the patient for colposcopy; alternatively, if so-called reflex testing for HPV types 16 and 18 is available and positive, direct referral to colposcopy without cytology is also appropriate.

In the future, secondary triage for cytology is likely to be replaced with improved technologies, such as immunostaining of the specimen for biomarkers associated with cervical precancer or cancer, or for viral genome methylation testing.22

table on cervical cancer recommendations
ASCPP guiding principles for 2019 recommendations

Management of abnormal cervical cancer screening results

Routine screening applies to asymptomatic patients who do not require surveillance because they have not had prior abnormal screening results. In 2020, ASCCP published risk-based management consensus guidelines that were developed for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and for cancer precursors.16 Guiding principles, and screening situations in which the guidelines can be applied, are summarized in TABLE 3.16

Continue to: ASCCP guidelines...

 

 

ASCCP guidelines provide a framework to incorporate new data and technologies without major revision. The web-based ASCCP resource can be obtained at no cost at http://asccp.org; there is also a smartphone app resource ($9.99).

Some noteworthy scenarios in ASCCP risk-based management are:

  • For unsatisfactory cytology with a negative HPV test or no HPV test, repeat age-based screening in 2 to 4 months. (Note: A negative HPV test might reflect an inadequate specimen; do not interpret this result as a true negative.)
  • An absent transformation zone (ie, between glandular and squamous cervical cells) with an otherwise adequate specimen should be interpreted as satisfactory for screening in patients 21 to 29 years of age. For those ≥ 30 years and with no HPV testing in this circumstance, HPV testing is preferred; repeating cytology, in 3 years, is also acceptable.
  • After a finding of LSIL/CIN1 without evidence of a high-grade abnormality, and after 2 negative annual screenings (including HPV testing), a return to 3-year (not 5-year) screening is ­recommended.
  • A cytology result of an HSIL carries a risk of 26% for CIN3+, in which case colposcopy is recommended, regardless of HPV test results.
  • For long-term management after treatment for CIN2+, continue surveillance testing every 3 years after 3 consecutive negative HPV tests or cytology findings, for at least 25 years. If the 25-year threshold is reached before 65 years of age, continuing surveillance every 3 years is optional, as long as the patient is in good health (ie, life expectancy ≥ 10 years).
  • After hysterectomy for a high-grade abnormality, annual vaginal HPV testing is recommended until 3 negative tests are returned; after that, surveillance shifts to a 3-year interval until the 25-year threshold.

Treatment of cancer precursors

Treatment for cervical dysplasia is excisional or ablative.

Excisional therapy. In most cases, excisional therapy (either a loop electrosurgical excision procedure [LEEP; also known as large loop excision of the transformation zone, cold knife conization, and laser conization] or cone biopsy) is required, or preferred. Excisional treatment has the advantage of providing a diagnostic specimen.

In about 30% of cases, atypical glandular cells (AGCs) found on cytology are associated with premalignant or malignant disease. The risk of malignancy with AGCs increases with age.

The World Health Organization recommends LEEP over ablation in settings in which LEEP is available.23 ASCCP states that, in the relatively few cases in which treatment is needed and it is for CIN1, either excision or ablation is acceptable. TABLE 416 lists situations in which excisional treatment is required because a diagnostic specimen is needed.

table on cervical lesions
Table 4: cervical lesions and other patient factors that require a diagnostic specimen

Continue to: Ablative treatments

 

 

Ablative treatments are cryotherapy, CO2 laser ablation, and thermal ablation. Ablative therapy has the advantage of presenting less risk of adverse obstetric outcomes (eg, preterm birth); it can be used if the indication for therapy is:

  • CIN1 or CIN2 and HPV type 16 or 18 positivity
  • concordant cytology and histology
  • satisfactory colposcopy
  • negative endocervical curettage.

The most common ablative treatment is liquid nitrogen applied to a metal tip under local anesthesia.

Hysterectomy can be considered for patients with recurrent CIN2+ who have completed childbearing or for whom repeat excision is infeasible (eg, scarring or a short cervix), or both.

Cost, availability, and convenience might play a role in decision-making with regard to the treatment choice for cancer precursors.

Is care after treatment called for? Patients who continue to be at increased risk of (and thus mortality from) cervical and vaginal cancer require enhanced surveillance. The risk of cancer is more than triple for patients who were given their diagnosis, and treated, when they were > 60 years, compared to patients treated in their 30s.1 The excess period of risk covers at least 25 years after treatment, even among patients who have had 3 posttreatment screenings.

Continue to: Persistent HPV positivity...

 

 

Persistent HPV positivity is more challenging. Patients infected with HPV type 16 have an increased risk of residual disease.

Cancer management

Invasive cancer. Most cervical cancers (60%) occur among patients who have not been screened during the 5 years before their diagnosis.24 For patients who have a diagnosis of cancer, those detected through screening have a much better prognosis than those identified by symptoms (mean cure rate, 92% and 66%, respectively).25 The median 5-year survival for patients who were not screened during the 5 years before their diagnosis of cervical cancer is 66%.2

In unscreened patients, cervical cancer usually manifests as abnormal vaginal bleeding, especially postcoitally. In approximately 45% of cases, the patient has localized disease at diagnosis; in 36%, regional disease; and in 15%, distant metastases.26

For cancers marked by stromal invasion < 3 mm, appropriate treatment is cone biopsy or simple hysterectomy.27

Most patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergo modified radical hysterectomy. The ovaries are usually conserved, unless the cancer is adenocarcinoma. Sentinel-node dissection has become standard practice. Primary radiation therapy is most often used for patients who are a poor surgical candidate because of medical comorbidity or poor functional status. Antiangiogenic agents (eg, bevacizumab) can be used as adjuvant palliative therapy for advanced and recurrent disease.28

Continue to: After treatment for...

 

 

After treatment for invasive cervical cancer, the goal is early detection of recurrence, although there is no consensus on a protocol. Most recurrences are detected within the first 2 years.

After treatment for invasive cervical cancer, the goal is early detection of recurrence. Most recurrences are detected within the first 2 years.

Long-term sequelae after treatment for advanced cancer are considerable. Patients report significantly lower quality of life, comparatively, across multiple dimensions, including mental health, physical health, and sexual function.29

Hormone replacement therapy is generally considered acceptable after treatment of cervical cancer because it does not increase replication of HPV.

Recurrent or metastatic cancer. Recurrence or metastases will develop in 15% to 60% of patients,30 usually within the first 2 years after treatment.

Management depends on location and extent of disease, using mainly radiation therapy or surgical resection. Recurrence or metastasis is usually incurable.

Continue to: Last, there are promising...

 

 

Last, there are promising areas of research for more effective treatment for cervical cancer precursors and cancers, including gene editing tools31 and therapeutic vaccination,32 which is intended to target and kill infected cells.

Prospects for better cervical cancer care

Prevention. HPV vaccination is likely to have a large impact on population-based risk of both cancer and cancer precursors in the next generation.

Screening in the foreseeable future will gravitate toward reliance on primary HPV screening, with a self-sampling option.

Surveillance after dysplastic disease. The 2019 ASCCP guidelines for surveillance and intervention decisions after abnormal cancer screening results will evolve to incorporate introduction of new technology into computerized algorithms.

Treatment. New biologic therapies, including monoclonal antibodies and therapeutic vaccines against HPV, will likely be introduced for treating cancer precursors and invasive cancer.

A NOTE FROM THE EDITORS The Editors of The Journal of Family Practice recognize the importance of addressing the reproductive health of gender-diverse individuals. In this article, we use the words “women,” “men,” “girls,” and “boys” in limited circumstances (1) for ease of reading and (2) to reflect the official language of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The reader should consider the information and guidance offered in this discussion of cervical cancer and other human papillomavirus-related cancers to speak to the care of people with a uterine cervix and people with a penis.

CORRESPONDENCE
Linda Speer, MD, 3000 Arlington Avenue, MS 1179, Toledo, OH 43614; Linda.speer@utoledo.edu

References

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209-249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660

2. Cancer stat facts: cervical cancer. National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] Program. Accessed November 14, 2021. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html

3. Guan P, Howell-Jones R, Li N, et al. Human papillomavirus types in 115,789 HPV-positive women: a meta-analysis from cervical infection to cancer. Int J Cancer 2012;131:2349-2359. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27485

4. Winer RL, Hughes JP, Feng Q, et al. Early history of incident, type-specific human papillomavirus infections in newly sexually active young women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:699-707. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-1108

5. Chesson HW, Dunne EF, Hariri F, et al. The estimated lifetime probability of acquiring human papillomavirus in the United States. Sex Transm Dis. 2014;41:660-664. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000193

6. Human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer. Fact sheet. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; November 11, 2020. Accessed November 14, 2021. www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-papillomavirus-(hpv)-and-cervical-cancer

7. International Collaboration of Epidemiological Studies of Cervical Cancer. Comparison of risk factors for invasive squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the cervix: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 8,097 women with squamous cell carcinoma and 1,374 women with adenocarcinoma from 12 epidemiological studies. Int J Cancer. 2007;120:885-891. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22357

8. McCredie MRE, Sharples KJ, Paul C, et al. Natural history of cervical cancer neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2008:9:425-434. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70103-7

9. de Sanjose S, Quint WG, Alemany I, et al; Retrospective International Survey and HPV Time Trends Study Group. Human papillomavirus genotype attribution in invasive cervical cancer: a retrospective, cross-sectional worldwide study. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:1048-1056. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70230-8

10. Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2004. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2007. Accessed November 14, 2021. https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2004/#citation

11. Arbyn M, Xu L, Simoens C, et al. Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5:CD009069. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009069.pub3

12. Meites E, Kempe A, Markowitz LE. Use of a 2-dose schedule for human papillomavirus vaccination—updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016:65;1405-1408. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6549a5

13. Meites E, Szilagyi PG, Chesson HW, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:698-702. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6832a3

14. State-level data: Female adolescents receiving 2 or 3 doses of HPV vaccine by age 13-15 years (percent). HealthyPeople.gov. Accessed November 14, 2021. www.healthypeople.gov/2020/data/map/4657?year=2018

15. United States Preventive Services Task Force; Curry SJ, Krist AH, Owens DK, et al. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 2018;320:674-686. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.10897

16. Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, et al; 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines Committee. 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020;24:102-131. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000525

17. Nayar R, Wilbur DC. The Pap test and Bethesda 2014. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015;123;271-281. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21521

18. Schnatz PF, Guile M, O’Sullivan DM, et al. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:701-708. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000202401.29145.68

19. Zhao C, Florea A, Onisko A, et al. Histologic follow-up results in 662 patients with Pap test findings of atypical glandular cells: results from a large academic womens hospital laboratory employing sensitive screening methods. Gynecol Oncol 2009;114:383-389. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.05.019

20. Zazove P, Reed BD, Gregoire L, et al. Low false-negative rate of PCR analysis for detecting human papillomavirus-related cervical lesions. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36:2708-2713. doi: 10.1128/JCM.36.9.2708-2713.1998

21. Richardson LA, El-Zein M, Ramankumar AV, et al; PEACHS (Pap Efficacy After Cervical HPV Status) Study Consortium. HPV DNA testing with cytology triage in cervical cancer screening: influence of revealing HPV infection status. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015:123:745-754. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21596

22. Wentzensen N, Schiffman M, Palmer T, et al. Triage of HPV positive women in cervical cancer screening. J Clin Virol 2016;76:S49-S55. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2015.11.015

23. WHO Guidelines: Use of Cryotherapy for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2011. Accessed November 14, 2021. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK138476/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK138476.pdf

24. Spence AR, Goggin P, Franco EL. Process of care failures in invasive cervical cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2007:45:93-106. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.06.007

25. Rositch AF, Nowak RG, Gravitt PE. Increased age and race-specific incidence of cervical cancer after correction for hysterectomy prevalence in the United States from 2000-2009. Cancer. 2014:120:2032-2038. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28548

26. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, et al. Cancer statistics, 2021. CA: Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:7-33. doi: 10.3322/caac.21654

27. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: cervical cancer. Accessed June 15, 2021. www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf

28. Tewari KS, Sill MW, Penson RT, et al. Bevacizumab for advanced cervical cancer: final overall survival and adverse event analysis of a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial (Gynecologic Oncology Group 240). Lancet. 2017;390:1654-1663. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31607-0

29. Osann K, Hsieh S, Nelson EL, et al. Factors associated with poor quality of life among cervical cancer survivors: implications for clinical care and clinical trials. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;135:266-272. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.08.036

30. Ries LAG, Harkins D, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975 to 2003. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2007. Accessed November 14, 2021. https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2003/#citation

31. Hu Z, Ding M. The precision prevention and therapy of HPV-related cervical cancer: new concepts and clinical implications. Cancer Med. 2018;7:5217-5236. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1501

32. Wang R, Pan W, Jin L, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccine against cervical cancer: opportunity and challenge. Cancer Lett. 2020;471:88-102. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2019.11.039

References

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209-249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660

2. Cancer stat facts: cervical cancer. National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] Program. Accessed November 14, 2021. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html

3. Guan P, Howell-Jones R, Li N, et al. Human papillomavirus types in 115,789 HPV-positive women: a meta-analysis from cervical infection to cancer. Int J Cancer 2012;131:2349-2359. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27485

4. Winer RL, Hughes JP, Feng Q, et al. Early history of incident, type-specific human papillomavirus infections in newly sexually active young women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:699-707. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-1108

5. Chesson HW, Dunne EF, Hariri F, et al. The estimated lifetime probability of acquiring human papillomavirus in the United States. Sex Transm Dis. 2014;41:660-664. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000193

6. Human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer. Fact sheet. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; November 11, 2020. Accessed November 14, 2021. www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-papillomavirus-(hpv)-and-cervical-cancer

7. International Collaboration of Epidemiological Studies of Cervical Cancer. Comparison of risk factors for invasive squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the cervix: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 8,097 women with squamous cell carcinoma and 1,374 women with adenocarcinoma from 12 epidemiological studies. Int J Cancer. 2007;120:885-891. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22357

8. McCredie MRE, Sharples KJ, Paul C, et al. Natural history of cervical cancer neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2008:9:425-434. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70103-7

9. de Sanjose S, Quint WG, Alemany I, et al; Retrospective International Survey and HPV Time Trends Study Group. Human papillomavirus genotype attribution in invasive cervical cancer: a retrospective, cross-sectional worldwide study. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:1048-1056. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70230-8

10. Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2004. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2007. Accessed November 14, 2021. https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2004/#citation

11. Arbyn M, Xu L, Simoens C, et al. Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5:CD009069. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009069.pub3

12. Meites E, Kempe A, Markowitz LE. Use of a 2-dose schedule for human papillomavirus vaccination—updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016:65;1405-1408. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6549a5

13. Meites E, Szilagyi PG, Chesson HW, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:698-702. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6832a3

14. State-level data: Female adolescents receiving 2 or 3 doses of HPV vaccine by age 13-15 years (percent). HealthyPeople.gov. Accessed November 14, 2021. www.healthypeople.gov/2020/data/map/4657?year=2018

15. United States Preventive Services Task Force; Curry SJ, Krist AH, Owens DK, et al. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 2018;320:674-686. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.10897

16. Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, et al; 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines Committee. 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020;24:102-131. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000525

17. Nayar R, Wilbur DC. The Pap test and Bethesda 2014. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015;123;271-281. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21521

18. Schnatz PF, Guile M, O’Sullivan DM, et al. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:701-708. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000202401.29145.68

19. Zhao C, Florea A, Onisko A, et al. Histologic follow-up results in 662 patients with Pap test findings of atypical glandular cells: results from a large academic womens hospital laboratory employing sensitive screening methods. Gynecol Oncol 2009;114:383-389. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.05.019

20. Zazove P, Reed BD, Gregoire L, et al. Low false-negative rate of PCR analysis for detecting human papillomavirus-related cervical lesions. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36:2708-2713. doi: 10.1128/JCM.36.9.2708-2713.1998

21. Richardson LA, El-Zein M, Ramankumar AV, et al; PEACHS (Pap Efficacy After Cervical HPV Status) Study Consortium. HPV DNA testing with cytology triage in cervical cancer screening: influence of revealing HPV infection status. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015:123:745-754. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21596

22. Wentzensen N, Schiffman M, Palmer T, et al. Triage of HPV positive women in cervical cancer screening. J Clin Virol 2016;76:S49-S55. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2015.11.015

23. WHO Guidelines: Use of Cryotherapy for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2011. Accessed November 14, 2021. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK138476/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK138476.pdf

24. Spence AR, Goggin P, Franco EL. Process of care failures in invasive cervical cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2007:45:93-106. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.06.007

25. Rositch AF, Nowak RG, Gravitt PE. Increased age and race-specific incidence of cervical cancer after correction for hysterectomy prevalence in the United States from 2000-2009. Cancer. 2014:120:2032-2038. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28548

26. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, et al. Cancer statistics, 2021. CA: Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:7-33. doi: 10.3322/caac.21654

27. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: cervical cancer. Accessed June 15, 2021. www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf

28. Tewari KS, Sill MW, Penson RT, et al. Bevacizumab for advanced cervical cancer: final overall survival and adverse event analysis of a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial (Gynecologic Oncology Group 240). Lancet. 2017;390:1654-1663. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31607-0

29. Osann K, Hsieh S, Nelson EL, et al. Factors associated with poor quality of life among cervical cancer survivors: implications for clinical care and clinical trials. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;135:266-272. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.08.036

30. Ries LAG, Harkins D, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975 to 2003. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2007. Accessed November 14, 2021. https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2003/#citation

31. Hu Z, Ding M. The precision prevention and therapy of HPV-related cervical cancer: new concepts and clinical implications. Cancer Med. 2018;7:5217-5236. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1501

32. Wang R, Pan W, Jin L, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccine against cervical cancer: opportunity and challenge. Cancer Lett. 2020;471:88-102. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2019.11.039

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 70(10)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 70(10)
Page Number
499-505,509
Page Number
499-505,509
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Cervical cancer update: The latest on screening & management
Display Headline
Cervical cancer update: The latest on screening & management
Sections
Inside the Article

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Encourage eligible patients to be vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV) because the vaccine is highly effective for preventing cervical dysplasia, especially when given to patients previously unexposed to the virus. A

› Screen for cervical disease with either cytology plus HPV testing or primary HPV testing with secondary triage for cytology; both protocols are more accurate than screening with cervical cytology alone, and allow you to widen the screening interval. A

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

“Doctor, I’m So Tired!” Refining Your Work-up for Chronic Fatigue

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 12/13/2016 - 10:27
Display Headline
“Doctor, I’m So Tired!” Refining Your Work-up for Chronic Fatigue
Recent advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of chronic fatigue and related disorders can help guide your response to this common complaint.  

CASE Lauren C, age 35, presents with fatigue, which she says started at least eight months ago and has progressively worsened. The patient, a clerical worker, says she manages to do an adequate job but goes home feeling utterly exhausted each night.

Lauren says she sleeps well, getting more than eight hours of sleep per night on weekends but less than seven hours per night during the week. But no matter how long she sleeps, she never awakens feeling refreshed. Lauren reports that she doesn’t smoke, has no more than four alcoholic drinks per month, and adheres to an “average” diet. She is too tired to exercise.

Lauren is single, with no children. Although she says she has a strong network of family and friends, she increasingly finds she has no energy for socializing. If Lauren were your patient, what would you do?

Fatigue is a common presenting symptom in primary care, accounting for about 5% of adult visits.1 Defined as a generalized lack of energy, fatigue that persists despite adequate rest or is severe enough to disrupt an individual’s ability to participate in key social and/or occupational activities warrants a thorough investigation.

Because fatigue is a nonspecific symptom that may be linked to a number of medical and psychiatric illnesses or to medications used to treat them, determining the cause can be difficult. In about half of all cases, no specific etiology is found.2This review, which includes the elements of a work-up and management strategies for patients presenting with ongoing fatigue, will help you arrive at the appropriate diagnosis and provide optimal treatment.

CHRONIC FATIGUE: DEFINING THE TERMS
A definition of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was initially published in 1988.3In subsequent years, the term myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) became popular. Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, ME often refers to patients whose condition is thought to have an infectious cause and for whom postexertional malaise is a hallmark symptom.4

CDC criteria. While several sets of diagnostic criteria for CFS have been developed, the most widely used is that of the CDC, published in 1994 (see Table 1).5,6A diagnosis of CFS is made on the basis of exclusion, subjective clinical interpretation, and patient self-report.

When the first two criteria—fatigue not due to ongoing exertion or other medical conditions that has lasted ≥ 6 months and is severe enough to interfere with daily activities—but fewer than four of the CDC’s eight concurrent symptoms (eg, headache, unrefreshing sleep, and postexertion malaise lasting > 24 h) are present, idiopathic fatigue, rather than CFS, is diagnosed.6

International Consensus Criteria (ICC). In 2011, the ICC for ME were proposed in an effort to provide more specific diagnostic criteria (see Table 2).7The ICC emphasize fatigability, or what the authors identify as “post-exertional neuroimmune exhaustion.”

The ICC have not yet been broadly researched. But an Australian study of patients with chronic fatigue found that those who met the ICC definition were sicker and more homogeneous, with significantly lower scores for physical and social functioning and bodily pain, compared with those who fulfilled the CDC criteria alone.8

Continue for common threads of chronic fatigue & neuropsychiatric conditions >>

 

 


CHRONIC FATIGUE & NEUROPSYCHIATRIC CONDITIONS: COMMON THREADS
Recent research has made it clear that depression, somatization, and CFS share some biological underpinnings. These include biomarkers for inflammation, cell-mediated immune activation—which may be related to the symptoms of fatigue—autonomic dysfunction, and hyperalgesia.9Evidence suggests that up to two-thirds of patients with CFS also meet the criteria for a psychiatric disorder.10The most common psychiatric conditions are major depressive disorder (MDD), affecting an estimated 22% to 32% of those with CFS; anxiety disorder, affecting about 20%; and somatization disorder, affecting about 10%—at least double the incidence of the general population.10

Others point out, however, that up to half of those with CFS do not have a psychiatric disorder.11A diagnosis of somatization disorder, in particular, depends largely on a subjective interpretation of whether the presenting symptoms have a physical cause.10

CFS and MDD comorbidity. The most widely studied association between CFS and psychiatric disorders involves MDD. Observational studies have found patients with CFS have a lifetime prevalence of MDD of 65%,12,13which is higher than that of patients with other chronic diseases. Overlapping symptoms include fatigue, sleep disturbance, poor concentration, and memory problems. However, those with CFS have fewer symptoms related to anhedonia, poor self-esteem, guilt, and suicidal ideation compared with individuals with MDD.12,13

There are several possible explanations for CFS and MDD comorbidity, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.10One theory is that CFS is an atypical form of depression; another holds that the disability associated with CFS leads to depression, as is the case with many other chronic illnesses; and a third points to overlapping pathophysiology.10

An emerging body of evidence suggests that CFS and MDD have some common oxidative and nitrosative biochemical pathways. Activated by infection, psychologic stress, and immune disorders, they are believed to have damaging free radical and nitric oxide effects at the cellular level.14The cellular effects can result in fatigue, muscle pain, and flulike malaise.

Cortisol response differs
CFS and MDD might be distinguishable by another pathway—the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. MDD is classically associated with activation and raised cortisol levels, while CFS is consistently associated with impaired HPA axis functioning and reduced cortisol levels.10The majority of patients with CFS report symptoms of cognitive decline, with the acquisition of new verbal learning and information-processing speed particularly likely to be impaired.15

A meta-analysis of 50 studies of patients with CFS showed deficits in attention, memory, and reaction time, but not in fine motor speed, vocabulary, or reasoning.16Autonomic dysfunction has also been observed, including disordered sympathetic activity. The most frequently observed abnormalities on autonomic testing are postural hypotension, tachycardia syndrome, neurally mediated hypotension, and heart rate variability during tilt table testing.16

THE LINK BETWEEN INFECTION AND CFS
Several infectious agents have been associated with ME/CFS, including the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes simplex virus 6, parvovirus, Q fever, and Lyme disease.8,17,18 Most agents that have been linked to ME/CFS are associated with persistent infection and thus incitement of the immune system.

Numerous observational studies17,18have documented postinfectious fatigue syndromes after acute viral and bacterial infections and symptoms suggestive of infection, such as fever, myalgias, and respiratory and gastrointestinal distress. In one prospective Australian study,19investigators identified 253 cases of acute EBV, Ross River virus, and Q fever. Of those 253 patients, 12% went on to develop CFS, with a higher likelihood among those with more severe acute symptoms. No correlation with preexisting psychiatric disorders was found.

Muscle mitochondria studies have demonstrated what appear to be acquired abnormalities in those with CFS.20,21Signs of increased oxidative stress have been found in both blood and muscle samples from patients with CFS, and longitudinal studies suggest that oxidative stress is greatest during periods of clinical exacerbation.22Increased lactate levels suggest increased anaerobic metabolism in the central nervous system consistent with mitochondrial dysfunction. Several studies have demonstrated that exercise can precipitate oxidative stress in patients with CFS, in contrast with healthy controls and controls with other chronic illnesses, suggesting a physiologic basis for their postexertional symptoms.17

Autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, a rare syndrome associated with vaccine administration, has been linked to postvaccination adverse events, exposure to silicone implants, Gulf War syndrome (related to multiple vaccinations), and macrophagic myofasciitis. All involve exposure to immune adjuvants and have similar clinical manifestations. The corresponding exposures appear to trigger an autoimmune response in susceptible individuals. The hepatitis B vaccine is most often associated with CFS, with symptoms occurring within 90 days of administration.23

Continue for the clinical work-up >>

 

 


THE CLINICAL WORK-UP: PUTTING KNOWLEDGE INTO PRACTICE
Familiarity with potential causes of and connections with ME/CFS will help you ensure that patients who say they’re always tired receive a thorough work-up. Start with a medical history, inquiring directly about medical and psychiatric disorders that may contribute to fatigue (see Table 3).5,24,25 Include a medication history as well, to help determine whether the fatigue is drug-related (see Table 4).5,25 

What to ask. Determine the onset, course, duration, daily pattern, and impact of fatigue on the patient’s daily life. Inquire, too, about related symptoms of daytime sleepiness, dyspnea on exertion, generalized weakness, and depressed mood. The prominence of any of these rather than fatigue, per se, point to a diagnosis of a chronic illness other than ME/CFS.

Keep in mind, too, that patients with an organ-based medical illness tend to associate their fatigue with activities that they are unable to complete, such as shopping or light housework. In contrast, those with fatigue that is not organ-based typically say that they’re tired all the time. Their fatigue is not necessarily related to exertion, nor does it improve with rest.26

To address this distinction, take a sleep history, assessing both the quality and quantity of the patient’s sleep to determine how it affects symptoms.27 Consider using a questionnaire designed to help distinguish between sleepiness—and a primary sleep disorder—and fatigue,28 such as the Fatigue Severity Scale of Sleep Disorders (www.healthywomen.org/sites/default/files/FatigueSeverityScale.pdf).

What to rule out. In addition to a medical history, the physical examination should be oriented toward ruling out secondary causes of fatigue. In addition to a system-by-system approach to the differential diagnosis, carefully observe the patient’s general appearance, with attention to his or her level of alertness, grooming, and psychomotor agitation or retardation as possible signs of a psychiatric disorder. To rule out neurologic causes, evaluate muscle bulk, tone, and strength; deep tendon reflexes; and sensory and cranial nerves, as well.29

Lab tests to consider. In most cases of ME/CFS, basic studies—complete blood count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, blood chemistry, and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels—are sufficient. When no medical or psychiatric cause has been found, additional tests may be ordered on a case-by-case basis, although laboratory analysis affects the management of fatigue in less than 5% of such patients.30 Tests to consider include:
• Creatine kinase (for patients who report pain or muscle weakness)
• Pregnancy test (for women of childbearing age)
• Ferritin testing (for young women who might benefit from iron supplementation for levels < 50 ng/mL even if anemia is not present)31
• Hepatitis C screening (recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force for those born between 1945 and 1965)32
• HIV screening and the purified protein derivative test for tuberculosis (based on patient ­history).

Forego routine testing for other infections
Routine testing for infectious diseases and conditions associated with fatigue, such as EBV or Lyme disease, immune deficiency (eg, immunoglobulins), inflammatory disease (eg, antinuclear antibodies, rheumatoid factor), celiac disease, vitamin D deficiency, vitamin B12 deficiency, or heavy metal toxicity, is unlikely to be helpful.29 Additional testing simply to reassure a worried patient usually does not accomplish that objective.33

Additional studies, referrals to consider. If you suspect that a patient has a sleep disorder, a referral to a sleep clinic to rule out idiopathic sleep disorders, obstructive sleep apnea, or movement disorders that interfere with sleep may be in order. Spirometry and echocardiography may be helpful for some patients. If you suspect peripheral muscle fatigue, a referral for neuromuscular testing is indicated.

Lauren’s medical history reveals that she also has irritable bowel syndrome, which she manages with diet and OTC medication, as needed for constipation or diarrhea. She denies having any other chronic conditions. Her only other symptoms, she reports, are mild upper back pain after spending long hours at the computer and arthralgias in her left knee and both hands. She admits to being “somewhat depressed” in the last few months but denies the presence of anhedonia.

The patient’s physical examination is normal, and her depression screen does not meet the criteria for MDD. Her metabolic chemistry panel, complete blood count, TSH, and sedimentation rate are all normal, as well.

Continue for symptom management and coping strategies >>

 

 


SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT AND COPING STRATEGIES
When no specific cause of chronic fatigue is found, the focus shifts from diagnosis to symptom management and coping strategies. This requires engagement with the patient. It is important to acknowledge the existence of his or her symptoms and to reassure the patient that further investigation may be warranted later, should new symptoms emerge. Advise the patient, too, that periods of remission and relapse are likely.

Strategies designed to motivate patient self-management, as well as the formulation of patient-centered treatment plans, have been shown to reduce symptom scores.34 Participation in a support group, as well as frequent follow-up visits with a primary care provider, a behavioral therapist, or both, may help to provide needed psychologic support.

Evidence of the effectiveness of specific therapies for ME/CFS is limited; however, the best-studied approaches are cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy.35 Exercise should be low intensity, such as walking or cycling for 30 minutes three times a week, with a gradual increase in duration and frequency over a period of weeks to months. Patients with cancer-related fatigue may benefit from yoga, group therapy, and stress management.36

Associated mood and pain symptoms should be treated, as well. Bupropion, which is somewhat stimulating, may be considered as an initial treatment for patients with depression and clinically significant fatigue.

Other potentially beneficial approaches include a healthy diet, avoidance of more than nominal amounts of alcohol, relative avoidance of caffeine (no more than one cup of a caffeinated beverage in the morning), and stress reduction techniques.

Attention to good sleep hygiene may be especially beneficial, including a regular bedtime routine and sleep schedule, and elimination of bedroom light and noise. Pharmacologic treatments for insomnia should be used with caution, if at all.

Lauren receives a referral for CBT and is scheduled for a return visit in four weeks. At the advice of both her primary care provider and the behavioral therapist, she gradually makes several lifestyle changes. She begins going to bed earlier on weeknights to ensure that she sleeps for at least seven hours. She improves her diet, with increasing emphasis on vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. She also starts a walking program, increasing gradually to a total of three hours per week. After four months, she adds a weekly trip to a gym, where she practices resistance training for about 40 minutes.

Lauren also increases her social activities on weekends and recently accepted an invitation to join a book club. Six months from her initial visit, she notes that although she is still more easily fatigued than most people, she has made significant improvement

REFERENCES
1. Nijrolder I, van der Windt DA, van der Horst HE. Prognosis of fatigue and functioning in primary care: a 1-year follow-up study. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6:519-527.
2. Griffith JP, Zarrouf FA. A systematic review of chronic fatigue syndrome: don’t assume it’s depression. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;10:120-128.
3. Holmes GP, Kaplan JE, Gantz NM, et al. Chronic fatigue syndrome: a working case definition. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:387-389.
4. Morris G, Maes M. Case definitions and diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome: from clinical consensus to evidence-based case definitions. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2013;34:185-199.
5. Fukuda K, Straus SE, Hickie I, et al. The chronic fatigue syndrome: a comprehensive approach to its definition and study. International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:953-959.
6. CDC. Chronic fatigue syndrome. www.cdc.gov/cfs/diagnosis/index.html. Accessed December 17, 2015.
7. Carruthers BM, van de Sande MI, De Meirleir KL, et al. Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. J Intern Med. 2011;270:327-338.
8. Johnston SC, Brenu EW, Hardcastle S, et al. A comparison of health status in patients meeting alternative definitions for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:64.
9. Anderson VR, Jason LA, Hlavaty LE, et al. A review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86:147-155.
10. Christley Y, Duffy T, Everall IP, et al. The neuropsychiatric and neuropsychological features of chronic fatigue syndrome: revisiting the enigma. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15:353.
11. Henningsen P, Zimmermann T, Sattel HH. Medically unexplained physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression: a meta-analytic review. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:528-533.
12. Nater UM, Jones JF, Lin JM, et al. Personality features and personality disorders in chronic fatigue syndrome: a population-based study. Psychother Psychosom. 2010;79:312-318.
13. Taylor RR, Jason LA, Jahn SC. Chronic fatigue and sociodemographic characteristics as predictors of psychiatric disorders in a community-based sample. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:896-901.
14. Leonard B, Maes M. Mechanistic explanations of how cell-mediated immune activation, inflammation and oxidative and nitrosative stress pathways and their sequels and concomitants play a role in the pathophysiology of unipolar depression. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012;36:764-785.
15. DeLuca J, Christodoulou C, Diamond BJ, et al. Working memory deficits in chronic fatigue syndrome: differentiating between speed and accuracy of information processing. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004;10:101-109.
16. Cockshell SJ, Mathias JL. Cognitive functioning in chronic fatigue syndrome: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2010;40:1253-1267.
17. Komaroff AL, Cho TA. Role of infection and neurologic dysfunction in chronic fatigue syndrome. Semin Neurol. 2011;31:325-337.
18. Naess H, Sundal E, Myhr KM, et al. Postinfectious and chronic fatigue syndromes: clinical experience from a tertiary-referral centre in Norway. In Vivo. 2010;24:185-188.
19. Hickie I, Davenport T, Wakefield D, et al; Dubbo Infection Outcomes Study Group. Post-infective and chronic fatigue syndromes precipitated by viral and non-viral pathogens: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2006;333:575.
20. Plioplys AV, Plioplys S. Electron-microscopic investigation of muscle mitochondria in chronic fatigue syndrome.Neuropsychobiology. 1995;32: 175-181.
21. Vernon SD, Whistler T, Cameron B, et al. Preliminary evidence of mitochondrial dysfunction associated with post-infective fatigue after acute infection with Epstein Barr virus. BMC Infect Dis. 2006;6:15.
22. Miwa K, Fujita M. Fluctuation of serum vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) concentrations during exacerbation and remission phases in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Heart Vessels. 2010;25:319-323.
23. Rosenblum H, Shoenfeld Y, Amital H. The common immunogenic etiology of chronic fatigue syndrome: from infections to vaccines via adjuvants to the ASIA syndrome. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011;25:851-863.
24. Vincent A, Brimmer DJ, Whipple MO, et al. Prevalence, incidence, and classification of chronic fatigue syndrome in Olmsted County, Minnesota as estimated using the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87:1145-1152.
25. Goroll AH, Mulley AG. Primary Care Medicine: Office Evaluation and Management of the Adult Patient. 7th ed. Morrisville, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2014.
26. Brown RF, Schutte NS. Direct and indirect relationships between emotional intelligence and subjective fatigue in university students. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:585-593.
27. Pigeon WR, Sateia MJ, Ferguson RJ. Distinguishing between excessive daytime sleepiness and fatigue: toward improved detection and treatment. J Psychosom Res. 2003;54:61-69.
28. Bailes S, Libman E, Baltzan M, et al. Brief and distinct empirical sleepiness and fatigue scales. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:605-613.
29. National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care (UK). Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy): Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy) in Adults and Children. London, UK: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2007.
30. Lane TJ, Matthews DA, Manu P. The low yield of physical examinations and laboratory investigations of patients with chronic fatigue. Am J Med Sci. 1990;299:313-318.
31. Vaucher P, Druisw PL, Waldvogel S, et al. Effect of iron supplementation on fatigue in nonanemic menstruating women with low ferritin: a randomized controlled trial.CMAJ. 2012;184:1247-1254.
32. US Preventive Services Task Force. Hepatitis C: Screening. US Preventive Services Task Force Web site. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspshepc.htm. Accessed December 17, 2015.
33. Rolfe A, Burton C. Reassurance after diagnostic testing with a low pretest probability of serious disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:407-416.
34. Smith RC, Lyles JS, Gardiner JC, et al. Primary care clinicians treat patients with medically unexplained symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:671-677.
35. White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, et al; PACE trial management group. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2011;377:823-836.
36.  van Weert E, Hoekstra-Weebers J, Otter R, et al. Cancer-related fatigue: predictors and effects of rehabilitation. Oncologist. 2006;11:184-196.

References

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Linda Speer, MD, Saudia Mushkbar, MD

Linda Speer and Saudia Mushkbar are with the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences in Ohio. The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article, which originally appeared in The Journal of Family Practice (2015;64[2]:84-91).

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 26(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
26-30,32
Legacy Keywords
chronic fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalomyelitis, CFS, MDD, major depressive disorder, ME
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Linda Speer, MD, Saudia Mushkbar, MD

Linda Speer and Saudia Mushkbar are with the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences in Ohio. The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article, which originally appeared in The Journal of Family Practice (2015;64[2]:84-91).

Author and Disclosure Information

Linda Speer, MD, Saudia Mushkbar, MD

Linda Speer and Saudia Mushkbar are with the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences in Ohio. The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article, which originally appeared in The Journal of Family Practice (2015;64[2]:84-91).

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles
Recent advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of chronic fatigue and related disorders can help guide your response to this common complaint.  
Recent advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of chronic fatigue and related disorders can help guide your response to this common complaint.  

CASE Lauren C, age 35, presents with fatigue, which she says started at least eight months ago and has progressively worsened. The patient, a clerical worker, says she manages to do an adequate job but goes home feeling utterly exhausted each night.

Lauren says she sleeps well, getting more than eight hours of sleep per night on weekends but less than seven hours per night during the week. But no matter how long she sleeps, she never awakens feeling refreshed. Lauren reports that she doesn’t smoke, has no more than four alcoholic drinks per month, and adheres to an “average” diet. She is too tired to exercise.

Lauren is single, with no children. Although she says she has a strong network of family and friends, she increasingly finds she has no energy for socializing. If Lauren were your patient, what would you do?

Fatigue is a common presenting symptom in primary care, accounting for about 5% of adult visits.1 Defined as a generalized lack of energy, fatigue that persists despite adequate rest or is severe enough to disrupt an individual’s ability to participate in key social and/or occupational activities warrants a thorough investigation.

Because fatigue is a nonspecific symptom that may be linked to a number of medical and psychiatric illnesses or to medications used to treat them, determining the cause can be difficult. In about half of all cases, no specific etiology is found.2This review, which includes the elements of a work-up and management strategies for patients presenting with ongoing fatigue, will help you arrive at the appropriate diagnosis and provide optimal treatment.

CHRONIC FATIGUE: DEFINING THE TERMS
A definition of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was initially published in 1988.3In subsequent years, the term myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) became popular. Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, ME often refers to patients whose condition is thought to have an infectious cause and for whom postexertional malaise is a hallmark symptom.4

CDC criteria. While several sets of diagnostic criteria for CFS have been developed, the most widely used is that of the CDC, published in 1994 (see Table 1).5,6A diagnosis of CFS is made on the basis of exclusion, subjective clinical interpretation, and patient self-report.

When the first two criteria—fatigue not due to ongoing exertion or other medical conditions that has lasted ≥ 6 months and is severe enough to interfere with daily activities—but fewer than four of the CDC’s eight concurrent symptoms (eg, headache, unrefreshing sleep, and postexertion malaise lasting > 24 h) are present, idiopathic fatigue, rather than CFS, is diagnosed.6

International Consensus Criteria (ICC). In 2011, the ICC for ME were proposed in an effort to provide more specific diagnostic criteria (see Table 2).7The ICC emphasize fatigability, or what the authors identify as “post-exertional neuroimmune exhaustion.”

The ICC have not yet been broadly researched. But an Australian study of patients with chronic fatigue found that those who met the ICC definition were sicker and more homogeneous, with significantly lower scores for physical and social functioning and bodily pain, compared with those who fulfilled the CDC criteria alone.8

Continue for common threads of chronic fatigue & neuropsychiatric conditions >>

 

 


CHRONIC FATIGUE & NEUROPSYCHIATRIC CONDITIONS: COMMON THREADS
Recent research has made it clear that depression, somatization, and CFS share some biological underpinnings. These include biomarkers for inflammation, cell-mediated immune activation—which may be related to the symptoms of fatigue—autonomic dysfunction, and hyperalgesia.9Evidence suggests that up to two-thirds of patients with CFS also meet the criteria for a psychiatric disorder.10The most common psychiatric conditions are major depressive disorder (MDD), affecting an estimated 22% to 32% of those with CFS; anxiety disorder, affecting about 20%; and somatization disorder, affecting about 10%—at least double the incidence of the general population.10

Others point out, however, that up to half of those with CFS do not have a psychiatric disorder.11A diagnosis of somatization disorder, in particular, depends largely on a subjective interpretation of whether the presenting symptoms have a physical cause.10

CFS and MDD comorbidity. The most widely studied association between CFS and psychiatric disorders involves MDD. Observational studies have found patients with CFS have a lifetime prevalence of MDD of 65%,12,13which is higher than that of patients with other chronic diseases. Overlapping symptoms include fatigue, sleep disturbance, poor concentration, and memory problems. However, those with CFS have fewer symptoms related to anhedonia, poor self-esteem, guilt, and suicidal ideation compared with individuals with MDD.12,13

There are several possible explanations for CFS and MDD comorbidity, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.10One theory is that CFS is an atypical form of depression; another holds that the disability associated with CFS leads to depression, as is the case with many other chronic illnesses; and a third points to overlapping pathophysiology.10

An emerging body of evidence suggests that CFS and MDD have some common oxidative and nitrosative biochemical pathways. Activated by infection, psychologic stress, and immune disorders, they are believed to have damaging free radical and nitric oxide effects at the cellular level.14The cellular effects can result in fatigue, muscle pain, and flulike malaise.

Cortisol response differs
CFS and MDD might be distinguishable by another pathway—the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. MDD is classically associated with activation and raised cortisol levels, while CFS is consistently associated with impaired HPA axis functioning and reduced cortisol levels.10The majority of patients with CFS report symptoms of cognitive decline, with the acquisition of new verbal learning and information-processing speed particularly likely to be impaired.15

A meta-analysis of 50 studies of patients with CFS showed deficits in attention, memory, and reaction time, but not in fine motor speed, vocabulary, or reasoning.16Autonomic dysfunction has also been observed, including disordered sympathetic activity. The most frequently observed abnormalities on autonomic testing are postural hypotension, tachycardia syndrome, neurally mediated hypotension, and heart rate variability during tilt table testing.16

THE LINK BETWEEN INFECTION AND CFS
Several infectious agents have been associated with ME/CFS, including the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes simplex virus 6, parvovirus, Q fever, and Lyme disease.8,17,18 Most agents that have been linked to ME/CFS are associated with persistent infection and thus incitement of the immune system.

Numerous observational studies17,18have documented postinfectious fatigue syndromes after acute viral and bacterial infections and symptoms suggestive of infection, such as fever, myalgias, and respiratory and gastrointestinal distress. In one prospective Australian study,19investigators identified 253 cases of acute EBV, Ross River virus, and Q fever. Of those 253 patients, 12% went on to develop CFS, with a higher likelihood among those with more severe acute symptoms. No correlation with preexisting psychiatric disorders was found.

Muscle mitochondria studies have demonstrated what appear to be acquired abnormalities in those with CFS.20,21Signs of increased oxidative stress have been found in both blood and muscle samples from patients with CFS, and longitudinal studies suggest that oxidative stress is greatest during periods of clinical exacerbation.22Increased lactate levels suggest increased anaerobic metabolism in the central nervous system consistent with mitochondrial dysfunction. Several studies have demonstrated that exercise can precipitate oxidative stress in patients with CFS, in contrast with healthy controls and controls with other chronic illnesses, suggesting a physiologic basis for their postexertional symptoms.17

Autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, a rare syndrome associated with vaccine administration, has been linked to postvaccination adverse events, exposure to silicone implants, Gulf War syndrome (related to multiple vaccinations), and macrophagic myofasciitis. All involve exposure to immune adjuvants and have similar clinical manifestations. The corresponding exposures appear to trigger an autoimmune response in susceptible individuals. The hepatitis B vaccine is most often associated with CFS, with symptoms occurring within 90 days of administration.23

Continue for the clinical work-up >>

 

 


THE CLINICAL WORK-UP: PUTTING KNOWLEDGE INTO PRACTICE
Familiarity with potential causes of and connections with ME/CFS will help you ensure that patients who say they’re always tired receive a thorough work-up. Start with a medical history, inquiring directly about medical and psychiatric disorders that may contribute to fatigue (see Table 3).5,24,25 Include a medication history as well, to help determine whether the fatigue is drug-related (see Table 4).5,25 

What to ask. Determine the onset, course, duration, daily pattern, and impact of fatigue on the patient’s daily life. Inquire, too, about related symptoms of daytime sleepiness, dyspnea on exertion, generalized weakness, and depressed mood. The prominence of any of these rather than fatigue, per se, point to a diagnosis of a chronic illness other than ME/CFS.

Keep in mind, too, that patients with an organ-based medical illness tend to associate their fatigue with activities that they are unable to complete, such as shopping or light housework. In contrast, those with fatigue that is not organ-based typically say that they’re tired all the time. Their fatigue is not necessarily related to exertion, nor does it improve with rest.26

To address this distinction, take a sleep history, assessing both the quality and quantity of the patient’s sleep to determine how it affects symptoms.27 Consider using a questionnaire designed to help distinguish between sleepiness—and a primary sleep disorder—and fatigue,28 such as the Fatigue Severity Scale of Sleep Disorders (www.healthywomen.org/sites/default/files/FatigueSeverityScale.pdf).

What to rule out. In addition to a medical history, the physical examination should be oriented toward ruling out secondary causes of fatigue. In addition to a system-by-system approach to the differential diagnosis, carefully observe the patient’s general appearance, with attention to his or her level of alertness, grooming, and psychomotor agitation or retardation as possible signs of a psychiatric disorder. To rule out neurologic causes, evaluate muscle bulk, tone, and strength; deep tendon reflexes; and sensory and cranial nerves, as well.29

Lab tests to consider. In most cases of ME/CFS, basic studies—complete blood count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, blood chemistry, and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels—are sufficient. When no medical or psychiatric cause has been found, additional tests may be ordered on a case-by-case basis, although laboratory analysis affects the management of fatigue in less than 5% of such patients.30 Tests to consider include:
• Creatine kinase (for patients who report pain or muscle weakness)
• Pregnancy test (for women of childbearing age)
• Ferritin testing (for young women who might benefit from iron supplementation for levels < 50 ng/mL even if anemia is not present)31
• Hepatitis C screening (recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force for those born between 1945 and 1965)32
• HIV screening and the purified protein derivative test for tuberculosis (based on patient ­history).

Forego routine testing for other infections
Routine testing for infectious diseases and conditions associated with fatigue, such as EBV or Lyme disease, immune deficiency (eg, immunoglobulins), inflammatory disease (eg, antinuclear antibodies, rheumatoid factor), celiac disease, vitamin D deficiency, vitamin B12 deficiency, or heavy metal toxicity, is unlikely to be helpful.29 Additional testing simply to reassure a worried patient usually does not accomplish that objective.33

Additional studies, referrals to consider. If you suspect that a patient has a sleep disorder, a referral to a sleep clinic to rule out idiopathic sleep disorders, obstructive sleep apnea, or movement disorders that interfere with sleep may be in order. Spirometry and echocardiography may be helpful for some patients. If you suspect peripheral muscle fatigue, a referral for neuromuscular testing is indicated.

Lauren’s medical history reveals that she also has irritable bowel syndrome, which she manages with diet and OTC medication, as needed for constipation or diarrhea. She denies having any other chronic conditions. Her only other symptoms, she reports, are mild upper back pain after spending long hours at the computer and arthralgias in her left knee and both hands. She admits to being “somewhat depressed” in the last few months but denies the presence of anhedonia.

The patient’s physical examination is normal, and her depression screen does not meet the criteria for MDD. Her metabolic chemistry panel, complete blood count, TSH, and sedimentation rate are all normal, as well.

Continue for symptom management and coping strategies >>

 

 


SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT AND COPING STRATEGIES
When no specific cause of chronic fatigue is found, the focus shifts from diagnosis to symptom management and coping strategies. This requires engagement with the patient. It is important to acknowledge the existence of his or her symptoms and to reassure the patient that further investigation may be warranted later, should new symptoms emerge. Advise the patient, too, that periods of remission and relapse are likely.

Strategies designed to motivate patient self-management, as well as the formulation of patient-centered treatment plans, have been shown to reduce symptom scores.34 Participation in a support group, as well as frequent follow-up visits with a primary care provider, a behavioral therapist, or both, may help to provide needed psychologic support.

Evidence of the effectiveness of specific therapies for ME/CFS is limited; however, the best-studied approaches are cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy.35 Exercise should be low intensity, such as walking or cycling for 30 minutes three times a week, with a gradual increase in duration and frequency over a period of weeks to months. Patients with cancer-related fatigue may benefit from yoga, group therapy, and stress management.36

Associated mood and pain symptoms should be treated, as well. Bupropion, which is somewhat stimulating, may be considered as an initial treatment for patients with depression and clinically significant fatigue.

Other potentially beneficial approaches include a healthy diet, avoidance of more than nominal amounts of alcohol, relative avoidance of caffeine (no more than one cup of a caffeinated beverage in the morning), and stress reduction techniques.

Attention to good sleep hygiene may be especially beneficial, including a regular bedtime routine and sleep schedule, and elimination of bedroom light and noise. Pharmacologic treatments for insomnia should be used with caution, if at all.

Lauren receives a referral for CBT and is scheduled for a return visit in four weeks. At the advice of both her primary care provider and the behavioral therapist, she gradually makes several lifestyle changes. She begins going to bed earlier on weeknights to ensure that she sleeps for at least seven hours. She improves her diet, with increasing emphasis on vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. She also starts a walking program, increasing gradually to a total of three hours per week. After four months, she adds a weekly trip to a gym, where she practices resistance training for about 40 minutes.

Lauren also increases her social activities on weekends and recently accepted an invitation to join a book club. Six months from her initial visit, she notes that although she is still more easily fatigued than most people, she has made significant improvement

REFERENCES
1. Nijrolder I, van der Windt DA, van der Horst HE. Prognosis of fatigue and functioning in primary care: a 1-year follow-up study. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6:519-527.
2. Griffith JP, Zarrouf FA. A systematic review of chronic fatigue syndrome: don’t assume it’s depression. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;10:120-128.
3. Holmes GP, Kaplan JE, Gantz NM, et al. Chronic fatigue syndrome: a working case definition. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:387-389.
4. Morris G, Maes M. Case definitions and diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome: from clinical consensus to evidence-based case definitions. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2013;34:185-199.
5. Fukuda K, Straus SE, Hickie I, et al. The chronic fatigue syndrome: a comprehensive approach to its definition and study. International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:953-959.
6. CDC. Chronic fatigue syndrome. www.cdc.gov/cfs/diagnosis/index.html. Accessed December 17, 2015.
7. Carruthers BM, van de Sande MI, De Meirleir KL, et al. Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. J Intern Med. 2011;270:327-338.
8. Johnston SC, Brenu EW, Hardcastle S, et al. A comparison of health status in patients meeting alternative definitions for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:64.
9. Anderson VR, Jason LA, Hlavaty LE, et al. A review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86:147-155.
10. Christley Y, Duffy T, Everall IP, et al. The neuropsychiatric and neuropsychological features of chronic fatigue syndrome: revisiting the enigma. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15:353.
11. Henningsen P, Zimmermann T, Sattel HH. Medically unexplained physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression: a meta-analytic review. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:528-533.
12. Nater UM, Jones JF, Lin JM, et al. Personality features and personality disorders in chronic fatigue syndrome: a population-based study. Psychother Psychosom. 2010;79:312-318.
13. Taylor RR, Jason LA, Jahn SC. Chronic fatigue and sociodemographic characteristics as predictors of psychiatric disorders in a community-based sample. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:896-901.
14. Leonard B, Maes M. Mechanistic explanations of how cell-mediated immune activation, inflammation and oxidative and nitrosative stress pathways and their sequels and concomitants play a role in the pathophysiology of unipolar depression. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012;36:764-785.
15. DeLuca J, Christodoulou C, Diamond BJ, et al. Working memory deficits in chronic fatigue syndrome: differentiating between speed and accuracy of information processing. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004;10:101-109.
16. Cockshell SJ, Mathias JL. Cognitive functioning in chronic fatigue syndrome: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2010;40:1253-1267.
17. Komaroff AL, Cho TA. Role of infection and neurologic dysfunction in chronic fatigue syndrome. Semin Neurol. 2011;31:325-337.
18. Naess H, Sundal E, Myhr KM, et al. Postinfectious and chronic fatigue syndromes: clinical experience from a tertiary-referral centre in Norway. In Vivo. 2010;24:185-188.
19. Hickie I, Davenport T, Wakefield D, et al; Dubbo Infection Outcomes Study Group. Post-infective and chronic fatigue syndromes precipitated by viral and non-viral pathogens: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2006;333:575.
20. Plioplys AV, Plioplys S. Electron-microscopic investigation of muscle mitochondria in chronic fatigue syndrome.Neuropsychobiology. 1995;32: 175-181.
21. Vernon SD, Whistler T, Cameron B, et al. Preliminary evidence of mitochondrial dysfunction associated with post-infective fatigue after acute infection with Epstein Barr virus. BMC Infect Dis. 2006;6:15.
22. Miwa K, Fujita M. Fluctuation of serum vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) concentrations during exacerbation and remission phases in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Heart Vessels. 2010;25:319-323.
23. Rosenblum H, Shoenfeld Y, Amital H. The common immunogenic etiology of chronic fatigue syndrome: from infections to vaccines via adjuvants to the ASIA syndrome. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011;25:851-863.
24. Vincent A, Brimmer DJ, Whipple MO, et al. Prevalence, incidence, and classification of chronic fatigue syndrome in Olmsted County, Minnesota as estimated using the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87:1145-1152.
25. Goroll AH, Mulley AG. Primary Care Medicine: Office Evaluation and Management of the Adult Patient. 7th ed. Morrisville, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2014.
26. Brown RF, Schutte NS. Direct and indirect relationships between emotional intelligence and subjective fatigue in university students. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:585-593.
27. Pigeon WR, Sateia MJ, Ferguson RJ. Distinguishing between excessive daytime sleepiness and fatigue: toward improved detection and treatment. J Psychosom Res. 2003;54:61-69.
28. Bailes S, Libman E, Baltzan M, et al. Brief and distinct empirical sleepiness and fatigue scales. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:605-613.
29. National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care (UK). Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy): Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy) in Adults and Children. London, UK: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2007.
30. Lane TJ, Matthews DA, Manu P. The low yield of physical examinations and laboratory investigations of patients with chronic fatigue. Am J Med Sci. 1990;299:313-318.
31. Vaucher P, Druisw PL, Waldvogel S, et al. Effect of iron supplementation on fatigue in nonanemic menstruating women with low ferritin: a randomized controlled trial.CMAJ. 2012;184:1247-1254.
32. US Preventive Services Task Force. Hepatitis C: Screening. US Preventive Services Task Force Web site. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspshepc.htm. Accessed December 17, 2015.
33. Rolfe A, Burton C. Reassurance after diagnostic testing with a low pretest probability of serious disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:407-416.
34. Smith RC, Lyles JS, Gardiner JC, et al. Primary care clinicians treat patients with medically unexplained symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:671-677.
35. White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, et al; PACE trial management group. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2011;377:823-836.
36.  van Weert E, Hoekstra-Weebers J, Otter R, et al. Cancer-related fatigue: predictors and effects of rehabilitation. Oncologist. 2006;11:184-196.

CASE Lauren C, age 35, presents with fatigue, which she says started at least eight months ago and has progressively worsened. The patient, a clerical worker, says she manages to do an adequate job but goes home feeling utterly exhausted each night.

Lauren says she sleeps well, getting more than eight hours of sleep per night on weekends but less than seven hours per night during the week. But no matter how long she sleeps, she never awakens feeling refreshed. Lauren reports that she doesn’t smoke, has no more than four alcoholic drinks per month, and adheres to an “average” diet. She is too tired to exercise.

Lauren is single, with no children. Although she says she has a strong network of family and friends, she increasingly finds she has no energy for socializing. If Lauren were your patient, what would you do?

Fatigue is a common presenting symptom in primary care, accounting for about 5% of adult visits.1 Defined as a generalized lack of energy, fatigue that persists despite adequate rest or is severe enough to disrupt an individual’s ability to participate in key social and/or occupational activities warrants a thorough investigation.

Because fatigue is a nonspecific symptom that may be linked to a number of medical and psychiatric illnesses or to medications used to treat them, determining the cause can be difficult. In about half of all cases, no specific etiology is found.2This review, which includes the elements of a work-up and management strategies for patients presenting with ongoing fatigue, will help you arrive at the appropriate diagnosis and provide optimal treatment.

CHRONIC FATIGUE: DEFINING THE TERMS
A definition of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was initially published in 1988.3In subsequent years, the term myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) became popular. Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, ME often refers to patients whose condition is thought to have an infectious cause and for whom postexertional malaise is a hallmark symptom.4

CDC criteria. While several sets of diagnostic criteria for CFS have been developed, the most widely used is that of the CDC, published in 1994 (see Table 1).5,6A diagnosis of CFS is made on the basis of exclusion, subjective clinical interpretation, and patient self-report.

When the first two criteria—fatigue not due to ongoing exertion or other medical conditions that has lasted ≥ 6 months and is severe enough to interfere with daily activities—but fewer than four of the CDC’s eight concurrent symptoms (eg, headache, unrefreshing sleep, and postexertion malaise lasting > 24 h) are present, idiopathic fatigue, rather than CFS, is diagnosed.6

International Consensus Criteria (ICC). In 2011, the ICC for ME were proposed in an effort to provide more specific diagnostic criteria (see Table 2).7The ICC emphasize fatigability, or what the authors identify as “post-exertional neuroimmune exhaustion.”

The ICC have not yet been broadly researched. But an Australian study of patients with chronic fatigue found that those who met the ICC definition were sicker and more homogeneous, with significantly lower scores for physical and social functioning and bodily pain, compared with those who fulfilled the CDC criteria alone.8

Continue for common threads of chronic fatigue & neuropsychiatric conditions >>

 

 


CHRONIC FATIGUE & NEUROPSYCHIATRIC CONDITIONS: COMMON THREADS
Recent research has made it clear that depression, somatization, and CFS share some biological underpinnings. These include biomarkers for inflammation, cell-mediated immune activation—which may be related to the symptoms of fatigue—autonomic dysfunction, and hyperalgesia.9Evidence suggests that up to two-thirds of patients with CFS also meet the criteria for a psychiatric disorder.10The most common psychiatric conditions are major depressive disorder (MDD), affecting an estimated 22% to 32% of those with CFS; anxiety disorder, affecting about 20%; and somatization disorder, affecting about 10%—at least double the incidence of the general population.10

Others point out, however, that up to half of those with CFS do not have a psychiatric disorder.11A diagnosis of somatization disorder, in particular, depends largely on a subjective interpretation of whether the presenting symptoms have a physical cause.10

CFS and MDD comorbidity. The most widely studied association between CFS and psychiatric disorders involves MDD. Observational studies have found patients with CFS have a lifetime prevalence of MDD of 65%,12,13which is higher than that of patients with other chronic diseases. Overlapping symptoms include fatigue, sleep disturbance, poor concentration, and memory problems. However, those with CFS have fewer symptoms related to anhedonia, poor self-esteem, guilt, and suicidal ideation compared with individuals with MDD.12,13

There are several possible explanations for CFS and MDD comorbidity, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.10One theory is that CFS is an atypical form of depression; another holds that the disability associated with CFS leads to depression, as is the case with many other chronic illnesses; and a third points to overlapping pathophysiology.10

An emerging body of evidence suggests that CFS and MDD have some common oxidative and nitrosative biochemical pathways. Activated by infection, psychologic stress, and immune disorders, they are believed to have damaging free radical and nitric oxide effects at the cellular level.14The cellular effects can result in fatigue, muscle pain, and flulike malaise.

Cortisol response differs
CFS and MDD might be distinguishable by another pathway—the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. MDD is classically associated with activation and raised cortisol levels, while CFS is consistently associated with impaired HPA axis functioning and reduced cortisol levels.10The majority of patients with CFS report symptoms of cognitive decline, with the acquisition of new verbal learning and information-processing speed particularly likely to be impaired.15

A meta-analysis of 50 studies of patients with CFS showed deficits in attention, memory, and reaction time, but not in fine motor speed, vocabulary, or reasoning.16Autonomic dysfunction has also been observed, including disordered sympathetic activity. The most frequently observed abnormalities on autonomic testing are postural hypotension, tachycardia syndrome, neurally mediated hypotension, and heart rate variability during tilt table testing.16

THE LINK BETWEEN INFECTION AND CFS
Several infectious agents have been associated with ME/CFS, including the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes simplex virus 6, parvovirus, Q fever, and Lyme disease.8,17,18 Most agents that have been linked to ME/CFS are associated with persistent infection and thus incitement of the immune system.

Numerous observational studies17,18have documented postinfectious fatigue syndromes after acute viral and bacterial infections and symptoms suggestive of infection, such as fever, myalgias, and respiratory and gastrointestinal distress. In one prospective Australian study,19investigators identified 253 cases of acute EBV, Ross River virus, and Q fever. Of those 253 patients, 12% went on to develop CFS, with a higher likelihood among those with more severe acute symptoms. No correlation with preexisting psychiatric disorders was found.

Muscle mitochondria studies have demonstrated what appear to be acquired abnormalities in those with CFS.20,21Signs of increased oxidative stress have been found in both blood and muscle samples from patients with CFS, and longitudinal studies suggest that oxidative stress is greatest during periods of clinical exacerbation.22Increased lactate levels suggest increased anaerobic metabolism in the central nervous system consistent with mitochondrial dysfunction. Several studies have demonstrated that exercise can precipitate oxidative stress in patients with CFS, in contrast with healthy controls and controls with other chronic illnesses, suggesting a physiologic basis for their postexertional symptoms.17

Autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, a rare syndrome associated with vaccine administration, has been linked to postvaccination adverse events, exposure to silicone implants, Gulf War syndrome (related to multiple vaccinations), and macrophagic myofasciitis. All involve exposure to immune adjuvants and have similar clinical manifestations. The corresponding exposures appear to trigger an autoimmune response in susceptible individuals. The hepatitis B vaccine is most often associated with CFS, with symptoms occurring within 90 days of administration.23

Continue for the clinical work-up >>

 

 


THE CLINICAL WORK-UP: PUTTING KNOWLEDGE INTO PRACTICE
Familiarity with potential causes of and connections with ME/CFS will help you ensure that patients who say they’re always tired receive a thorough work-up. Start with a medical history, inquiring directly about medical and psychiatric disorders that may contribute to fatigue (see Table 3).5,24,25 Include a medication history as well, to help determine whether the fatigue is drug-related (see Table 4).5,25 

What to ask. Determine the onset, course, duration, daily pattern, and impact of fatigue on the patient’s daily life. Inquire, too, about related symptoms of daytime sleepiness, dyspnea on exertion, generalized weakness, and depressed mood. The prominence of any of these rather than fatigue, per se, point to a diagnosis of a chronic illness other than ME/CFS.

Keep in mind, too, that patients with an organ-based medical illness tend to associate their fatigue with activities that they are unable to complete, such as shopping or light housework. In contrast, those with fatigue that is not organ-based typically say that they’re tired all the time. Their fatigue is not necessarily related to exertion, nor does it improve with rest.26

To address this distinction, take a sleep history, assessing both the quality and quantity of the patient’s sleep to determine how it affects symptoms.27 Consider using a questionnaire designed to help distinguish between sleepiness—and a primary sleep disorder—and fatigue,28 such as the Fatigue Severity Scale of Sleep Disorders (www.healthywomen.org/sites/default/files/FatigueSeverityScale.pdf).

What to rule out. In addition to a medical history, the physical examination should be oriented toward ruling out secondary causes of fatigue. In addition to a system-by-system approach to the differential diagnosis, carefully observe the patient’s general appearance, with attention to his or her level of alertness, grooming, and psychomotor agitation or retardation as possible signs of a psychiatric disorder. To rule out neurologic causes, evaluate muscle bulk, tone, and strength; deep tendon reflexes; and sensory and cranial nerves, as well.29

Lab tests to consider. In most cases of ME/CFS, basic studies—complete blood count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, blood chemistry, and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels—are sufficient. When no medical or psychiatric cause has been found, additional tests may be ordered on a case-by-case basis, although laboratory analysis affects the management of fatigue in less than 5% of such patients.30 Tests to consider include:
• Creatine kinase (for patients who report pain or muscle weakness)
• Pregnancy test (for women of childbearing age)
• Ferritin testing (for young women who might benefit from iron supplementation for levels < 50 ng/mL even if anemia is not present)31
• Hepatitis C screening (recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force for those born between 1945 and 1965)32
• HIV screening and the purified protein derivative test for tuberculosis (based on patient ­history).

Forego routine testing for other infections
Routine testing for infectious diseases and conditions associated with fatigue, such as EBV or Lyme disease, immune deficiency (eg, immunoglobulins), inflammatory disease (eg, antinuclear antibodies, rheumatoid factor), celiac disease, vitamin D deficiency, vitamin B12 deficiency, or heavy metal toxicity, is unlikely to be helpful.29 Additional testing simply to reassure a worried patient usually does not accomplish that objective.33

Additional studies, referrals to consider. If you suspect that a patient has a sleep disorder, a referral to a sleep clinic to rule out idiopathic sleep disorders, obstructive sleep apnea, or movement disorders that interfere with sleep may be in order. Spirometry and echocardiography may be helpful for some patients. If you suspect peripheral muscle fatigue, a referral for neuromuscular testing is indicated.

Lauren’s medical history reveals that she also has irritable bowel syndrome, which she manages with diet and OTC medication, as needed for constipation or diarrhea. She denies having any other chronic conditions. Her only other symptoms, she reports, are mild upper back pain after spending long hours at the computer and arthralgias in her left knee and both hands. She admits to being “somewhat depressed” in the last few months but denies the presence of anhedonia.

The patient’s physical examination is normal, and her depression screen does not meet the criteria for MDD. Her metabolic chemistry panel, complete blood count, TSH, and sedimentation rate are all normal, as well.

Continue for symptom management and coping strategies >>

 

 


SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT AND COPING STRATEGIES
When no specific cause of chronic fatigue is found, the focus shifts from diagnosis to symptom management and coping strategies. This requires engagement with the patient. It is important to acknowledge the existence of his or her symptoms and to reassure the patient that further investigation may be warranted later, should new symptoms emerge. Advise the patient, too, that periods of remission and relapse are likely.

Strategies designed to motivate patient self-management, as well as the formulation of patient-centered treatment plans, have been shown to reduce symptom scores.34 Participation in a support group, as well as frequent follow-up visits with a primary care provider, a behavioral therapist, or both, may help to provide needed psychologic support.

Evidence of the effectiveness of specific therapies for ME/CFS is limited; however, the best-studied approaches are cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy.35 Exercise should be low intensity, such as walking or cycling for 30 minutes three times a week, with a gradual increase in duration and frequency over a period of weeks to months. Patients with cancer-related fatigue may benefit from yoga, group therapy, and stress management.36

Associated mood and pain symptoms should be treated, as well. Bupropion, which is somewhat stimulating, may be considered as an initial treatment for patients with depression and clinically significant fatigue.

Other potentially beneficial approaches include a healthy diet, avoidance of more than nominal amounts of alcohol, relative avoidance of caffeine (no more than one cup of a caffeinated beverage in the morning), and stress reduction techniques.

Attention to good sleep hygiene may be especially beneficial, including a regular bedtime routine and sleep schedule, and elimination of bedroom light and noise. Pharmacologic treatments for insomnia should be used with caution, if at all.

Lauren receives a referral for CBT and is scheduled for a return visit in four weeks. At the advice of both her primary care provider and the behavioral therapist, she gradually makes several lifestyle changes. She begins going to bed earlier on weeknights to ensure that she sleeps for at least seven hours. She improves her diet, with increasing emphasis on vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. She also starts a walking program, increasing gradually to a total of three hours per week. After four months, she adds a weekly trip to a gym, where she practices resistance training for about 40 minutes.

Lauren also increases her social activities on weekends and recently accepted an invitation to join a book club. Six months from her initial visit, she notes that although she is still more easily fatigued than most people, she has made significant improvement

REFERENCES
1. Nijrolder I, van der Windt DA, van der Horst HE. Prognosis of fatigue and functioning in primary care: a 1-year follow-up study. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6:519-527.
2. Griffith JP, Zarrouf FA. A systematic review of chronic fatigue syndrome: don’t assume it’s depression. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;10:120-128.
3. Holmes GP, Kaplan JE, Gantz NM, et al. Chronic fatigue syndrome: a working case definition. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:387-389.
4. Morris G, Maes M. Case definitions and diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome: from clinical consensus to evidence-based case definitions. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2013;34:185-199.
5. Fukuda K, Straus SE, Hickie I, et al. The chronic fatigue syndrome: a comprehensive approach to its definition and study. International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:953-959.
6. CDC. Chronic fatigue syndrome. www.cdc.gov/cfs/diagnosis/index.html. Accessed December 17, 2015.
7. Carruthers BM, van de Sande MI, De Meirleir KL, et al. Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. J Intern Med. 2011;270:327-338.
8. Johnston SC, Brenu EW, Hardcastle S, et al. A comparison of health status in patients meeting alternative definitions for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:64.
9. Anderson VR, Jason LA, Hlavaty LE, et al. A review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86:147-155.
10. Christley Y, Duffy T, Everall IP, et al. The neuropsychiatric and neuropsychological features of chronic fatigue syndrome: revisiting the enigma. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15:353.
11. Henningsen P, Zimmermann T, Sattel HH. Medically unexplained physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression: a meta-analytic review. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:528-533.
12. Nater UM, Jones JF, Lin JM, et al. Personality features and personality disorders in chronic fatigue syndrome: a population-based study. Psychother Psychosom. 2010;79:312-318.
13. Taylor RR, Jason LA, Jahn SC. Chronic fatigue and sociodemographic characteristics as predictors of psychiatric disorders in a community-based sample. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:896-901.
14. Leonard B, Maes M. Mechanistic explanations of how cell-mediated immune activation, inflammation and oxidative and nitrosative stress pathways and their sequels and concomitants play a role in the pathophysiology of unipolar depression. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012;36:764-785.
15. DeLuca J, Christodoulou C, Diamond BJ, et al. Working memory deficits in chronic fatigue syndrome: differentiating between speed and accuracy of information processing. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004;10:101-109.
16. Cockshell SJ, Mathias JL. Cognitive functioning in chronic fatigue syndrome: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2010;40:1253-1267.
17. Komaroff AL, Cho TA. Role of infection and neurologic dysfunction in chronic fatigue syndrome. Semin Neurol. 2011;31:325-337.
18. Naess H, Sundal E, Myhr KM, et al. Postinfectious and chronic fatigue syndromes: clinical experience from a tertiary-referral centre in Norway. In Vivo. 2010;24:185-188.
19. Hickie I, Davenport T, Wakefield D, et al; Dubbo Infection Outcomes Study Group. Post-infective and chronic fatigue syndromes precipitated by viral and non-viral pathogens: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2006;333:575.
20. Plioplys AV, Plioplys S. Electron-microscopic investigation of muscle mitochondria in chronic fatigue syndrome.Neuropsychobiology. 1995;32: 175-181.
21. Vernon SD, Whistler T, Cameron B, et al. Preliminary evidence of mitochondrial dysfunction associated with post-infective fatigue after acute infection with Epstein Barr virus. BMC Infect Dis. 2006;6:15.
22. Miwa K, Fujita M. Fluctuation of serum vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) concentrations during exacerbation and remission phases in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Heart Vessels. 2010;25:319-323.
23. Rosenblum H, Shoenfeld Y, Amital H. The common immunogenic etiology of chronic fatigue syndrome: from infections to vaccines via adjuvants to the ASIA syndrome. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011;25:851-863.
24. Vincent A, Brimmer DJ, Whipple MO, et al. Prevalence, incidence, and classification of chronic fatigue syndrome in Olmsted County, Minnesota as estimated using the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87:1145-1152.
25. Goroll AH, Mulley AG. Primary Care Medicine: Office Evaluation and Management of the Adult Patient. 7th ed. Morrisville, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2014.
26. Brown RF, Schutte NS. Direct and indirect relationships between emotional intelligence and subjective fatigue in university students. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:585-593.
27. Pigeon WR, Sateia MJ, Ferguson RJ. Distinguishing between excessive daytime sleepiness and fatigue: toward improved detection and treatment. J Psychosom Res. 2003;54:61-69.
28. Bailes S, Libman E, Baltzan M, et al. Brief and distinct empirical sleepiness and fatigue scales. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:605-613.
29. National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care (UK). Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy): Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy) in Adults and Children. London, UK: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2007.
30. Lane TJ, Matthews DA, Manu P. The low yield of physical examinations and laboratory investigations of patients with chronic fatigue. Am J Med Sci. 1990;299:313-318.
31. Vaucher P, Druisw PL, Waldvogel S, et al. Effect of iron supplementation on fatigue in nonanemic menstruating women with low ferritin: a randomized controlled trial.CMAJ. 2012;184:1247-1254.
32. US Preventive Services Task Force. Hepatitis C: Screening. US Preventive Services Task Force Web site. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspshepc.htm. Accessed December 17, 2015.
33. Rolfe A, Burton C. Reassurance after diagnostic testing with a low pretest probability of serious disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:407-416.
34. Smith RC, Lyles JS, Gardiner JC, et al. Primary care clinicians treat patients with medically unexplained symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:671-677.
35. White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, et al; PACE trial management group. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2011;377:823-836.
36.  van Weert E, Hoekstra-Weebers J, Otter R, et al. Cancer-related fatigue: predictors and effects of rehabilitation. Oncologist. 2006;11:184-196.

References

References

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 26(1)
Issue
Clinician Reviews - 26(1)
Page Number
26-30,32
Page Number
26-30,32
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
“Doctor, I’m So Tired!” Refining Your Work-up for Chronic Fatigue
Display Headline
“Doctor, I’m So Tired!” Refining Your Work-up for Chronic Fatigue
Legacy Keywords
chronic fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalomyelitis, CFS, MDD, major depressive disorder, ME
Legacy Keywords
chronic fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalomyelitis, CFS, MDD, major depressive disorder, ME
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

“Doctor, I’m So Tired!” Refining Your Work-up for Chronic Fatigue

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 12/13/2016 - 12:08
Display Headline
“Doctor, I’m So Tired!” Refining Your Work-up for Chronic Fatigue

CASE › Lauren C, age 35, comes to the clinic because of fatigue, which she says started at least 8 months ago and has gotten progressively worse. The patient, a clerical worker, says she manages to do an adequate job but goes home feeling utterly exhausted each night.

Ms. C says she sleeps well, getting more than 8 hours of sleep per night on weekends but fewer than 7 hours per night during the week. But no matter how long she sleeps, she never awakens feeling refreshed. Ms. C reports that she doesn’t smoke, has no more than 4 alcoholic drinks per month, and adheres to an “average” diet. She is too tired to exercise.

Ms. C is single, with no children. Although she says she has a strong network of family and friends, she increasingly finds she has no energy for socializing. If Ms. C were your patient, what would you do?

Patients with an organ-based medical illness tend to associate their fatigue with activities that they are unable to complete, while those with fatigue that is not organ-based typically say that they're tired all the time.Fatigue is a common presenting symptom in primary care, accounting for about 5% of adult visits.1 Defined as a generalized lack of energy, fatigue that persists despite adequate rest or is severe enough to disrupt an individual’s ability to participate in key social and/or occupational activities warrants a thorough investigation.

Because fatigue is a nonspecific symptom that may be linked to a number of medical and psychiatric illnesses or medications used to treat them, determining the cause can be difficult. In about half of all cases, no specific etiology is found.2 This review, which includes the elements of a work-up and management strategies for patients presenting with ongoing fatigue, will help you arrive at the appropriate diagnosis and provide optimal treatment.

Next page: Defining the terms of chronic fatigue >>

 

 

CHRONIC FATIGUE: DEFINING THE TERMS
A definition of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was initially published in 1988.3 In subsequent years, the term myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) became popular. Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, ME often refers to patients whose condition is thought to have an infectious cause and for whom postexertional malaise is a hallmark symptom.4

CDC criteria. While several sets of diagnostic criteria for CFS have been developed, the most widely used is that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), published in 1994 (TABLE 1).5,6 A diagnosis of CFS is made on the basis of exclusion, subjective clinical interpretation, and patient self-report.

When the first 2 criteria—fatigue not due to ongoing exertion or other medical conditions that has lasted ≥6 months and is severe enough to interfere with daily activities—but fewer than 4 of the CDC’s 8 concurrent symptoms (eg, headache, unrefreshing sleep, and postexertion malaise lasting >24 hours) are present, idiopathic fatigue, rather than CFS, is diagnosed.6

International Consensus Criteria (ICC). In 2011, the ICC for ME were proposed in an effort to provide more specific diagnostic criteria (TABLE 2).7 The ICC emphasize fatigability, or what the authors identify as “post-exertional neuroimmune exhaustion.”

The ICC have not yet been broadly researched.  But an Australian study of patients with chronic fatigue found that those who met the ICC definition were sicker and more homogeneous, with significantly lower scores for physical and social functioning and bodily pain compared with those who fulfilled the CDC criteria alone.8

Continue for fatigue & neuropsychiatric conditions >>

 

 

CHRONIC FATIGUE & NEUROPSYCHIATRIC CONDITIONS: COMMON THREADS
Recent research has made it clear that depression, somatization, and CFS share some biological underpinnings. These include biomarkers for inflammation, cell-mediated immune activation—which may be related to the symptoms of fatigue—autonomic dysfunction, and hyperalgesia.9 Evidence suggests that up to two-thirds of patients with CFS also meet the criteria for a psychiatric disorder.10 The most common psychiatric conditions are major depressive disorder (MDD), affecting an estimated 22% to 32% of those with CFS; anxiety disorder, affecting about 20%; and somatization disorder, affecting about 10%—at least double the incidence of the general population.10

Others point out, however, that up to half of those with CFS do not have a psychiatric disorder.11 A diagnosis of somatization disorder, in particular, depends largely on a subjective interpretation of whether or not the presenting symptoms have a physical cause.10

CFS and MDD comorbidity. The most widely studied association between CFS and psychiatric disorders involves MDD. Observational studies have found patients with CFS have a lifetime prevalence of MDD of 65%,12,13 which is higher than that of patients with other chronic diseases. Overlapping symptoms include fatigue, sleep disturbance, poor concentration, and memory problems. However, those with CFS have fewer symptoms related to anhedonia, poor self-esteem, guilt, and suicidal ideation compared with individuals with MDD.12,13

There are several possible explanations for CFS and MDD comorbidity, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.10 One theory is that CFS is an atypical form of depression; another holds that the disability associated with CFS leads to depression, as is the case with many other chronic illnesses; and a third points to overlapping pathophysiology.10

An emerging body of evidence suggests that CFS and MDD have some common oxidative and nitrosative biochemical pathways. Activated by infection, psychological stress, and immune disorders, they are believed to have damaging free radical and nitric oxide effects at the cellular level.14 The cellular effects can result in fatigue, muscle pain, and flu-like malaise.

Cortisol response differs

The majority of patients with CFS report symptoms of cognitive decline, with the acquisition of new verbal learning and information-processing speed particularly likely to be impaired.CFS and MDD might be distinguishable by another pathway—the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. MDD is classically associated with activation and raised cortisol levels, while CFS is consistently associated with impaired HPA axis functioning and reduced cortisol levels.10 The majority of patients with CFS report symptoms of cognitive decline, with the acquisition of new verbal learning and information-processing speed particularly likely to be impaired.15

A meta-analysis of 50 studies of patients with CFS showed deficits in attention, memory, and reaction time, but not in fine motor speed, vocabulary, or reasoning.16 Autonomic dysfunction has also been observed, including disordered sympathetic activity. The most frequently observed abnormalities on autonomic testing are postural hypotension, tachycardia syndrome, neurally mediated hypotension, and heart rate variability during tilt table testing.16

Continue for the link between infection & CFS >>

 

 

THE LINK BETWEEN INFECTION AND CFS
Several infectious agents have been associated with ME/CFS, including the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes simplex virus 6, parvovirus, Q fever, and Lyme disease.8,17,18 Most agents that have been linked to ME/CFS are associated with persistent infection and thus incitement of the immune system.

Numerous observational studies17,18 have documented postinfectious fatigue syndromes after acute viral and bacterial infections and symptoms suggestive of infection, such as fever, myalgias, and respiratory and gastrointestinal distress. In one prospective Australian study,19 investigators identified 253 cases of acute EBV, Ross River virus, and Q fever. Of those 253 patients, 12% went on to develop CFS, with a higher likelihood among those with more severe acute symptoms. No correlation with preexisting psychiatric disorders was found.

Several infectious agents have been associated with ME/CFS, including the Epstein-Barr virus, herpes simplex virus 6, parvovirus, Q fever, and Lyme disease.Muscle mitochondria studies have demonstrated what appear to be acquired abnormalities in those with CFS.20,21 Signs of increased oxidative stress have been found in both blood and muscle samples from patients with CFS, and longitudinal studies suggest that oxidative stress is greatest during periods of clinical exacerbation.22 Increased lactate levels suggest increased anaerobic metabolism in the central nervous system consistent with mitochondrial dysfunction. Several studies have demonstrated that exercise can precipitate oxidative stress in patients with CFS, in contrast with healthy controls and controls with other chronic illnesses, suggesting a physiologic basis for their postexertional symptoms.17

Autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, a rare syndrome associated with vaccine administration, has been linked to postvaccination adverse events, exposure to silicone implants, Gulf War syndrome (related to multiple vaccinations), and macrophagic myofasciitis. All involve exposure to immune adjuvants and have similar clinical manifestations. The corresponding exposures appear to trigger an autoimmune response in susceptible individuals.  The hepatitis B vaccine is most often associated with CFS, with symptoms occurring within 90 days of administration.23

Next page: Clinical work-up >>

 

 

THE CLINICAL WORK-UP: PUTTING KNOWLEDGE INTO PRACTICE
Familiarity with potential causes of and connections with ME/CFS will help you ensure that patients who say they’re always tired receive a thorough work-up. Start with a medical history, inquiring directly about medical and psychiatric disorders that may contribute to fatigue (TABLE 3).5,24,25 Include a medication history, as well, to help determine whether the fatigue is drug-related (TABLE 4).5,25 

    

What to ask. Determine the onset, course, duration, daily pattern, and impact of fatigue on the patient’s daily life. Inquire, too, about related symptoms of daytime sleepiness, dyspnea on exertion, generalized weakness, and depressed mood. The prominence of any of these rather than fatigue, per se, point to a diagnosis of a chronic illness other than ME/CFS.

Keep in mind, too, that patients with an organ-based medical illness tend to associate their fatigue with activities that they are unable to complete, such as shopping or light housework. In contrast, those with fatigue that is not organ-based typically say that they’re tired all the time. Their fatigue is not necessarily related to exertion, nor does it improve with rest.26

To address this distinction, take a sleep history, assessing both the quality and quantity of the patient’s sleep to determine how it affects symptoms.27 Consider using a questionnaire designed to help distinguish between sleepiness—and a primary sleep disorder—and fatigue,28 such as the Fatigue Severity Scale of Sleep Disorders (http://www.healthywomen.org/sites/default/files/FatigueSeverityScale.pdf).

What to rule out. In addition to a medical history, the physical examination should be oriented toward ruling out secondary causes of fatigue. In addition to a system-by-system approach to the differential diagnosis, carefully observe the patient’s general appearance, with attention to his or her level of alertness, grooming, and psychomotor agitation or retardation as possible signs of a psychiatric disorder.  To rule out neurologic causes, evaluate muscle bulk, tone, and strength; deep tendon reflexes; and sensory and cranial nerves, as well.29

Lab tests to consider. In most cases of ME/CFS, basic studies—complete blood count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, blood chemistry, and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels—are sufficient. When no medical or psychiatric cause has been found, additional tests may be ordered on a case-by-case basis, although laboratory analysis affects the management of fatigue in less than 5% of such patients.30 Tests to consider include:

  • Creatine kinase (for patients who report pain or muscle weakness)
  • pregnancy test (for women of childbearing age)
  • ferritin testing (for young women who might benefit from iron supplementation for levels <50 ng/mL even if anemia is not present)31
  • hepatitis C screening (recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force for those born between 1945 and 1965)32
  • human immunodeficiency virus screening and the purified protein derivative test for tuberculosis (based on patient history).

Forego routine testing for other infections

Routine testing for infectious diseases and conditions associated with fatigue, such as Epstein-Barr virus or Lyme disease, immune deficiency, and inflammatory disease, is unlikely to be helpful. Routine testing for infectious diseases and conditions associated with fatigue, such as EBV or Lyme disease, immune deficiency (eg, immunoglobulins), inflammatory disease (eg, antinuclear antibodies, rheumatoid factor), celiac disease, vitamin D deficiency, vitamin B12 deficiency, or heavy metal toxicity, is unlikely to be helpful.29 Additional testing simply to reassure a worried patient usually does not accomplish that objective.33

Additional studies, referrals to consider. If you suspect that a patient has a sleep disorder, a referral to a sleep clinic to rule out idiopathic sleep disorders, obstructive sleep apnea, or movement disorders that interfere with sleep may be in order. Spirometry and echocardiography may be helpful for some patients. If you suspect peripheral muscle fatigue, a referral for neuromuscular testing is indicated.

CASE › Ms. C’s medical history reveals that she also suffers from irritable bowel syndrome, which she manages with diet and over-the-counter medication, as needed, for constipation or diarrhea. She denies having any other chronic conditions. Her only other symptoms, she reports, are mild upper back pain after spending long hours at the computer, and arthralgias in her left knee and both hands. She admits to being “somewhat depressed” in the last few months, but denies the presence of anhedonia.

The patient’s physical examination is normal, and her depression screen does not meet the criteria for MDD. Her metabolic chemistry panel, complete blood count, TSH, and sedimentation rate are all normal, as well.

Continue for symptom management & coping strategies >>

 

 

SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT AND COPING STRATEGIES
When no specific cause of chronic fatigue is found, the focus shifts from diagnosis to symptom management and coping strategies.

Evidence of the effectiveness of specific therapies for ME/CFS is limited; however, the best-studied approaches are cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy.This requires engagement with the patient. It is important to acknowledge the existence of his or her symptoms and to reassure the patient that further investigation may be warranted later, should new symptoms emerge. Advise the patient, too, that periods of remission and relapse are likely.

Strategies designed to motivate patient self-management, as well as the formulation of patient-centered treatment plans, have been shown to reduce symptom scores.34 Participation in a support group, as well as frequent follow-up visits with a primary care physician, a behavioral therapist, or both, may help to provide needed psychological support.

Evidence of the effectiveness of specific therapies for ME/CFS is limited; however, the best-studied approaches are cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy.35 Exercise should be low intensity, such as walking or cycling for 30 minutes 3 times a week, with a gradual increase in duration and frequency over a period of weeks to months. Patients with cancer-related fatigue may benefit from yoga, group therapy, and stress management.36

Associated mood and pain symptoms should be treated, as well. Bupropion, which is somewhat stimulating, may be considered as an initial treatment for patients with depression and clinically significant fatigue.

Other potentially beneficial approaches include a healthy diet, avoidance of more than nominal amounts of alcohol, relative avoidance of caffeine (no more than one cup of a caffeinated beverage in the morning), and stress reduction techniques.

Attention to good sleep hygiene may be especially beneficial, including a regular bedtime routine and sleep schedule, and elimination of bedroom light and noise. Pharmacologic treatments for insomnia should be used with caution, if at all.

Bupropion, which is somewhat stimulating, may be considered as an initial treatment for patients with depression and clinically significant fatigue.CASE › Ms. C receives a referral for CBT and is scheduled for a return visit in 4 weeks.

At the advice of both her primary care physician and the behavioral therapist, Ms. C gradually makes several lifestyle changes. She begins going to bed earlier on weeknights to ensure that she sleeps for at least 7 hours. She improves her diet, with increasing emphasis on vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. She also starts a walking program, increasing gradually to a total of 3 hours per week. After 4 months she adds a weekly trip to a gym, where she practices resistance training for about 40 minutes.

Ms. C also increases her social activities on weekends, and recently accepted an invitation to join a book club. Six months from her initial visit, Ms. C notes that although she is still more easily fatigued than most people, she has made significant improvement.

CORRESPONDENCE
Linda Speer, MD; University of Toledo, 3000 Arlington Avenue, MS 1179, Toledo, OH 43614; linda.speer@utoledo.edu

References

1. Nijrolder I, van der Windt DA, van der Horst HE. Prognosis of fatigue and functioning in primary care: a 1-year follow-up study. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6:519-527.

2. Griffith JP, Zarrouf FA. A systematic review of chronic fatigue syndrome: don’t assume it’s depression. Primary Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;10:120-128.

3. Holmes GP, Kaplan JE, Gantz NM, et al. Chronic fatigue syndrome: a working case definition. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:387-389.

4. Morris G, Maes M. Case definitions and diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome: from clinical consensus to evidence-based case definitions. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2013;34:185-199.

5. Fukuda K, Straus SE, Hickie I, et al. The chronic fatigue syndrome: a comprehensive approach to its definition and study. International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:953-959.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chronic fatigue syndrome. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/cfs/diagnosis/index.html. Accessed January 6, 2015.

7. Carruthers BM, van de Sande MI, De Meirleir KL, et al. Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. J Intern Med. 2011;270:327-338.

8. Johnston SC, Brenu EW, Hardcastle S, et al. A comparison of health status in patients meeting alternative definitions for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:64.

9. Anderson VR, Jason LA, Hlavaty LE, et al. A review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86:147-155.

10. Christley Y, Duffy T, Everall IP, et al. The neuropsychiatric and neuropsychological features of chronic fatigue syndrome: revisiting the enigma. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15;353.

11. Henningsen P, Zimmermann T, Sattel HH. Medically unexplained physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression: a meta-analytic review. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:528-533.

12. Nater UM, Jones JF, Lin JM, et al. Personality features and personality disorders in chronic fatigue syndrome: a population-based study. Psychother Psychosom. 2010;79:312-318.

13. Taylor RR, Jason LA, Jahn SC. Chronic fatigue and sociodemographic characteristics as predictors of psychiatric disorders in a community-based sample. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:896-901.

14. Leonard B, Maes M. Mechanistic explanations of how cell-mediated immune activation, inflammation and oxidative and nitrosative stress pathways and their sequels and concomitants play a role in the pathophysiology of unipolar depression. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012;36:764-785.

15. DeLuca J, Christodoulou C, Diamond BJ, et al. Working memory deficits in chronic fatigue syndrome: differentiating between speed and accuracy of information processing. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004;10:101-109.

16. Cockshell SJ, Mathias JL. Cognitive functioning in chronic fatigue syndrome: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2010;40:1253-1267.

17. Komaroff AL, Cho TA. Role of infection and neurologic dysfunction in chronic fatigue syndrome. Semin Neurol. 2011;31:325-337.

18. Naess H, Sundal E, Myhr KM, et al. Postinfectious and chronic fatigue syndromes: clinical experience from a tertiary-referral centre in Norway. In Vivo. 2010;24:185-188.

19. Hickie I, Davenport T, Wakefield D, et al; Dubbo Infection Outcomes Study Group. Post-infective and chronic fatigue syndromes precipitated by viral and non-viral pathogens: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2006;333:575.

20. Plioplys AV, Plioplys S. Electron-microscopic investigation of muscle mitochondria in chronic fatigue syndrome. Neuropsychobiology. 1995;32:175-181.

21. Vernon SD, Whistler T, Cameron B, et al. Preliminary evidence of mitochondrial dysfunction associated with post-infective fatigue after acute infection with Epstein Barr virus. BMC Infect Dis. 2006;6:15.

22. Miwa K, Fujita M. Fluctuation of serum vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) concentrations during exacerbation and remission phases in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Heart Vessels. 2010;25:319-323.

23. Rosenblum H, Shoenfeld Y, Amital H. The common immunogenic etiology of chronic fatigue syndrome: from infections to vaccines via adjuvants to the ASIA syndrome. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011;25:851-863.

24. Vincent A, Brimmer DJ, Whipple MO, et al. Prevalence, incidence, and classification of chronic fatigue syndrome in Olmsted County, Minnesota as estimated using the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87:1145-1152.

25. Goroll AH, Mulley AG. Primary Care Medicine: Office Evaluation and Management of the Adult Patient. 7th ed. Morrisville, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2014.

26. Brown RF, Schutte NS. Direct and indirect relationships between emotional intelligence and subjective fatigue in university students. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:585-593.

27. Pigeon WR, Sateia MJ, Ferguson RJ. Distinguishing between excessive daytime sleepiness and fatigue: toward improved detection and treatment. J Psychosom Res. 2003;54:61-69.

28. Bailes S, Libman E, Baltzan M, et al. Brief and distinct empirical sleepiness and fatigue scales. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:605-613.

29. National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care (UK). Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy): Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy) in Adults and Children. London, UK: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2007.

30. Lane TJ, Matthews DA, Manu P. The low yield of physical examinations and laboratory investigations of patients with chronic fatigue. Am J Med Sci. 1990;299:313-318.

31. Vaucher P, Druisw PL, Waldvogel S, et al. Effect of iron supplementation on fatigue in nonanemic menstruating women with low ferritin: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ. 2012;184:1247-1254.

32. US Preventive Services Task Force. Hepatitis C: Screening. US Preventive Services Task Force Web site. Available at: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspshepc.htm. Accessed January 7, 2015.

33. Rolfe A, Burton C. Reassurance after diagnostic testing with a low pretest probability of serious disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:407-416.

34. Smith RC, Lyles JS, Gardiner JC, et al. Primary care clinicians treat patients with medically unexplained symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:671-677.

35. White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, et al; PACE trial management group. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2011;377:823-836.

36. van Weert E, Hoekstra-Weebers J, Otter R, et al. Cancer-related fatigue: predictors and effects of rehabilitation. Oncologist. 2006;11:184-196.

Author and Disclosure Information

Linda Speer, MD
Saudia Mushkbar, MD

Department of Family Medicine, University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Ohio (Drs. Speer and Mushkbar)
linda.speer@utoledo.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 25(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
84-91
Legacy Keywords
fatigue; chronic fatigue syndrome; cfs; major depressive disorder; Linda Speer, MD; Saudia Mushkbar, MD
Author and Disclosure Information

Linda Speer, MD
Saudia Mushkbar, MD

Department of Family Medicine, University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Ohio (Drs. Speer and Mushkbar)
linda.speer@utoledo.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Linda Speer, MD
Saudia Mushkbar, MD

Department of Family Medicine, University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Ohio (Drs. Speer and Mushkbar)
linda.speer@utoledo.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Related Articles

CASE › Lauren C, age 35, comes to the clinic because of fatigue, which she says started at least 8 months ago and has gotten progressively worse. The patient, a clerical worker, says she manages to do an adequate job but goes home feeling utterly exhausted each night.

Ms. C says she sleeps well, getting more than 8 hours of sleep per night on weekends but fewer than 7 hours per night during the week. But no matter how long she sleeps, she never awakens feeling refreshed. Ms. C reports that she doesn’t smoke, has no more than 4 alcoholic drinks per month, and adheres to an “average” diet. She is too tired to exercise.

Ms. C is single, with no children. Although she says she has a strong network of family and friends, she increasingly finds she has no energy for socializing. If Ms. C were your patient, what would you do?

Patients with an organ-based medical illness tend to associate their fatigue with activities that they are unable to complete, while those with fatigue that is not organ-based typically say that they're tired all the time.Fatigue is a common presenting symptom in primary care, accounting for about 5% of adult visits.1 Defined as a generalized lack of energy, fatigue that persists despite adequate rest or is severe enough to disrupt an individual’s ability to participate in key social and/or occupational activities warrants a thorough investigation.

Because fatigue is a nonspecific symptom that may be linked to a number of medical and psychiatric illnesses or medications used to treat them, determining the cause can be difficult. In about half of all cases, no specific etiology is found.2 This review, which includes the elements of a work-up and management strategies for patients presenting with ongoing fatigue, will help you arrive at the appropriate diagnosis and provide optimal treatment.

Next page: Defining the terms of chronic fatigue >>

 

 

CHRONIC FATIGUE: DEFINING THE TERMS
A definition of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was initially published in 1988.3 In subsequent years, the term myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) became popular. Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, ME often refers to patients whose condition is thought to have an infectious cause and for whom postexertional malaise is a hallmark symptom.4

CDC criteria. While several sets of diagnostic criteria for CFS have been developed, the most widely used is that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), published in 1994 (TABLE 1).5,6 A diagnosis of CFS is made on the basis of exclusion, subjective clinical interpretation, and patient self-report.

When the first 2 criteria—fatigue not due to ongoing exertion or other medical conditions that has lasted ≥6 months and is severe enough to interfere with daily activities—but fewer than 4 of the CDC’s 8 concurrent symptoms (eg, headache, unrefreshing sleep, and postexertion malaise lasting >24 hours) are present, idiopathic fatigue, rather than CFS, is diagnosed.6

International Consensus Criteria (ICC). In 2011, the ICC for ME were proposed in an effort to provide more specific diagnostic criteria (TABLE 2).7 The ICC emphasize fatigability, or what the authors identify as “post-exertional neuroimmune exhaustion.”

The ICC have not yet been broadly researched.  But an Australian study of patients with chronic fatigue found that those who met the ICC definition were sicker and more homogeneous, with significantly lower scores for physical and social functioning and bodily pain compared with those who fulfilled the CDC criteria alone.8

Continue for fatigue & neuropsychiatric conditions >>

 

 

CHRONIC FATIGUE & NEUROPSYCHIATRIC CONDITIONS: COMMON THREADS
Recent research has made it clear that depression, somatization, and CFS share some biological underpinnings. These include biomarkers for inflammation, cell-mediated immune activation—which may be related to the symptoms of fatigue—autonomic dysfunction, and hyperalgesia.9 Evidence suggests that up to two-thirds of patients with CFS also meet the criteria for a psychiatric disorder.10 The most common psychiatric conditions are major depressive disorder (MDD), affecting an estimated 22% to 32% of those with CFS; anxiety disorder, affecting about 20%; and somatization disorder, affecting about 10%—at least double the incidence of the general population.10

Others point out, however, that up to half of those with CFS do not have a psychiatric disorder.11 A diagnosis of somatization disorder, in particular, depends largely on a subjective interpretation of whether or not the presenting symptoms have a physical cause.10

CFS and MDD comorbidity. The most widely studied association between CFS and psychiatric disorders involves MDD. Observational studies have found patients with CFS have a lifetime prevalence of MDD of 65%,12,13 which is higher than that of patients with other chronic diseases. Overlapping symptoms include fatigue, sleep disturbance, poor concentration, and memory problems. However, those with CFS have fewer symptoms related to anhedonia, poor self-esteem, guilt, and suicidal ideation compared with individuals with MDD.12,13

There are several possible explanations for CFS and MDD comorbidity, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.10 One theory is that CFS is an atypical form of depression; another holds that the disability associated with CFS leads to depression, as is the case with many other chronic illnesses; and a third points to overlapping pathophysiology.10

An emerging body of evidence suggests that CFS and MDD have some common oxidative and nitrosative biochemical pathways. Activated by infection, psychological stress, and immune disorders, they are believed to have damaging free radical and nitric oxide effects at the cellular level.14 The cellular effects can result in fatigue, muscle pain, and flu-like malaise.

Cortisol response differs

The majority of patients with CFS report symptoms of cognitive decline, with the acquisition of new verbal learning and information-processing speed particularly likely to be impaired.CFS and MDD might be distinguishable by another pathway—the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. MDD is classically associated with activation and raised cortisol levels, while CFS is consistently associated with impaired HPA axis functioning and reduced cortisol levels.10 The majority of patients with CFS report symptoms of cognitive decline, with the acquisition of new verbal learning and information-processing speed particularly likely to be impaired.15

A meta-analysis of 50 studies of patients with CFS showed deficits in attention, memory, and reaction time, but not in fine motor speed, vocabulary, or reasoning.16 Autonomic dysfunction has also been observed, including disordered sympathetic activity. The most frequently observed abnormalities on autonomic testing are postural hypotension, tachycardia syndrome, neurally mediated hypotension, and heart rate variability during tilt table testing.16

Continue for the link between infection & CFS >>

 

 

THE LINK BETWEEN INFECTION AND CFS
Several infectious agents have been associated with ME/CFS, including the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes simplex virus 6, parvovirus, Q fever, and Lyme disease.8,17,18 Most agents that have been linked to ME/CFS are associated with persistent infection and thus incitement of the immune system.

Numerous observational studies17,18 have documented postinfectious fatigue syndromes after acute viral and bacterial infections and symptoms suggestive of infection, such as fever, myalgias, and respiratory and gastrointestinal distress. In one prospective Australian study,19 investigators identified 253 cases of acute EBV, Ross River virus, and Q fever. Of those 253 patients, 12% went on to develop CFS, with a higher likelihood among those with more severe acute symptoms. No correlation with preexisting psychiatric disorders was found.

Several infectious agents have been associated with ME/CFS, including the Epstein-Barr virus, herpes simplex virus 6, parvovirus, Q fever, and Lyme disease.Muscle mitochondria studies have demonstrated what appear to be acquired abnormalities in those with CFS.20,21 Signs of increased oxidative stress have been found in both blood and muscle samples from patients with CFS, and longitudinal studies suggest that oxidative stress is greatest during periods of clinical exacerbation.22 Increased lactate levels suggest increased anaerobic metabolism in the central nervous system consistent with mitochondrial dysfunction. Several studies have demonstrated that exercise can precipitate oxidative stress in patients with CFS, in contrast with healthy controls and controls with other chronic illnesses, suggesting a physiologic basis for their postexertional symptoms.17

Autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, a rare syndrome associated with vaccine administration, has been linked to postvaccination adverse events, exposure to silicone implants, Gulf War syndrome (related to multiple vaccinations), and macrophagic myofasciitis. All involve exposure to immune adjuvants and have similar clinical manifestations. The corresponding exposures appear to trigger an autoimmune response in susceptible individuals.  The hepatitis B vaccine is most often associated with CFS, with symptoms occurring within 90 days of administration.23

Next page: Clinical work-up >>

 

 

THE CLINICAL WORK-UP: PUTTING KNOWLEDGE INTO PRACTICE
Familiarity with potential causes of and connections with ME/CFS will help you ensure that patients who say they’re always tired receive a thorough work-up. Start with a medical history, inquiring directly about medical and psychiatric disorders that may contribute to fatigue (TABLE 3).5,24,25 Include a medication history, as well, to help determine whether the fatigue is drug-related (TABLE 4).5,25 

    

What to ask. Determine the onset, course, duration, daily pattern, and impact of fatigue on the patient’s daily life. Inquire, too, about related symptoms of daytime sleepiness, dyspnea on exertion, generalized weakness, and depressed mood. The prominence of any of these rather than fatigue, per se, point to a diagnosis of a chronic illness other than ME/CFS.

Keep in mind, too, that patients with an organ-based medical illness tend to associate their fatigue with activities that they are unable to complete, such as shopping or light housework. In contrast, those with fatigue that is not organ-based typically say that they’re tired all the time. Their fatigue is not necessarily related to exertion, nor does it improve with rest.26

To address this distinction, take a sleep history, assessing both the quality and quantity of the patient’s sleep to determine how it affects symptoms.27 Consider using a questionnaire designed to help distinguish between sleepiness—and a primary sleep disorder—and fatigue,28 such as the Fatigue Severity Scale of Sleep Disorders (http://www.healthywomen.org/sites/default/files/FatigueSeverityScale.pdf).

What to rule out. In addition to a medical history, the physical examination should be oriented toward ruling out secondary causes of fatigue. In addition to a system-by-system approach to the differential diagnosis, carefully observe the patient’s general appearance, with attention to his or her level of alertness, grooming, and psychomotor agitation or retardation as possible signs of a psychiatric disorder.  To rule out neurologic causes, evaluate muscle bulk, tone, and strength; deep tendon reflexes; and sensory and cranial nerves, as well.29

Lab tests to consider. In most cases of ME/CFS, basic studies—complete blood count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, blood chemistry, and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels—are sufficient. When no medical or psychiatric cause has been found, additional tests may be ordered on a case-by-case basis, although laboratory analysis affects the management of fatigue in less than 5% of such patients.30 Tests to consider include:

  • Creatine kinase (for patients who report pain or muscle weakness)
  • pregnancy test (for women of childbearing age)
  • ferritin testing (for young women who might benefit from iron supplementation for levels <50 ng/mL even if anemia is not present)31
  • hepatitis C screening (recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force for those born between 1945 and 1965)32
  • human immunodeficiency virus screening and the purified protein derivative test for tuberculosis (based on patient history).

Forego routine testing for other infections

Routine testing for infectious diseases and conditions associated with fatigue, such as Epstein-Barr virus or Lyme disease, immune deficiency, and inflammatory disease, is unlikely to be helpful. Routine testing for infectious diseases and conditions associated with fatigue, such as EBV or Lyme disease, immune deficiency (eg, immunoglobulins), inflammatory disease (eg, antinuclear antibodies, rheumatoid factor), celiac disease, vitamin D deficiency, vitamin B12 deficiency, or heavy metal toxicity, is unlikely to be helpful.29 Additional testing simply to reassure a worried patient usually does not accomplish that objective.33

Additional studies, referrals to consider. If you suspect that a patient has a sleep disorder, a referral to a sleep clinic to rule out idiopathic sleep disorders, obstructive sleep apnea, or movement disorders that interfere with sleep may be in order. Spirometry and echocardiography may be helpful for some patients. If you suspect peripheral muscle fatigue, a referral for neuromuscular testing is indicated.

CASE › Ms. C’s medical history reveals that she also suffers from irritable bowel syndrome, which she manages with diet and over-the-counter medication, as needed, for constipation or diarrhea. She denies having any other chronic conditions. Her only other symptoms, she reports, are mild upper back pain after spending long hours at the computer, and arthralgias in her left knee and both hands. She admits to being “somewhat depressed” in the last few months, but denies the presence of anhedonia.

The patient’s physical examination is normal, and her depression screen does not meet the criteria for MDD. Her metabolic chemistry panel, complete blood count, TSH, and sedimentation rate are all normal, as well.

Continue for symptom management & coping strategies >>

 

 

SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT AND COPING STRATEGIES
When no specific cause of chronic fatigue is found, the focus shifts from diagnosis to symptom management and coping strategies.

Evidence of the effectiveness of specific therapies for ME/CFS is limited; however, the best-studied approaches are cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy.This requires engagement with the patient. It is important to acknowledge the existence of his or her symptoms and to reassure the patient that further investigation may be warranted later, should new symptoms emerge. Advise the patient, too, that periods of remission and relapse are likely.

Strategies designed to motivate patient self-management, as well as the formulation of patient-centered treatment plans, have been shown to reduce symptom scores.34 Participation in a support group, as well as frequent follow-up visits with a primary care physician, a behavioral therapist, or both, may help to provide needed psychological support.

Evidence of the effectiveness of specific therapies for ME/CFS is limited; however, the best-studied approaches are cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy.35 Exercise should be low intensity, such as walking or cycling for 30 minutes 3 times a week, with a gradual increase in duration and frequency over a period of weeks to months. Patients with cancer-related fatigue may benefit from yoga, group therapy, and stress management.36

Associated mood and pain symptoms should be treated, as well. Bupropion, which is somewhat stimulating, may be considered as an initial treatment for patients with depression and clinically significant fatigue.

Other potentially beneficial approaches include a healthy diet, avoidance of more than nominal amounts of alcohol, relative avoidance of caffeine (no more than one cup of a caffeinated beverage in the morning), and stress reduction techniques.

Attention to good sleep hygiene may be especially beneficial, including a regular bedtime routine and sleep schedule, and elimination of bedroom light and noise. Pharmacologic treatments for insomnia should be used with caution, if at all.

Bupropion, which is somewhat stimulating, may be considered as an initial treatment for patients with depression and clinically significant fatigue.CASE › Ms. C receives a referral for CBT and is scheduled for a return visit in 4 weeks.

At the advice of both her primary care physician and the behavioral therapist, Ms. C gradually makes several lifestyle changes. She begins going to bed earlier on weeknights to ensure that she sleeps for at least 7 hours. She improves her diet, with increasing emphasis on vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. She also starts a walking program, increasing gradually to a total of 3 hours per week. After 4 months she adds a weekly trip to a gym, where she practices resistance training for about 40 minutes.

Ms. C also increases her social activities on weekends, and recently accepted an invitation to join a book club. Six months from her initial visit, Ms. C notes that although she is still more easily fatigued than most people, she has made significant improvement.

CORRESPONDENCE
Linda Speer, MD; University of Toledo, 3000 Arlington Avenue, MS 1179, Toledo, OH 43614; linda.speer@utoledo.edu

CASE › Lauren C, age 35, comes to the clinic because of fatigue, which she says started at least 8 months ago and has gotten progressively worse. The patient, a clerical worker, says she manages to do an adequate job but goes home feeling utterly exhausted each night.

Ms. C says she sleeps well, getting more than 8 hours of sleep per night on weekends but fewer than 7 hours per night during the week. But no matter how long she sleeps, she never awakens feeling refreshed. Ms. C reports that she doesn’t smoke, has no more than 4 alcoholic drinks per month, and adheres to an “average” diet. She is too tired to exercise.

Ms. C is single, with no children. Although she says she has a strong network of family and friends, she increasingly finds she has no energy for socializing. If Ms. C were your patient, what would you do?

Patients with an organ-based medical illness tend to associate their fatigue with activities that they are unable to complete, while those with fatigue that is not organ-based typically say that they're tired all the time.Fatigue is a common presenting symptom in primary care, accounting for about 5% of adult visits.1 Defined as a generalized lack of energy, fatigue that persists despite adequate rest or is severe enough to disrupt an individual’s ability to participate in key social and/or occupational activities warrants a thorough investigation.

Because fatigue is a nonspecific symptom that may be linked to a number of medical and psychiatric illnesses or medications used to treat them, determining the cause can be difficult. In about half of all cases, no specific etiology is found.2 This review, which includes the elements of a work-up and management strategies for patients presenting with ongoing fatigue, will help you arrive at the appropriate diagnosis and provide optimal treatment.

Next page: Defining the terms of chronic fatigue >>

 

 

CHRONIC FATIGUE: DEFINING THE TERMS
A definition of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was initially published in 1988.3 In subsequent years, the term myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) became popular. Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, ME often refers to patients whose condition is thought to have an infectious cause and for whom postexertional malaise is a hallmark symptom.4

CDC criteria. While several sets of diagnostic criteria for CFS have been developed, the most widely used is that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), published in 1994 (TABLE 1).5,6 A diagnosis of CFS is made on the basis of exclusion, subjective clinical interpretation, and patient self-report.

When the first 2 criteria—fatigue not due to ongoing exertion or other medical conditions that has lasted ≥6 months and is severe enough to interfere with daily activities—but fewer than 4 of the CDC’s 8 concurrent symptoms (eg, headache, unrefreshing sleep, and postexertion malaise lasting >24 hours) are present, idiopathic fatigue, rather than CFS, is diagnosed.6

International Consensus Criteria (ICC). In 2011, the ICC for ME were proposed in an effort to provide more specific diagnostic criteria (TABLE 2).7 The ICC emphasize fatigability, or what the authors identify as “post-exertional neuroimmune exhaustion.”

The ICC have not yet been broadly researched.  But an Australian study of patients with chronic fatigue found that those who met the ICC definition were sicker and more homogeneous, with significantly lower scores for physical and social functioning and bodily pain compared with those who fulfilled the CDC criteria alone.8

Continue for fatigue & neuropsychiatric conditions >>

 

 

CHRONIC FATIGUE & NEUROPSYCHIATRIC CONDITIONS: COMMON THREADS
Recent research has made it clear that depression, somatization, and CFS share some biological underpinnings. These include biomarkers for inflammation, cell-mediated immune activation—which may be related to the symptoms of fatigue—autonomic dysfunction, and hyperalgesia.9 Evidence suggests that up to two-thirds of patients with CFS also meet the criteria for a psychiatric disorder.10 The most common psychiatric conditions are major depressive disorder (MDD), affecting an estimated 22% to 32% of those with CFS; anxiety disorder, affecting about 20%; and somatization disorder, affecting about 10%—at least double the incidence of the general population.10

Others point out, however, that up to half of those with CFS do not have a psychiatric disorder.11 A diagnosis of somatization disorder, in particular, depends largely on a subjective interpretation of whether or not the presenting symptoms have a physical cause.10

CFS and MDD comorbidity. The most widely studied association between CFS and psychiatric disorders involves MDD. Observational studies have found patients with CFS have a lifetime prevalence of MDD of 65%,12,13 which is higher than that of patients with other chronic diseases. Overlapping symptoms include fatigue, sleep disturbance, poor concentration, and memory problems. However, those with CFS have fewer symptoms related to anhedonia, poor self-esteem, guilt, and suicidal ideation compared with individuals with MDD.12,13

There are several possible explanations for CFS and MDD comorbidity, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.10 One theory is that CFS is an atypical form of depression; another holds that the disability associated with CFS leads to depression, as is the case with many other chronic illnesses; and a third points to overlapping pathophysiology.10

An emerging body of evidence suggests that CFS and MDD have some common oxidative and nitrosative biochemical pathways. Activated by infection, psychological stress, and immune disorders, they are believed to have damaging free radical and nitric oxide effects at the cellular level.14 The cellular effects can result in fatigue, muscle pain, and flu-like malaise.

Cortisol response differs

The majority of patients with CFS report symptoms of cognitive decline, with the acquisition of new verbal learning and information-processing speed particularly likely to be impaired.CFS and MDD might be distinguishable by another pathway—the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. MDD is classically associated with activation and raised cortisol levels, while CFS is consistently associated with impaired HPA axis functioning and reduced cortisol levels.10 The majority of patients with CFS report symptoms of cognitive decline, with the acquisition of new verbal learning and information-processing speed particularly likely to be impaired.15

A meta-analysis of 50 studies of patients with CFS showed deficits in attention, memory, and reaction time, but not in fine motor speed, vocabulary, or reasoning.16 Autonomic dysfunction has also been observed, including disordered sympathetic activity. The most frequently observed abnormalities on autonomic testing are postural hypotension, tachycardia syndrome, neurally mediated hypotension, and heart rate variability during tilt table testing.16

Continue for the link between infection & CFS >>

 

 

THE LINK BETWEEN INFECTION AND CFS
Several infectious agents have been associated with ME/CFS, including the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes simplex virus 6, parvovirus, Q fever, and Lyme disease.8,17,18 Most agents that have been linked to ME/CFS are associated with persistent infection and thus incitement of the immune system.

Numerous observational studies17,18 have documented postinfectious fatigue syndromes after acute viral and bacterial infections and symptoms suggestive of infection, such as fever, myalgias, and respiratory and gastrointestinal distress. In one prospective Australian study,19 investigators identified 253 cases of acute EBV, Ross River virus, and Q fever. Of those 253 patients, 12% went on to develop CFS, with a higher likelihood among those with more severe acute symptoms. No correlation with preexisting psychiatric disorders was found.

Several infectious agents have been associated with ME/CFS, including the Epstein-Barr virus, herpes simplex virus 6, parvovirus, Q fever, and Lyme disease.Muscle mitochondria studies have demonstrated what appear to be acquired abnormalities in those with CFS.20,21 Signs of increased oxidative stress have been found in both blood and muscle samples from patients with CFS, and longitudinal studies suggest that oxidative stress is greatest during periods of clinical exacerbation.22 Increased lactate levels suggest increased anaerobic metabolism in the central nervous system consistent with mitochondrial dysfunction. Several studies have demonstrated that exercise can precipitate oxidative stress in patients with CFS, in contrast with healthy controls and controls with other chronic illnesses, suggesting a physiologic basis for their postexertional symptoms.17

Autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, a rare syndrome associated with vaccine administration, has been linked to postvaccination adverse events, exposure to silicone implants, Gulf War syndrome (related to multiple vaccinations), and macrophagic myofasciitis. All involve exposure to immune adjuvants and have similar clinical manifestations. The corresponding exposures appear to trigger an autoimmune response in susceptible individuals.  The hepatitis B vaccine is most often associated with CFS, with symptoms occurring within 90 days of administration.23

Next page: Clinical work-up >>

 

 

THE CLINICAL WORK-UP: PUTTING KNOWLEDGE INTO PRACTICE
Familiarity with potential causes of and connections with ME/CFS will help you ensure that patients who say they’re always tired receive a thorough work-up. Start with a medical history, inquiring directly about medical and psychiatric disorders that may contribute to fatigue (TABLE 3).5,24,25 Include a medication history, as well, to help determine whether the fatigue is drug-related (TABLE 4).5,25 

    

What to ask. Determine the onset, course, duration, daily pattern, and impact of fatigue on the patient’s daily life. Inquire, too, about related symptoms of daytime sleepiness, dyspnea on exertion, generalized weakness, and depressed mood. The prominence of any of these rather than fatigue, per se, point to a diagnosis of a chronic illness other than ME/CFS.

Keep in mind, too, that patients with an organ-based medical illness tend to associate their fatigue with activities that they are unable to complete, such as shopping or light housework. In contrast, those with fatigue that is not organ-based typically say that they’re tired all the time. Their fatigue is not necessarily related to exertion, nor does it improve with rest.26

To address this distinction, take a sleep history, assessing both the quality and quantity of the patient’s sleep to determine how it affects symptoms.27 Consider using a questionnaire designed to help distinguish between sleepiness—and a primary sleep disorder—and fatigue,28 such as the Fatigue Severity Scale of Sleep Disorders (http://www.healthywomen.org/sites/default/files/FatigueSeverityScale.pdf).

What to rule out. In addition to a medical history, the physical examination should be oriented toward ruling out secondary causes of fatigue. In addition to a system-by-system approach to the differential diagnosis, carefully observe the patient’s general appearance, with attention to his or her level of alertness, grooming, and psychomotor agitation or retardation as possible signs of a psychiatric disorder.  To rule out neurologic causes, evaluate muscle bulk, tone, and strength; deep tendon reflexes; and sensory and cranial nerves, as well.29

Lab tests to consider. In most cases of ME/CFS, basic studies—complete blood count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, blood chemistry, and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels—are sufficient. When no medical or psychiatric cause has been found, additional tests may be ordered on a case-by-case basis, although laboratory analysis affects the management of fatigue in less than 5% of such patients.30 Tests to consider include:

  • Creatine kinase (for patients who report pain or muscle weakness)
  • pregnancy test (for women of childbearing age)
  • ferritin testing (for young women who might benefit from iron supplementation for levels <50 ng/mL even if anemia is not present)31
  • hepatitis C screening (recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force for those born between 1945 and 1965)32
  • human immunodeficiency virus screening and the purified protein derivative test for tuberculosis (based on patient history).

Forego routine testing for other infections

Routine testing for infectious diseases and conditions associated with fatigue, such as Epstein-Barr virus or Lyme disease, immune deficiency, and inflammatory disease, is unlikely to be helpful. Routine testing for infectious diseases and conditions associated with fatigue, such as EBV or Lyme disease, immune deficiency (eg, immunoglobulins), inflammatory disease (eg, antinuclear antibodies, rheumatoid factor), celiac disease, vitamin D deficiency, vitamin B12 deficiency, or heavy metal toxicity, is unlikely to be helpful.29 Additional testing simply to reassure a worried patient usually does not accomplish that objective.33

Additional studies, referrals to consider. If you suspect that a patient has a sleep disorder, a referral to a sleep clinic to rule out idiopathic sleep disorders, obstructive sleep apnea, or movement disorders that interfere with sleep may be in order. Spirometry and echocardiography may be helpful for some patients. If you suspect peripheral muscle fatigue, a referral for neuromuscular testing is indicated.

CASE › Ms. C’s medical history reveals that she also suffers from irritable bowel syndrome, which she manages with diet and over-the-counter medication, as needed, for constipation or diarrhea. She denies having any other chronic conditions. Her only other symptoms, she reports, are mild upper back pain after spending long hours at the computer, and arthralgias in her left knee and both hands. She admits to being “somewhat depressed” in the last few months, but denies the presence of anhedonia.

The patient’s physical examination is normal, and her depression screen does not meet the criteria for MDD. Her metabolic chemistry panel, complete blood count, TSH, and sedimentation rate are all normal, as well.

Continue for symptom management & coping strategies >>

 

 

SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT AND COPING STRATEGIES
When no specific cause of chronic fatigue is found, the focus shifts from diagnosis to symptom management and coping strategies.

Evidence of the effectiveness of specific therapies for ME/CFS is limited; however, the best-studied approaches are cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy.This requires engagement with the patient. It is important to acknowledge the existence of his or her symptoms and to reassure the patient that further investigation may be warranted later, should new symptoms emerge. Advise the patient, too, that periods of remission and relapse are likely.

Strategies designed to motivate patient self-management, as well as the formulation of patient-centered treatment plans, have been shown to reduce symptom scores.34 Participation in a support group, as well as frequent follow-up visits with a primary care physician, a behavioral therapist, or both, may help to provide needed psychological support.

Evidence of the effectiveness of specific therapies for ME/CFS is limited; however, the best-studied approaches are cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy.35 Exercise should be low intensity, such as walking or cycling for 30 minutes 3 times a week, with a gradual increase in duration and frequency over a period of weeks to months. Patients with cancer-related fatigue may benefit from yoga, group therapy, and stress management.36

Associated mood and pain symptoms should be treated, as well. Bupropion, which is somewhat stimulating, may be considered as an initial treatment for patients with depression and clinically significant fatigue.

Other potentially beneficial approaches include a healthy diet, avoidance of more than nominal amounts of alcohol, relative avoidance of caffeine (no more than one cup of a caffeinated beverage in the morning), and stress reduction techniques.

Attention to good sleep hygiene may be especially beneficial, including a regular bedtime routine and sleep schedule, and elimination of bedroom light and noise. Pharmacologic treatments for insomnia should be used with caution, if at all.

Bupropion, which is somewhat stimulating, may be considered as an initial treatment for patients with depression and clinically significant fatigue.CASE › Ms. C receives a referral for CBT and is scheduled for a return visit in 4 weeks.

At the advice of both her primary care physician and the behavioral therapist, Ms. C gradually makes several lifestyle changes. She begins going to bed earlier on weeknights to ensure that she sleeps for at least 7 hours. She improves her diet, with increasing emphasis on vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. She also starts a walking program, increasing gradually to a total of 3 hours per week. After 4 months she adds a weekly trip to a gym, where she practices resistance training for about 40 minutes.

Ms. C also increases her social activities on weekends, and recently accepted an invitation to join a book club. Six months from her initial visit, Ms. C notes that although she is still more easily fatigued than most people, she has made significant improvement.

CORRESPONDENCE
Linda Speer, MD; University of Toledo, 3000 Arlington Avenue, MS 1179, Toledo, OH 43614; linda.speer@utoledo.edu

References

1. Nijrolder I, van der Windt DA, van der Horst HE. Prognosis of fatigue and functioning in primary care: a 1-year follow-up study. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6:519-527.

2. Griffith JP, Zarrouf FA. A systematic review of chronic fatigue syndrome: don’t assume it’s depression. Primary Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;10:120-128.

3. Holmes GP, Kaplan JE, Gantz NM, et al. Chronic fatigue syndrome: a working case definition. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:387-389.

4. Morris G, Maes M. Case definitions and diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome: from clinical consensus to evidence-based case definitions. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2013;34:185-199.

5. Fukuda K, Straus SE, Hickie I, et al. The chronic fatigue syndrome: a comprehensive approach to its definition and study. International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:953-959.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chronic fatigue syndrome. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/cfs/diagnosis/index.html. Accessed January 6, 2015.

7. Carruthers BM, van de Sande MI, De Meirleir KL, et al. Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. J Intern Med. 2011;270:327-338.

8. Johnston SC, Brenu EW, Hardcastle S, et al. A comparison of health status in patients meeting alternative definitions for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:64.

9. Anderson VR, Jason LA, Hlavaty LE, et al. A review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86:147-155.

10. Christley Y, Duffy T, Everall IP, et al. The neuropsychiatric and neuropsychological features of chronic fatigue syndrome: revisiting the enigma. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15;353.

11. Henningsen P, Zimmermann T, Sattel HH. Medically unexplained physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression: a meta-analytic review. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:528-533.

12. Nater UM, Jones JF, Lin JM, et al. Personality features and personality disorders in chronic fatigue syndrome: a population-based study. Psychother Psychosom. 2010;79:312-318.

13. Taylor RR, Jason LA, Jahn SC. Chronic fatigue and sociodemographic characteristics as predictors of psychiatric disorders in a community-based sample. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:896-901.

14. Leonard B, Maes M. Mechanistic explanations of how cell-mediated immune activation, inflammation and oxidative and nitrosative stress pathways and their sequels and concomitants play a role in the pathophysiology of unipolar depression. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012;36:764-785.

15. DeLuca J, Christodoulou C, Diamond BJ, et al. Working memory deficits in chronic fatigue syndrome: differentiating between speed and accuracy of information processing. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004;10:101-109.

16. Cockshell SJ, Mathias JL. Cognitive functioning in chronic fatigue syndrome: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2010;40:1253-1267.

17. Komaroff AL, Cho TA. Role of infection and neurologic dysfunction in chronic fatigue syndrome. Semin Neurol. 2011;31:325-337.

18. Naess H, Sundal E, Myhr KM, et al. Postinfectious and chronic fatigue syndromes: clinical experience from a tertiary-referral centre in Norway. In Vivo. 2010;24:185-188.

19. Hickie I, Davenport T, Wakefield D, et al; Dubbo Infection Outcomes Study Group. Post-infective and chronic fatigue syndromes precipitated by viral and non-viral pathogens: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2006;333:575.

20. Plioplys AV, Plioplys S. Electron-microscopic investigation of muscle mitochondria in chronic fatigue syndrome. Neuropsychobiology. 1995;32:175-181.

21. Vernon SD, Whistler T, Cameron B, et al. Preliminary evidence of mitochondrial dysfunction associated with post-infective fatigue after acute infection with Epstein Barr virus. BMC Infect Dis. 2006;6:15.

22. Miwa K, Fujita M. Fluctuation of serum vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) concentrations during exacerbation and remission phases in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Heart Vessels. 2010;25:319-323.

23. Rosenblum H, Shoenfeld Y, Amital H. The common immunogenic etiology of chronic fatigue syndrome: from infections to vaccines via adjuvants to the ASIA syndrome. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011;25:851-863.

24. Vincent A, Brimmer DJ, Whipple MO, et al. Prevalence, incidence, and classification of chronic fatigue syndrome in Olmsted County, Minnesota as estimated using the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87:1145-1152.

25. Goroll AH, Mulley AG. Primary Care Medicine: Office Evaluation and Management of the Adult Patient. 7th ed. Morrisville, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2014.

26. Brown RF, Schutte NS. Direct and indirect relationships between emotional intelligence and subjective fatigue in university students. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:585-593.

27. Pigeon WR, Sateia MJ, Ferguson RJ. Distinguishing between excessive daytime sleepiness and fatigue: toward improved detection and treatment. J Psychosom Res. 2003;54:61-69.

28. Bailes S, Libman E, Baltzan M, et al. Brief and distinct empirical sleepiness and fatigue scales. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:605-613.

29. National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care (UK). Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy): Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy) in Adults and Children. London, UK: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2007.

30. Lane TJ, Matthews DA, Manu P. The low yield of physical examinations and laboratory investigations of patients with chronic fatigue. Am J Med Sci. 1990;299:313-318.

31. Vaucher P, Druisw PL, Waldvogel S, et al. Effect of iron supplementation on fatigue in nonanemic menstruating women with low ferritin: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ. 2012;184:1247-1254.

32. US Preventive Services Task Force. Hepatitis C: Screening. US Preventive Services Task Force Web site. Available at: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspshepc.htm. Accessed January 7, 2015.

33. Rolfe A, Burton C. Reassurance after diagnostic testing with a low pretest probability of serious disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:407-416.

34. Smith RC, Lyles JS, Gardiner JC, et al. Primary care clinicians treat patients with medically unexplained symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:671-677.

35. White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, et al; PACE trial management group. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2011;377:823-836.

36. van Weert E, Hoekstra-Weebers J, Otter R, et al. Cancer-related fatigue: predictors and effects of rehabilitation. Oncologist. 2006;11:184-196.

References

1. Nijrolder I, van der Windt DA, van der Horst HE. Prognosis of fatigue and functioning in primary care: a 1-year follow-up study. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6:519-527.

2. Griffith JP, Zarrouf FA. A systematic review of chronic fatigue syndrome: don’t assume it’s depression. Primary Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;10:120-128.

3. Holmes GP, Kaplan JE, Gantz NM, et al. Chronic fatigue syndrome: a working case definition. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:387-389.

4. Morris G, Maes M. Case definitions and diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome: from clinical consensus to evidence-based case definitions. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2013;34:185-199.

5. Fukuda K, Straus SE, Hickie I, et al. The chronic fatigue syndrome: a comprehensive approach to its definition and study. International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:953-959.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chronic fatigue syndrome. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/cfs/diagnosis/index.html. Accessed January 6, 2015.

7. Carruthers BM, van de Sande MI, De Meirleir KL, et al. Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. J Intern Med. 2011;270:327-338.

8. Johnston SC, Brenu EW, Hardcastle S, et al. A comparison of health status in patients meeting alternative definitions for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:64.

9. Anderson VR, Jason LA, Hlavaty LE, et al. A review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86:147-155.

10. Christley Y, Duffy T, Everall IP, et al. The neuropsychiatric and neuropsychological features of chronic fatigue syndrome: revisiting the enigma. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15;353.

11. Henningsen P, Zimmermann T, Sattel HH. Medically unexplained physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression: a meta-analytic review. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:528-533.

12. Nater UM, Jones JF, Lin JM, et al. Personality features and personality disorders in chronic fatigue syndrome: a population-based study. Psychother Psychosom. 2010;79:312-318.

13. Taylor RR, Jason LA, Jahn SC. Chronic fatigue and sociodemographic characteristics as predictors of psychiatric disorders in a community-based sample. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:896-901.

14. Leonard B, Maes M. Mechanistic explanations of how cell-mediated immune activation, inflammation and oxidative and nitrosative stress pathways and their sequels and concomitants play a role in the pathophysiology of unipolar depression. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012;36:764-785.

15. DeLuca J, Christodoulou C, Diamond BJ, et al. Working memory deficits in chronic fatigue syndrome: differentiating between speed and accuracy of information processing. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004;10:101-109.

16. Cockshell SJ, Mathias JL. Cognitive functioning in chronic fatigue syndrome: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2010;40:1253-1267.

17. Komaroff AL, Cho TA. Role of infection and neurologic dysfunction in chronic fatigue syndrome. Semin Neurol. 2011;31:325-337.

18. Naess H, Sundal E, Myhr KM, et al. Postinfectious and chronic fatigue syndromes: clinical experience from a tertiary-referral centre in Norway. In Vivo. 2010;24:185-188.

19. Hickie I, Davenport T, Wakefield D, et al; Dubbo Infection Outcomes Study Group. Post-infective and chronic fatigue syndromes precipitated by viral and non-viral pathogens: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2006;333:575.

20. Plioplys AV, Plioplys S. Electron-microscopic investigation of muscle mitochondria in chronic fatigue syndrome. Neuropsychobiology. 1995;32:175-181.

21. Vernon SD, Whistler T, Cameron B, et al. Preliminary evidence of mitochondrial dysfunction associated with post-infective fatigue after acute infection with Epstein Barr virus. BMC Infect Dis. 2006;6:15.

22. Miwa K, Fujita M. Fluctuation of serum vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) concentrations during exacerbation and remission phases in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Heart Vessels. 2010;25:319-323.

23. Rosenblum H, Shoenfeld Y, Amital H. The common immunogenic etiology of chronic fatigue syndrome: from infections to vaccines via adjuvants to the ASIA syndrome. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011;25:851-863.

24. Vincent A, Brimmer DJ, Whipple MO, et al. Prevalence, incidence, and classification of chronic fatigue syndrome in Olmsted County, Minnesota as estimated using the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87:1145-1152.

25. Goroll AH, Mulley AG. Primary Care Medicine: Office Evaluation and Management of the Adult Patient. 7th ed. Morrisville, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2014.

26. Brown RF, Schutte NS. Direct and indirect relationships between emotional intelligence and subjective fatigue in university students. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:585-593.

27. Pigeon WR, Sateia MJ, Ferguson RJ. Distinguishing between excessive daytime sleepiness and fatigue: toward improved detection and treatment. J Psychosom Res. 2003;54:61-69.

28. Bailes S, Libman E, Baltzan M, et al. Brief and distinct empirical sleepiness and fatigue scales. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:605-613.

29. National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care (UK). Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy): Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy) in Adults and Children. London, UK: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2007.

30. Lane TJ, Matthews DA, Manu P. The low yield of physical examinations and laboratory investigations of patients with chronic fatigue. Am J Med Sci. 1990;299:313-318.

31. Vaucher P, Druisw PL, Waldvogel S, et al. Effect of iron supplementation on fatigue in nonanemic menstruating women with low ferritin: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ. 2012;184:1247-1254.

32. US Preventive Services Task Force. Hepatitis C: Screening. US Preventive Services Task Force Web site. Available at: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspshepc.htm. Accessed January 7, 2015.

33. Rolfe A, Burton C. Reassurance after diagnostic testing with a low pretest probability of serious disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:407-416.

34. Smith RC, Lyles JS, Gardiner JC, et al. Primary care clinicians treat patients with medically unexplained symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:671-677.

35. White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, et al; PACE trial management group. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2011;377:823-836.

36. van Weert E, Hoekstra-Weebers J, Otter R, et al. Cancer-related fatigue: predictors and effects of rehabilitation. Oncologist. 2006;11:184-196.

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 25(2)
Issue
Clinician Reviews - 25(2)
Page Number
84-91
Page Number
84-91
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
“Doctor, I’m So Tired!” Refining Your Work-up for Chronic Fatigue
Display Headline
“Doctor, I’m So Tired!” Refining Your Work-up for Chronic Fatigue
Legacy Keywords
fatigue; chronic fatigue syndrome; cfs; major depressive disorder; Linda Speer, MD; Saudia Mushkbar, MD
Legacy Keywords
fatigue; chronic fatigue syndrome; cfs; major depressive disorder; Linda Speer, MD; Saudia Mushkbar, MD
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

“Doctor, I’m so tired!” Refining your work-up for chronic fatigue

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/14/2019 - 13:56
Display Headline
“Doctor, I’m so tired!” Refining your work-up for chronic fatigue

CASE › Lauren C, age 35, comes to the clinic because of fatigue, which she says started at least 8 months ago and has gotten progressively worse. The patient, a clerical worker, says she manages to do an adequate job but goes home feeling utterly exhausted each night.

Ms. C says she sleeps well, getting more than 8 hours of sleep per night on weekends but fewer than 7 hours per night during the week. But no matter how long she sleeps, she never awakens feeling refreshed. Ms. C reports that she doesn’t smoke, has no more than 4 alcoholic drinks per month, and adheres to an “average” diet. She is too tired to exercise.

Ms. C is single, with no children. Although she says she has a strong network of family and friends, she increasingly finds she has no energy for socializing. If Ms. C were your patient, what would you do?

Patients with an organ-based medical illness tend to associate their fatigue with activities that they are unable to complete, while those with fatigue that is not organ-based typically say that they're tired all the time.Fatigue is a common presenting symptom in primary care, accounting for about 5% of adult visits.1 Defined as a generalized lack of energy, fatigue that persists despite adequate rest or is severe enough to disrupt an individual’s ability to participate in key social and/or occupational activities warrants a thorough investigation.

Because fatigue is a nonspecific symptom that may be linked to a number of medical and psychiatric illnesses or medications used to treat them, determining the cause can be difficult. In about half of all cases, no specific etiology is found.2 This review, which includes the elements of a work-up and management strategies for patients presenting with ongoing fatigue, will help you arrive at the appropriate diagnosis and provide optimal treatment.

Chronic fatigue: Defining the terms

A definition of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was initially published in 1988.3 In subsequent years, the term myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) became popular. Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, ME often refers to patients whose condition is thought to have an infectious cause and for whom postexertional malaise is a hallmark symptom.4

CDC criteria. While several sets of diagnostic criteria for CFS have been developed, the most widely used is that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), published in 1994 (TABLE 1).5,6 A diagnosis of CFS is made on the basis of exclusion, subjective clinical interpretation, and patient self-report.

When the first 2 criteria—fatigue not due to ongoing exertion or other medical conditions that has lasted ≥6 months and is severe enough to interfere with daily activities—but fewer than 4 of the CDC’s 8 concurrent symptoms (eg, headache, unrefreshing sleep, and postexertion malaise lasting >24 hours) are present, idiopathic fatigue, rather than CFS, is diagnosed.6

International Consensus Criteria (ICC). In 2011, the ICC for ME were proposed in an effort to provide more specific diagnostic criteria (TABLE 2).7 The ICC emphasize fatigability, or what the authors identify as “post-exertional neuroimmune exhaustion.”

The ICC have not yet been broadly researched.  But an Australian study of patients with chronic fatigue found that those who met the ICC definition were sicker and more homogeneous, with significantly lower scores for physical and social functioning and bodily pain compared with those who fulfilled the CDC criteria alone.8

Chronic fatigue & neuropsychiatric conditions: Common threads

Recent research has made it clear that depression, somatization, and CFS share some biological underpinnings. These include biomarkers for inflammation, cell-mediated immune activation—which may be related to the symptoms of fatigue—autonomic dysfunction, and hyperalgesia.9 Evidence suggests that up to two-thirds of patients with CFS also meet the criteria for a psychiatric disorder.10 The most common psychiatric conditions are major depressive disorder (MDD), affecting an estimated 22% to 32% of those with CFS; anxiety disorder, affecting about 20%; and somatization disorder, affecting about 10%—at least double the incidence of the general population.10

Others point out, however, that up to half of those with CFS do not have a psychiatric disorder.11 A diagnosis of somatization disorder, in particular, depends largely on a subjective interpretation of whether or not the presenting symptoms have a physical cause.10

CFS and MDD comorbidity. The most widely studied association between CFS and psychiatric disorders involves MDD. Observational studies have found patients with CFS have a lifetime prevalence of MDD of 65%,12,13 which is higher than that of patients with other chronic diseases. Overlapping symptoms include fatigue, sleep disturbance, poor concentration, and memory problems. However, those with CFS have fewer symptoms related to anhedonia, poor self-esteem, guilt, and suicidal ideation compared with individuals with MDD.12,13

 

 

There are several possible explanations for CFS and MDD comorbidity, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.10 One theory is that CFS is an atypical form of depression; another holds that the disability associated with CFS leads to depression, as is the case with many other chronic illnesses; and a third points to overlapping pathophysiology.10

An emerging body of evidence suggests that CFS and MDD have some common oxidative and nitrosative biochemical pathways. Activated by infection, psychological stress, and immune disorders, they are believed to have damaging free radical and nitric oxide effects at the cellular level.14 The cellular effects can result in fatigue, muscle pain, and flu-like malaise.

Cortisol response differs

The majority of patients with CFS report symptoms of cognitive decline, with the acquisition of new verbal learning and information-processing speed particularly likely to be impaired.CFS and MDD might be distinguishable by another pathway—the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. MDD is classically associated with activation and raised cortisol levels, while CFS is consistently associated with impaired HPA axis functioning and reduced cortisol levels.10 The majority of patients with CFS report symptoms of cognitive decline, with the acquisition of new verbal learning and information-processing speed particularly likely to be impaired.15

A meta-analysis of 50 studies of patients with CFS showed deficits in attention, memory, and reaction time, but not in fine motor speed, vocabulary, or reasoning.16 Autonomic dysfunction has also been observed, including disordered sympathetic activity. The most frequently observed abnormalities on autonomic testing are postural hypotension, tachycardia syndrome, neurally mediated hypotension, and heart rate variability during tilt table testing.16

The link between infection and CFS

Several infectious agents have been associated with ME/CFS, including the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes simplex virus 6, parvovirus, Q fever, and Lyme disease.8,17,18 Most agents that have been linked to ME/CFS are associated with persistent infection and thus incitement of the immune system.

Numerous observational studies17,18 have documented postinfectious fatigue syndromes after acute viral and bacterial infections and symptoms suggestive of infection, such as fever, myalgias, and respiratory and gastrointestinal distress. In one prospective Australian study,19 investigators identified 253 cases of acute EBV, Ross River virus, and Q fever. Of those 253 patients, 12% went on to develop CFS, with a higher likelihood among those with more severe acute symptoms. No correlation with preexisting psychiatric disorders was found.

Several infectious agents have been associated with ME/CFS, including the Epstein-Barr virus, herpes simplex virus 6, parvovirus, Q fever, and Lyme disease.Muscle mitochondria studies have demonstrated what appear to be acquired abnormalities in those with CFS.20,21 Signs of increased oxidative stress have been found in both blood and muscle samples from patients with CFS, and longitudinal studies suggest that oxidative stress is greatest during periods of clinical exacerbation.22 Increased lactate levels suggest increased anaerobic metabolism in the central nervous system consistent with mitochondrial dysfunction. Several studies have demonstrated that exercise can precipitate oxidative stress in patients with CFS, in contrast with healthy controls and controls with other chronic illnesses, suggesting a physiologic basis for their postexertional symptoms.17

Autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, a rare syndrome associated with vaccine administration, has been linked to postvaccination adverse events, exposure to silicone implants, Gulf War syndrome (related to multiple vaccinations), and macrophagic myofasciitis. All involve exposure to immune adjuvants and have similar clinical manifestations. The corresponding exposures appear to trigger an autoimmune response in susceptible individuals.  The hepatitis B vaccine is most often associated with CFS, with symptoms occurring within 90 days of administration.23

The clinical work-up: Putting knowledge into practice

Familiarity with potential causes of and connections with ME/CFS will help you ensure that patients who say they’re always tired receive a thorough work-up. Start with a medical history, inquiring directly about medical and psychiatric disorders that may contribute to fatigue (TABLE 3).5,24,25 Include a medication history, as well, to help determine whether the fatigue is drug-related (TABLE 4).5,25 

    

What to ask. Determine the onset, course, duration, daily pattern, and impact of fatigue on the patient’s daily life. Inquire, too, about related symptoms of daytime sleepiness, dyspnea on exertion, generalized weakness, and depressed mood. The prominence of any of these rather than fatigue, per se, point to a diagnosis of a chronic illness other than ME/CFS.

Keep in mind, too, that patients with an organ-based medical illness tend to associate their fatigue with activities that they are unable to complete, such as shopping or light housework. In contrast, those with fatigue that is not organ-based typically say that they’re tired all the time. Their fatigue is not necessarily related to exertion, nor does it improve with rest.26

 

 

To address this distinction, take a sleep history, assessing both the quality and quantity of the patient’s sleep to determine how it affects symptoms.27 Consider using a questionnaire designed to help distinguish between sleepiness—and a primary sleep disorder—and fatigue,28 such as the Fatigue Severity Scale of Sleep Disorders (http://www.healthywomen.org/sites/default/files/FatigueSeverityScale.pdf).

What to rule out. In addition to a medical history, the physical examination should be oriented toward ruling out secondary causes of fatigue. In addition to a system-by-system approach to the differential diagnosis, carefully observe the patient’s general appearance, with attention to his or her level of alertness, grooming, and psychomotor agitation or retardation as possible signs of a psychiatric disorder.  To rule out neurologic causes, evaluate muscle bulk, tone, and strength; deep tendon reflexes; and sensory and cranial nerves, as well.29

Lab tests to consider. In most cases of ME/CFS, basic studies—complete blood count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, blood chemistry, and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels—are sufficient. When no medical or psychiatric cause has been found, additional tests may be ordered on a case-by-case basis, although laboratory analysis affects the management of fatigue in less than 5% of such patients.30 Tests to consider include:

 

  • Creatine kinase (for patients who report pain or muscle weakness)
  • pregnancy test (for women of childbearing age)
  • ferritin testing (for young women who might benefit from iron supplementation for levels <50 ng/mL even if anemia is not present)31
  • hepatitis C screening (recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force for those born between 1945 and 1965)32
  • human immunodeficiency virus screening and the purified protein derivative test for tuberculosis (based on patient history).

Forego routine testing for other infections

Routine testing for infectious diseases and conditions associated with fatigue, such as Epstein-Barr virus or Lyme disease, immune deficiency, and inflammatory disease, is unlikely to be helpful. Routine testing for infectious diseases and conditions associated with fatigue, such as EBV or Lyme disease, immune deficiency (eg, immunoglobulins), inflammatory disease (eg, antinuclear antibodies, rheumatoid factor), celiac disease, vitamin D deficiency, vitamin B12 deficiency, or heavy metal toxicity, is unlikely to be helpful.29 Additional testing simply to reassure a worried patient usually does not accomplish that objective.33

Additional studies, referrals to consider. If you suspect that a patient has a sleep disorder, a referral to a sleep clinic to rule out idiopathic sleep disorders, obstructive sleep apnea, or movement disorders that interfere with sleep may be in order. Spirometry and echocardiography may be helpful for some patients. If you suspect peripheral muscle fatigue, a referral for neuromuscular testing is indicated.

CASE › Ms. C’s medical history reveals that she also suffers from irritable bowel syndrome, which she manages with diet and over-the-counter medication, as needed, for constipation or diarrhea. She denies having any other chronic conditions. Her only other symptoms, she reports, are mild upper back pain after spending long hours at the computer, and arthralgias in her left knee and both hands. She admits to being “somewhat depressed” in the last few months, but denies the presence of anhedonia.

The patient’s physical examination is normal, and her depression screen does not meet the criteria for MDD. Her metabolic chemistry panel, complete blood count, TSH, and sedimentation rate are all normal, as well.

Symptom management and coping strategies

When no specific cause of chronic fatigue is found, the focus shifts from diagnosis to symptom management and coping strategies.

Evidence of the effectiveness of specific therapies for ME/CFS is limited; however, the best-studied approaches are cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy.This requires engagement with the patient. It is important to acknowledge the existence of his or her symptoms and to reassure the patient that further investigation may be warranted later, should new symptoms emerge. Advise the patient, too, that periods of remission and relapse are likely.

Strategies designed to motivate patient self-management, as well as the formulation of patient-centered treatment plans, have been shown to reduce symptom scores.34 Participation in a support group, as well as frequent follow-up visits with a primary care physician, a behavioral therapist, or both, may help to provide needed psychological support.

Evidence of the effectiveness of specific therapies for ME/CFS is limited; however, the best-studied approaches are cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy.35 Exercise should be low intensity, such as walking or cycling for 30 minutes 3 times a week, with a gradual increase in duration and frequency over a period of weeks to months. Patients with cancer-related fatigue may benefit from yoga, group therapy, and stress management.36

Associated mood and pain symptoms should be treated, as well. Bupropion, which is somewhat stimulating, may be considered as an initial treatment for patients with depression and clinically significant fatigue.

 

 

Other potentially beneficial approaches include a healthy diet, avoidance of more than nominal amounts of alcohol, relative avoidance of caffeine (no more than one cup of a caffeinated beverage in the morning), and stress reduction techniques.

Attention to good sleep hygiene may be especially beneficial, including a regular bedtime routine and sleep schedule, and elimination of bedroom light and noise. Pharmacologic treatments for insomnia should be used with caution, if at all.

Bupropion, which is somewhat stimulating, may be considered as an initial treatment for patients with depression and clinically significant fatigue.CASE › Ms. C receives a referral for CBT and is scheduled for a return visit in 4 weeks.

At the advice of both her primary care physician and the behavioral therapist, Ms. C gradually makes several lifestyle changes. She begins going to bed earlier on weeknights to ensure that she sleeps for at least 7 hours. She improves her diet, with increasing emphasis on vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. She also starts a walking program, increasing gradually to a total of 3 hours per week. After 4 months she adds a weekly trip to a gym, where she practices resistance training for about 40 minutes.

Ms. C also increases her social activities on weekends, and recently accepted an invitation to join a book club. Six months from her initial visit, Ms. C notes that although she is still more easily fatigued than most people, she has made significant improvement.

CORRESPONDENCE
Linda Speer, MD; University of Toledo, 3000 Arlington Avenue, MS 1179, Toledo, OH 43614; linda.speer@utoledo.edu

References

 

1. Nijrolder I, van der Windt DA, van der Horst HE. Prognosis of fatigue and functioning in primary care: a 1-year follow-up study. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6:519-527.

2. Griffith JP, Zarrouf FA. A systematic review of chronic fatigue syndrome: don’t assume it’s depression. Primary Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;10:120-128.

3. Holmes GP, Kaplan JE, Gantz NM, et al. Chronic fatigue syndrome: a working case definition. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:387-389.

4. Morris G, Maes M. Case definitions and diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome: from clinical consensus to evidence-based case definitions. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2013;34:185-199.

5. Fukuda K, Straus SE, Hickie I, et al. The chronic fatigue syndrome: a comprehensive approach to its definition and study. International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:953-959.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chronic fatigue syndrome. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/cfs/diagnosis/index.html. Accessed January 6, 2015.

7. Carruthers BM, van de Sande MI, De Meirleir KL, et al. Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. J Intern Med. 2011;270:327-338.

8. Johnston SC, Brenu EW, Hardcastle S, et al. A comparison of health status in patients meeting alternative definitions for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:64.

9. Anderson VR, Jason LA, Hlavaty LE, et al. A review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86:147-155.

10. Christley Y, Duffy T, Everall IP, et al. The neuropsychiatric and neuropsychological features of chronic fatigue syndrome: revisiting the enigma. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15;353.

11. Henningsen P, Zimmermann T, Sattel HH. Medically unexplained physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression: a meta-analytic review. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:528-533.

12. Nater UM, Jones JF, Lin JM, et al. Personality features and personality disorders in chronic fatigue syndrome: a population-based study. Psychother Psychosom. 2010;79:312-318.

13. Taylor RR, Jason LA, Jahn SC. Chronic fatigue and sociodemographic characteristics as predictors of psychiatric disorders in a community-based sample. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:896-901.

14. Leonard B, Maes M. Mechanistic explanations of how cell-mediated immune activation, inflammation and oxidative and nitrosative stress pathways and their sequels and concomitants play a role in the pathophysiology of unipolar depression. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012;36:764-785.

15. DeLuca J, Christodoulou C, Diamond BJ, et al. Working memory deficits in chronic fatigue syndrome: differentiating between speed and accuracy of information processing. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004;10:101-109.

16. Cockshell SJ, Mathias JL. Cognitive functioning in chronic fatigue syndrome: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2010;40:1253-1267.

17. Komaroff AL, Cho TA. Role of infection and neurologic dysfunction in chronic fatigue syndrome. Semin Neurol. 2011;31:325-337.

18. Naess H, Sundal E, Myhr KM, et al. Postinfectious and chronic fatigue syndromes: clinical experience from a tertiary-referral centre in Norway. In Vivo. 2010;24:185-188.

19. Hickie I, Davenport T, Wakefield D, et al; Dubbo Infection Outcomes Study Group. Post-infective and chronic fatigue syndromes precipitated by viral and non-viral pathogens: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2006;333:575.

20. Plioplys AV, Plioplys S. Electron-microscopic investigation of muscle mitochondria in chronic fatigue syndrome. Neuropsychobiology. 1995;32:175-181.

21. Vernon SD, Whistler T, Cameron B, et al. Preliminary evidence of mitochondrial dysfunction associated with post-infective fatigue after acute infection with Epstein Barr virus. BMC Infect Dis. 2006;6:15.

22. Miwa K, Fujita M. Fluctuation of serum vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) concentrations during exacerbation and remission phases in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Heart Vessels. 2010;25:319-323.

23. Rosenblum H, Shoenfeld Y, Amital H. The common immunogenic etiology of chronic fatigue syndrome: from infections to vaccines via adjuvants to the ASIA syndrome. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011;25:851-863.

24. Vincent A, Brimmer DJ, Whipple MO, et al. Prevalence, incidence, and classification of chronic fatigue syndrome in Olmsted County, Minnesota as estimated using the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87:1145-1152.

25. Goroll AH, Mulley AG. Primary Care Medicine: Office Evaluation and Management of the Adult Patient. 7th ed. Morrisville, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2014.

26. Brown RF, Schutte NS. Direct and indirect relationships between emotional intelligence and subjective fatigue in university students. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:585-593.

27. Pigeon WR, Sateia MJ, Ferguson RJ. Distinguishing between excessive daytime sleepiness and fatigue: toward improved detection and treatment. J Psychosom Res. 2003;54:61-69.

28. Bailes S, Libman E, Baltzan M, et al. Brief and distinct empirical sleepiness and fatigue scales. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:605-613.

29. National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care (UK). Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy): Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy) in Adults and Children. London, UK: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2007.

30. Lane TJ, Matthews DA, Manu P. The low yield of physical examinations and laboratory investigations of patients with chronic fatigue. Am J Med Sci. 1990;299:313-318.

31. Vaucher P, Druisw PL, Waldvogel S, et al. Effect of iron supplementation on fatigue in nonanemic menstruating women with low ferritin: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ. 2012;184:1247-1254.

32. US Preventive Services Task Force. Hepatitis C: Screening. US Preventive Services Task Force Web site. Available at: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspshepc.htm. Accessed January 7, 2015.

33. Rolfe A, Burton C. Reassurance after diagnostic testing with a low pretest probability of serious disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:407-416.

34. Smith RC, Lyles JS, Gardiner JC, et al. Primary care clinicians treat patients with medically unexplained symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:671-677.

35. White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, et al; PACE trial management group. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2011;377:823-836.

36. van Weert E, Hoekstra-Weebers J, Otter R, et al. Cancer-related fatigue: predictors and effects of rehabilitation. Oncologist. 2006;11:184-196.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

 

Linda Speer, MD
Saudia Mushkbar, MD

Department of Family Medicine, University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Ohio (Drs. Speer and Mushkbar)
linda.speer@utoledo.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 64(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
84-91
Legacy Keywords
fatigue; chronic fatigue syndrome; cfs; major depressive disorder; Linda Speer, MD; Saudia Mushkbar, MD
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

 

Linda Speer, MD
Saudia Mushkbar, MD

Department of Family Medicine, University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Ohio (Drs. Speer and Mushkbar)
linda.speer@utoledo.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

 

Linda Speer, MD
Saudia Mushkbar, MD

Department of Family Medicine, University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Ohio (Drs. Speer and Mushkbar)
linda.speer@utoledo.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

CASE › Lauren C, age 35, comes to the clinic because of fatigue, which she says started at least 8 months ago and has gotten progressively worse. The patient, a clerical worker, says she manages to do an adequate job but goes home feeling utterly exhausted each night.

Ms. C says she sleeps well, getting more than 8 hours of sleep per night on weekends but fewer than 7 hours per night during the week. But no matter how long she sleeps, she never awakens feeling refreshed. Ms. C reports that she doesn’t smoke, has no more than 4 alcoholic drinks per month, and adheres to an “average” diet. She is too tired to exercise.

Ms. C is single, with no children. Although she says she has a strong network of family and friends, she increasingly finds she has no energy for socializing. If Ms. C were your patient, what would you do?

Patients with an organ-based medical illness tend to associate their fatigue with activities that they are unable to complete, while those with fatigue that is not organ-based typically say that they're tired all the time.Fatigue is a common presenting symptom in primary care, accounting for about 5% of adult visits.1 Defined as a generalized lack of energy, fatigue that persists despite adequate rest or is severe enough to disrupt an individual’s ability to participate in key social and/or occupational activities warrants a thorough investigation.

Because fatigue is a nonspecific symptom that may be linked to a number of medical and psychiatric illnesses or medications used to treat them, determining the cause can be difficult. In about half of all cases, no specific etiology is found.2 This review, which includes the elements of a work-up and management strategies for patients presenting with ongoing fatigue, will help you arrive at the appropriate diagnosis and provide optimal treatment.

Chronic fatigue: Defining the terms

A definition of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was initially published in 1988.3 In subsequent years, the term myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) became popular. Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, ME often refers to patients whose condition is thought to have an infectious cause and for whom postexertional malaise is a hallmark symptom.4

CDC criteria. While several sets of diagnostic criteria for CFS have been developed, the most widely used is that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), published in 1994 (TABLE 1).5,6 A diagnosis of CFS is made on the basis of exclusion, subjective clinical interpretation, and patient self-report.

When the first 2 criteria—fatigue not due to ongoing exertion or other medical conditions that has lasted ≥6 months and is severe enough to interfere with daily activities—but fewer than 4 of the CDC’s 8 concurrent symptoms (eg, headache, unrefreshing sleep, and postexertion malaise lasting >24 hours) are present, idiopathic fatigue, rather than CFS, is diagnosed.6

International Consensus Criteria (ICC). In 2011, the ICC for ME were proposed in an effort to provide more specific diagnostic criteria (TABLE 2).7 The ICC emphasize fatigability, or what the authors identify as “post-exertional neuroimmune exhaustion.”

The ICC have not yet been broadly researched.  But an Australian study of patients with chronic fatigue found that those who met the ICC definition were sicker and more homogeneous, with significantly lower scores for physical and social functioning and bodily pain compared with those who fulfilled the CDC criteria alone.8

Chronic fatigue & neuropsychiatric conditions: Common threads

Recent research has made it clear that depression, somatization, and CFS share some biological underpinnings. These include biomarkers for inflammation, cell-mediated immune activation—which may be related to the symptoms of fatigue—autonomic dysfunction, and hyperalgesia.9 Evidence suggests that up to two-thirds of patients with CFS also meet the criteria for a psychiatric disorder.10 The most common psychiatric conditions are major depressive disorder (MDD), affecting an estimated 22% to 32% of those with CFS; anxiety disorder, affecting about 20%; and somatization disorder, affecting about 10%—at least double the incidence of the general population.10

Others point out, however, that up to half of those with CFS do not have a psychiatric disorder.11 A diagnosis of somatization disorder, in particular, depends largely on a subjective interpretation of whether or not the presenting symptoms have a physical cause.10

CFS and MDD comorbidity. The most widely studied association between CFS and psychiatric disorders involves MDD. Observational studies have found patients with CFS have a lifetime prevalence of MDD of 65%,12,13 which is higher than that of patients with other chronic diseases. Overlapping symptoms include fatigue, sleep disturbance, poor concentration, and memory problems. However, those with CFS have fewer symptoms related to anhedonia, poor self-esteem, guilt, and suicidal ideation compared with individuals with MDD.12,13

 

 

There are several possible explanations for CFS and MDD comorbidity, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.10 One theory is that CFS is an atypical form of depression; another holds that the disability associated with CFS leads to depression, as is the case with many other chronic illnesses; and a third points to overlapping pathophysiology.10

An emerging body of evidence suggests that CFS and MDD have some common oxidative and nitrosative biochemical pathways. Activated by infection, psychological stress, and immune disorders, they are believed to have damaging free radical and nitric oxide effects at the cellular level.14 The cellular effects can result in fatigue, muscle pain, and flu-like malaise.

Cortisol response differs

The majority of patients with CFS report symptoms of cognitive decline, with the acquisition of new verbal learning and information-processing speed particularly likely to be impaired.CFS and MDD might be distinguishable by another pathway—the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. MDD is classically associated with activation and raised cortisol levels, while CFS is consistently associated with impaired HPA axis functioning and reduced cortisol levels.10 The majority of patients with CFS report symptoms of cognitive decline, with the acquisition of new verbal learning and information-processing speed particularly likely to be impaired.15

A meta-analysis of 50 studies of patients with CFS showed deficits in attention, memory, and reaction time, but not in fine motor speed, vocabulary, or reasoning.16 Autonomic dysfunction has also been observed, including disordered sympathetic activity. The most frequently observed abnormalities on autonomic testing are postural hypotension, tachycardia syndrome, neurally mediated hypotension, and heart rate variability during tilt table testing.16

The link between infection and CFS

Several infectious agents have been associated with ME/CFS, including the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes simplex virus 6, parvovirus, Q fever, and Lyme disease.8,17,18 Most agents that have been linked to ME/CFS are associated with persistent infection and thus incitement of the immune system.

Numerous observational studies17,18 have documented postinfectious fatigue syndromes after acute viral and bacterial infections and symptoms suggestive of infection, such as fever, myalgias, and respiratory and gastrointestinal distress. In one prospective Australian study,19 investigators identified 253 cases of acute EBV, Ross River virus, and Q fever. Of those 253 patients, 12% went on to develop CFS, with a higher likelihood among those with more severe acute symptoms. No correlation with preexisting psychiatric disorders was found.

Several infectious agents have been associated with ME/CFS, including the Epstein-Barr virus, herpes simplex virus 6, parvovirus, Q fever, and Lyme disease.Muscle mitochondria studies have demonstrated what appear to be acquired abnormalities in those with CFS.20,21 Signs of increased oxidative stress have been found in both blood and muscle samples from patients with CFS, and longitudinal studies suggest that oxidative stress is greatest during periods of clinical exacerbation.22 Increased lactate levels suggest increased anaerobic metabolism in the central nervous system consistent with mitochondrial dysfunction. Several studies have demonstrated that exercise can precipitate oxidative stress in patients with CFS, in contrast with healthy controls and controls with other chronic illnesses, suggesting a physiologic basis for their postexertional symptoms.17

Autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, a rare syndrome associated with vaccine administration, has been linked to postvaccination adverse events, exposure to silicone implants, Gulf War syndrome (related to multiple vaccinations), and macrophagic myofasciitis. All involve exposure to immune adjuvants and have similar clinical manifestations. The corresponding exposures appear to trigger an autoimmune response in susceptible individuals.  The hepatitis B vaccine is most often associated with CFS, with symptoms occurring within 90 days of administration.23

The clinical work-up: Putting knowledge into practice

Familiarity with potential causes of and connections with ME/CFS will help you ensure that patients who say they’re always tired receive a thorough work-up. Start with a medical history, inquiring directly about medical and psychiatric disorders that may contribute to fatigue (TABLE 3).5,24,25 Include a medication history, as well, to help determine whether the fatigue is drug-related (TABLE 4).5,25 

    

What to ask. Determine the onset, course, duration, daily pattern, and impact of fatigue on the patient’s daily life. Inquire, too, about related symptoms of daytime sleepiness, dyspnea on exertion, generalized weakness, and depressed mood. The prominence of any of these rather than fatigue, per se, point to a diagnosis of a chronic illness other than ME/CFS.

Keep in mind, too, that patients with an organ-based medical illness tend to associate their fatigue with activities that they are unable to complete, such as shopping or light housework. In contrast, those with fatigue that is not organ-based typically say that they’re tired all the time. Their fatigue is not necessarily related to exertion, nor does it improve with rest.26

 

 

To address this distinction, take a sleep history, assessing both the quality and quantity of the patient’s sleep to determine how it affects symptoms.27 Consider using a questionnaire designed to help distinguish between sleepiness—and a primary sleep disorder—and fatigue,28 such as the Fatigue Severity Scale of Sleep Disorders (http://www.healthywomen.org/sites/default/files/FatigueSeverityScale.pdf).

What to rule out. In addition to a medical history, the physical examination should be oriented toward ruling out secondary causes of fatigue. In addition to a system-by-system approach to the differential diagnosis, carefully observe the patient’s general appearance, with attention to his or her level of alertness, grooming, and psychomotor agitation or retardation as possible signs of a psychiatric disorder.  To rule out neurologic causes, evaluate muscle bulk, tone, and strength; deep tendon reflexes; and sensory and cranial nerves, as well.29

Lab tests to consider. In most cases of ME/CFS, basic studies—complete blood count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, blood chemistry, and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels—are sufficient. When no medical or psychiatric cause has been found, additional tests may be ordered on a case-by-case basis, although laboratory analysis affects the management of fatigue in less than 5% of such patients.30 Tests to consider include:

 

  • Creatine kinase (for patients who report pain or muscle weakness)
  • pregnancy test (for women of childbearing age)
  • ferritin testing (for young women who might benefit from iron supplementation for levels <50 ng/mL even if anemia is not present)31
  • hepatitis C screening (recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force for those born between 1945 and 1965)32
  • human immunodeficiency virus screening and the purified protein derivative test for tuberculosis (based on patient history).

Forego routine testing for other infections

Routine testing for infectious diseases and conditions associated with fatigue, such as Epstein-Barr virus or Lyme disease, immune deficiency, and inflammatory disease, is unlikely to be helpful. Routine testing for infectious diseases and conditions associated with fatigue, such as EBV or Lyme disease, immune deficiency (eg, immunoglobulins), inflammatory disease (eg, antinuclear antibodies, rheumatoid factor), celiac disease, vitamin D deficiency, vitamin B12 deficiency, or heavy metal toxicity, is unlikely to be helpful.29 Additional testing simply to reassure a worried patient usually does not accomplish that objective.33

Additional studies, referrals to consider. If you suspect that a patient has a sleep disorder, a referral to a sleep clinic to rule out idiopathic sleep disorders, obstructive sleep apnea, or movement disorders that interfere with sleep may be in order. Spirometry and echocardiography may be helpful for some patients. If you suspect peripheral muscle fatigue, a referral for neuromuscular testing is indicated.

CASE › Ms. C’s medical history reveals that she also suffers from irritable bowel syndrome, which she manages with diet and over-the-counter medication, as needed, for constipation or diarrhea. She denies having any other chronic conditions. Her only other symptoms, she reports, are mild upper back pain after spending long hours at the computer, and arthralgias in her left knee and both hands. She admits to being “somewhat depressed” in the last few months, but denies the presence of anhedonia.

The patient’s physical examination is normal, and her depression screen does not meet the criteria for MDD. Her metabolic chemistry panel, complete blood count, TSH, and sedimentation rate are all normal, as well.

Symptom management and coping strategies

When no specific cause of chronic fatigue is found, the focus shifts from diagnosis to symptom management and coping strategies.

Evidence of the effectiveness of specific therapies for ME/CFS is limited; however, the best-studied approaches are cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy.This requires engagement with the patient. It is important to acknowledge the existence of his or her symptoms and to reassure the patient that further investigation may be warranted later, should new symptoms emerge. Advise the patient, too, that periods of remission and relapse are likely.

Strategies designed to motivate patient self-management, as well as the formulation of patient-centered treatment plans, have been shown to reduce symptom scores.34 Participation in a support group, as well as frequent follow-up visits with a primary care physician, a behavioral therapist, or both, may help to provide needed psychological support.

Evidence of the effectiveness of specific therapies for ME/CFS is limited; however, the best-studied approaches are cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy.35 Exercise should be low intensity, such as walking or cycling for 30 minutes 3 times a week, with a gradual increase in duration and frequency over a period of weeks to months. Patients with cancer-related fatigue may benefit from yoga, group therapy, and stress management.36

Associated mood and pain symptoms should be treated, as well. Bupropion, which is somewhat stimulating, may be considered as an initial treatment for patients with depression and clinically significant fatigue.

 

 

Other potentially beneficial approaches include a healthy diet, avoidance of more than nominal amounts of alcohol, relative avoidance of caffeine (no more than one cup of a caffeinated beverage in the morning), and stress reduction techniques.

Attention to good sleep hygiene may be especially beneficial, including a regular bedtime routine and sleep schedule, and elimination of bedroom light and noise. Pharmacologic treatments for insomnia should be used with caution, if at all.

Bupropion, which is somewhat stimulating, may be considered as an initial treatment for patients with depression and clinically significant fatigue.CASE › Ms. C receives a referral for CBT and is scheduled for a return visit in 4 weeks.

At the advice of both her primary care physician and the behavioral therapist, Ms. C gradually makes several lifestyle changes. She begins going to bed earlier on weeknights to ensure that she sleeps for at least 7 hours. She improves her diet, with increasing emphasis on vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. She also starts a walking program, increasing gradually to a total of 3 hours per week. After 4 months she adds a weekly trip to a gym, where she practices resistance training for about 40 minutes.

Ms. C also increases her social activities on weekends, and recently accepted an invitation to join a book club. Six months from her initial visit, Ms. C notes that although she is still more easily fatigued than most people, she has made significant improvement.

CORRESPONDENCE
Linda Speer, MD; University of Toledo, 3000 Arlington Avenue, MS 1179, Toledo, OH 43614; linda.speer@utoledo.edu

CASE › Lauren C, age 35, comes to the clinic because of fatigue, which she says started at least 8 months ago and has gotten progressively worse. The patient, a clerical worker, says she manages to do an adequate job but goes home feeling utterly exhausted each night.

Ms. C says she sleeps well, getting more than 8 hours of sleep per night on weekends but fewer than 7 hours per night during the week. But no matter how long she sleeps, she never awakens feeling refreshed. Ms. C reports that she doesn’t smoke, has no more than 4 alcoholic drinks per month, and adheres to an “average” diet. She is too tired to exercise.

Ms. C is single, with no children. Although she says she has a strong network of family and friends, she increasingly finds she has no energy for socializing. If Ms. C were your patient, what would you do?

Patients with an organ-based medical illness tend to associate their fatigue with activities that they are unable to complete, while those with fatigue that is not organ-based typically say that they're tired all the time.Fatigue is a common presenting symptom in primary care, accounting for about 5% of adult visits.1 Defined as a generalized lack of energy, fatigue that persists despite adequate rest or is severe enough to disrupt an individual’s ability to participate in key social and/or occupational activities warrants a thorough investigation.

Because fatigue is a nonspecific symptom that may be linked to a number of medical and psychiatric illnesses or medications used to treat them, determining the cause can be difficult. In about half of all cases, no specific etiology is found.2 This review, which includes the elements of a work-up and management strategies for patients presenting with ongoing fatigue, will help you arrive at the appropriate diagnosis and provide optimal treatment.

Chronic fatigue: Defining the terms

A definition of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was initially published in 1988.3 In subsequent years, the term myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) became popular. Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, ME often refers to patients whose condition is thought to have an infectious cause and for whom postexertional malaise is a hallmark symptom.4

CDC criteria. While several sets of diagnostic criteria for CFS have been developed, the most widely used is that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), published in 1994 (TABLE 1).5,6 A diagnosis of CFS is made on the basis of exclusion, subjective clinical interpretation, and patient self-report.

When the first 2 criteria—fatigue not due to ongoing exertion or other medical conditions that has lasted ≥6 months and is severe enough to interfere with daily activities—but fewer than 4 of the CDC’s 8 concurrent symptoms (eg, headache, unrefreshing sleep, and postexertion malaise lasting >24 hours) are present, idiopathic fatigue, rather than CFS, is diagnosed.6

International Consensus Criteria (ICC). In 2011, the ICC for ME were proposed in an effort to provide more specific diagnostic criteria (TABLE 2).7 The ICC emphasize fatigability, or what the authors identify as “post-exertional neuroimmune exhaustion.”

The ICC have not yet been broadly researched.  But an Australian study of patients with chronic fatigue found that those who met the ICC definition were sicker and more homogeneous, with significantly lower scores for physical and social functioning and bodily pain compared with those who fulfilled the CDC criteria alone.8

Chronic fatigue & neuropsychiatric conditions: Common threads

Recent research has made it clear that depression, somatization, and CFS share some biological underpinnings. These include biomarkers for inflammation, cell-mediated immune activation—which may be related to the symptoms of fatigue—autonomic dysfunction, and hyperalgesia.9 Evidence suggests that up to two-thirds of patients with CFS also meet the criteria for a psychiatric disorder.10 The most common psychiatric conditions are major depressive disorder (MDD), affecting an estimated 22% to 32% of those with CFS; anxiety disorder, affecting about 20%; and somatization disorder, affecting about 10%—at least double the incidence of the general population.10

Others point out, however, that up to half of those with CFS do not have a psychiatric disorder.11 A diagnosis of somatization disorder, in particular, depends largely on a subjective interpretation of whether or not the presenting symptoms have a physical cause.10

CFS and MDD comorbidity. The most widely studied association between CFS and psychiatric disorders involves MDD. Observational studies have found patients with CFS have a lifetime prevalence of MDD of 65%,12,13 which is higher than that of patients with other chronic diseases. Overlapping symptoms include fatigue, sleep disturbance, poor concentration, and memory problems. However, those with CFS have fewer symptoms related to anhedonia, poor self-esteem, guilt, and suicidal ideation compared with individuals with MDD.12,13

 

 

There are several possible explanations for CFS and MDD comorbidity, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.10 One theory is that CFS is an atypical form of depression; another holds that the disability associated with CFS leads to depression, as is the case with many other chronic illnesses; and a third points to overlapping pathophysiology.10

An emerging body of evidence suggests that CFS and MDD have some common oxidative and nitrosative biochemical pathways. Activated by infection, psychological stress, and immune disorders, they are believed to have damaging free radical and nitric oxide effects at the cellular level.14 The cellular effects can result in fatigue, muscle pain, and flu-like malaise.

Cortisol response differs

The majority of patients with CFS report symptoms of cognitive decline, with the acquisition of new verbal learning and information-processing speed particularly likely to be impaired.CFS and MDD might be distinguishable by another pathway—the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. MDD is classically associated with activation and raised cortisol levels, while CFS is consistently associated with impaired HPA axis functioning and reduced cortisol levels.10 The majority of patients with CFS report symptoms of cognitive decline, with the acquisition of new verbal learning and information-processing speed particularly likely to be impaired.15

A meta-analysis of 50 studies of patients with CFS showed deficits in attention, memory, and reaction time, but not in fine motor speed, vocabulary, or reasoning.16 Autonomic dysfunction has also been observed, including disordered sympathetic activity. The most frequently observed abnormalities on autonomic testing are postural hypotension, tachycardia syndrome, neurally mediated hypotension, and heart rate variability during tilt table testing.16

The link between infection and CFS

Several infectious agents have been associated with ME/CFS, including the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes simplex virus 6, parvovirus, Q fever, and Lyme disease.8,17,18 Most agents that have been linked to ME/CFS are associated with persistent infection and thus incitement of the immune system.

Numerous observational studies17,18 have documented postinfectious fatigue syndromes after acute viral and bacterial infections and symptoms suggestive of infection, such as fever, myalgias, and respiratory and gastrointestinal distress. In one prospective Australian study,19 investigators identified 253 cases of acute EBV, Ross River virus, and Q fever. Of those 253 patients, 12% went on to develop CFS, with a higher likelihood among those with more severe acute symptoms. No correlation with preexisting psychiatric disorders was found.

Several infectious agents have been associated with ME/CFS, including the Epstein-Barr virus, herpes simplex virus 6, parvovirus, Q fever, and Lyme disease.Muscle mitochondria studies have demonstrated what appear to be acquired abnormalities in those with CFS.20,21 Signs of increased oxidative stress have been found in both blood and muscle samples from patients with CFS, and longitudinal studies suggest that oxidative stress is greatest during periods of clinical exacerbation.22 Increased lactate levels suggest increased anaerobic metabolism in the central nervous system consistent with mitochondrial dysfunction. Several studies have demonstrated that exercise can precipitate oxidative stress in patients with CFS, in contrast with healthy controls and controls with other chronic illnesses, suggesting a physiologic basis for their postexertional symptoms.17

Autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, a rare syndrome associated with vaccine administration, has been linked to postvaccination adverse events, exposure to silicone implants, Gulf War syndrome (related to multiple vaccinations), and macrophagic myofasciitis. All involve exposure to immune adjuvants and have similar clinical manifestations. The corresponding exposures appear to trigger an autoimmune response in susceptible individuals.  The hepatitis B vaccine is most often associated with CFS, with symptoms occurring within 90 days of administration.23

The clinical work-up: Putting knowledge into practice

Familiarity with potential causes of and connections with ME/CFS will help you ensure that patients who say they’re always tired receive a thorough work-up. Start with a medical history, inquiring directly about medical and psychiatric disorders that may contribute to fatigue (TABLE 3).5,24,25 Include a medication history, as well, to help determine whether the fatigue is drug-related (TABLE 4).5,25 

    

What to ask. Determine the onset, course, duration, daily pattern, and impact of fatigue on the patient’s daily life. Inquire, too, about related symptoms of daytime sleepiness, dyspnea on exertion, generalized weakness, and depressed mood. The prominence of any of these rather than fatigue, per se, point to a diagnosis of a chronic illness other than ME/CFS.

Keep in mind, too, that patients with an organ-based medical illness tend to associate their fatigue with activities that they are unable to complete, such as shopping or light housework. In contrast, those with fatigue that is not organ-based typically say that they’re tired all the time. Their fatigue is not necessarily related to exertion, nor does it improve with rest.26

 

 

To address this distinction, take a sleep history, assessing both the quality and quantity of the patient’s sleep to determine how it affects symptoms.27 Consider using a questionnaire designed to help distinguish between sleepiness—and a primary sleep disorder—and fatigue,28 such as the Fatigue Severity Scale of Sleep Disorders (http://www.healthywomen.org/sites/default/files/FatigueSeverityScale.pdf).

What to rule out. In addition to a medical history, the physical examination should be oriented toward ruling out secondary causes of fatigue. In addition to a system-by-system approach to the differential diagnosis, carefully observe the patient’s general appearance, with attention to his or her level of alertness, grooming, and psychomotor agitation or retardation as possible signs of a psychiatric disorder.  To rule out neurologic causes, evaluate muscle bulk, tone, and strength; deep tendon reflexes; and sensory and cranial nerves, as well.29

Lab tests to consider. In most cases of ME/CFS, basic studies—complete blood count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, blood chemistry, and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels—are sufficient. When no medical or psychiatric cause has been found, additional tests may be ordered on a case-by-case basis, although laboratory analysis affects the management of fatigue in less than 5% of such patients.30 Tests to consider include:

 

  • Creatine kinase (for patients who report pain or muscle weakness)
  • pregnancy test (for women of childbearing age)
  • ferritin testing (for young women who might benefit from iron supplementation for levels <50 ng/mL even if anemia is not present)31
  • hepatitis C screening (recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force for those born between 1945 and 1965)32
  • human immunodeficiency virus screening and the purified protein derivative test for tuberculosis (based on patient history).

Forego routine testing for other infections

Routine testing for infectious diseases and conditions associated with fatigue, such as Epstein-Barr virus or Lyme disease, immune deficiency, and inflammatory disease, is unlikely to be helpful. Routine testing for infectious diseases and conditions associated with fatigue, such as EBV or Lyme disease, immune deficiency (eg, immunoglobulins), inflammatory disease (eg, antinuclear antibodies, rheumatoid factor), celiac disease, vitamin D deficiency, vitamin B12 deficiency, or heavy metal toxicity, is unlikely to be helpful.29 Additional testing simply to reassure a worried patient usually does not accomplish that objective.33

Additional studies, referrals to consider. If you suspect that a patient has a sleep disorder, a referral to a sleep clinic to rule out idiopathic sleep disorders, obstructive sleep apnea, or movement disorders that interfere with sleep may be in order. Spirometry and echocardiography may be helpful for some patients. If you suspect peripheral muscle fatigue, a referral for neuromuscular testing is indicated.

CASE › Ms. C’s medical history reveals that she also suffers from irritable bowel syndrome, which she manages with diet and over-the-counter medication, as needed, for constipation or diarrhea. She denies having any other chronic conditions. Her only other symptoms, she reports, are mild upper back pain after spending long hours at the computer, and arthralgias in her left knee and both hands. She admits to being “somewhat depressed” in the last few months, but denies the presence of anhedonia.

The patient’s physical examination is normal, and her depression screen does not meet the criteria for MDD. Her metabolic chemistry panel, complete blood count, TSH, and sedimentation rate are all normal, as well.

Symptom management and coping strategies

When no specific cause of chronic fatigue is found, the focus shifts from diagnosis to symptom management and coping strategies.

Evidence of the effectiveness of specific therapies for ME/CFS is limited; however, the best-studied approaches are cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy.This requires engagement with the patient. It is important to acknowledge the existence of his or her symptoms and to reassure the patient that further investigation may be warranted later, should new symptoms emerge. Advise the patient, too, that periods of remission and relapse are likely.

Strategies designed to motivate patient self-management, as well as the formulation of patient-centered treatment plans, have been shown to reduce symptom scores.34 Participation in a support group, as well as frequent follow-up visits with a primary care physician, a behavioral therapist, or both, may help to provide needed psychological support.

Evidence of the effectiveness of specific therapies for ME/CFS is limited; however, the best-studied approaches are cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy.35 Exercise should be low intensity, such as walking or cycling for 30 minutes 3 times a week, with a gradual increase in duration and frequency over a period of weeks to months. Patients with cancer-related fatigue may benefit from yoga, group therapy, and stress management.36

Associated mood and pain symptoms should be treated, as well. Bupropion, which is somewhat stimulating, may be considered as an initial treatment for patients with depression and clinically significant fatigue.

 

 

Other potentially beneficial approaches include a healthy diet, avoidance of more than nominal amounts of alcohol, relative avoidance of caffeine (no more than one cup of a caffeinated beverage in the morning), and stress reduction techniques.

Attention to good sleep hygiene may be especially beneficial, including a regular bedtime routine and sleep schedule, and elimination of bedroom light and noise. Pharmacologic treatments for insomnia should be used with caution, if at all.

Bupropion, which is somewhat stimulating, may be considered as an initial treatment for patients with depression and clinically significant fatigue.CASE › Ms. C receives a referral for CBT and is scheduled for a return visit in 4 weeks.

At the advice of both her primary care physician and the behavioral therapist, Ms. C gradually makes several lifestyle changes. She begins going to bed earlier on weeknights to ensure that she sleeps for at least 7 hours. She improves her diet, with increasing emphasis on vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. She also starts a walking program, increasing gradually to a total of 3 hours per week. After 4 months she adds a weekly trip to a gym, where she practices resistance training for about 40 minutes.

Ms. C also increases her social activities on weekends, and recently accepted an invitation to join a book club. Six months from her initial visit, Ms. C notes that although she is still more easily fatigued than most people, she has made significant improvement.

CORRESPONDENCE
Linda Speer, MD; University of Toledo, 3000 Arlington Avenue, MS 1179, Toledo, OH 43614; linda.speer@utoledo.edu

References

 

1. Nijrolder I, van der Windt DA, van der Horst HE. Prognosis of fatigue and functioning in primary care: a 1-year follow-up study. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6:519-527.

2. Griffith JP, Zarrouf FA. A systematic review of chronic fatigue syndrome: don’t assume it’s depression. Primary Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;10:120-128.

3. Holmes GP, Kaplan JE, Gantz NM, et al. Chronic fatigue syndrome: a working case definition. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:387-389.

4. Morris G, Maes M. Case definitions and diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome: from clinical consensus to evidence-based case definitions. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2013;34:185-199.

5. Fukuda K, Straus SE, Hickie I, et al. The chronic fatigue syndrome: a comprehensive approach to its definition and study. International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:953-959.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chronic fatigue syndrome. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/cfs/diagnosis/index.html. Accessed January 6, 2015.

7. Carruthers BM, van de Sande MI, De Meirleir KL, et al. Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. J Intern Med. 2011;270:327-338.

8. Johnston SC, Brenu EW, Hardcastle S, et al. A comparison of health status in patients meeting alternative definitions for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:64.

9. Anderson VR, Jason LA, Hlavaty LE, et al. A review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86:147-155.

10. Christley Y, Duffy T, Everall IP, et al. The neuropsychiatric and neuropsychological features of chronic fatigue syndrome: revisiting the enigma. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15;353.

11. Henningsen P, Zimmermann T, Sattel HH. Medically unexplained physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression: a meta-analytic review. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:528-533.

12. Nater UM, Jones JF, Lin JM, et al. Personality features and personality disorders in chronic fatigue syndrome: a population-based study. Psychother Psychosom. 2010;79:312-318.

13. Taylor RR, Jason LA, Jahn SC. Chronic fatigue and sociodemographic characteristics as predictors of psychiatric disorders in a community-based sample. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:896-901.

14. Leonard B, Maes M. Mechanistic explanations of how cell-mediated immune activation, inflammation and oxidative and nitrosative stress pathways and their sequels and concomitants play a role in the pathophysiology of unipolar depression. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012;36:764-785.

15. DeLuca J, Christodoulou C, Diamond BJ, et al. Working memory deficits in chronic fatigue syndrome: differentiating between speed and accuracy of information processing. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004;10:101-109.

16. Cockshell SJ, Mathias JL. Cognitive functioning in chronic fatigue syndrome: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2010;40:1253-1267.

17. Komaroff AL, Cho TA. Role of infection and neurologic dysfunction in chronic fatigue syndrome. Semin Neurol. 2011;31:325-337.

18. Naess H, Sundal E, Myhr KM, et al. Postinfectious and chronic fatigue syndromes: clinical experience from a tertiary-referral centre in Norway. In Vivo. 2010;24:185-188.

19. Hickie I, Davenport T, Wakefield D, et al; Dubbo Infection Outcomes Study Group. Post-infective and chronic fatigue syndromes precipitated by viral and non-viral pathogens: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2006;333:575.

20. Plioplys AV, Plioplys S. Electron-microscopic investigation of muscle mitochondria in chronic fatigue syndrome. Neuropsychobiology. 1995;32:175-181.

21. Vernon SD, Whistler T, Cameron B, et al. Preliminary evidence of mitochondrial dysfunction associated with post-infective fatigue after acute infection with Epstein Barr virus. BMC Infect Dis. 2006;6:15.

22. Miwa K, Fujita M. Fluctuation of serum vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) concentrations during exacerbation and remission phases in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Heart Vessels. 2010;25:319-323.

23. Rosenblum H, Shoenfeld Y, Amital H. The common immunogenic etiology of chronic fatigue syndrome: from infections to vaccines via adjuvants to the ASIA syndrome. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011;25:851-863.

24. Vincent A, Brimmer DJ, Whipple MO, et al. Prevalence, incidence, and classification of chronic fatigue syndrome in Olmsted County, Minnesota as estimated using the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87:1145-1152.

25. Goroll AH, Mulley AG. Primary Care Medicine: Office Evaluation and Management of the Adult Patient. 7th ed. Morrisville, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2014.

26. Brown RF, Schutte NS. Direct and indirect relationships between emotional intelligence and subjective fatigue in university students. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:585-593.

27. Pigeon WR, Sateia MJ, Ferguson RJ. Distinguishing between excessive daytime sleepiness and fatigue: toward improved detection and treatment. J Psychosom Res. 2003;54:61-69.

28. Bailes S, Libman E, Baltzan M, et al. Brief and distinct empirical sleepiness and fatigue scales. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:605-613.

29. National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care (UK). Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy): Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy) in Adults and Children. London, UK: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2007.

30. Lane TJ, Matthews DA, Manu P. The low yield of physical examinations and laboratory investigations of patients with chronic fatigue. Am J Med Sci. 1990;299:313-318.

31. Vaucher P, Druisw PL, Waldvogel S, et al. Effect of iron supplementation on fatigue in nonanemic menstruating women with low ferritin: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ. 2012;184:1247-1254.

32. US Preventive Services Task Force. Hepatitis C: Screening. US Preventive Services Task Force Web site. Available at: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspshepc.htm. Accessed January 7, 2015.

33. Rolfe A, Burton C. Reassurance after diagnostic testing with a low pretest probability of serious disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:407-416.

34. Smith RC, Lyles JS, Gardiner JC, et al. Primary care clinicians treat patients with medically unexplained symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:671-677.

35. White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, et al; PACE trial management group. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2011;377:823-836.

36. van Weert E, Hoekstra-Weebers J, Otter R, et al. Cancer-related fatigue: predictors and effects of rehabilitation. Oncologist. 2006;11:184-196.

References

 

1. Nijrolder I, van der Windt DA, van der Horst HE. Prognosis of fatigue and functioning in primary care: a 1-year follow-up study. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6:519-527.

2. Griffith JP, Zarrouf FA. A systematic review of chronic fatigue syndrome: don’t assume it’s depression. Primary Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;10:120-128.

3. Holmes GP, Kaplan JE, Gantz NM, et al. Chronic fatigue syndrome: a working case definition. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:387-389.

4. Morris G, Maes M. Case definitions and diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome: from clinical consensus to evidence-based case definitions. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2013;34:185-199.

5. Fukuda K, Straus SE, Hickie I, et al. The chronic fatigue syndrome: a comprehensive approach to its definition and study. International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:953-959.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chronic fatigue syndrome. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/cfs/diagnosis/index.html. Accessed January 6, 2015.

7. Carruthers BM, van de Sande MI, De Meirleir KL, et al. Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. J Intern Med. 2011;270:327-338.

8. Johnston SC, Brenu EW, Hardcastle S, et al. A comparison of health status in patients meeting alternative definitions for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:64.

9. Anderson VR, Jason LA, Hlavaty LE, et al. A review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86:147-155.

10. Christley Y, Duffy T, Everall IP, et al. The neuropsychiatric and neuropsychological features of chronic fatigue syndrome: revisiting the enigma. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15;353.

11. Henningsen P, Zimmermann T, Sattel HH. Medically unexplained physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression: a meta-analytic review. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:528-533.

12. Nater UM, Jones JF, Lin JM, et al. Personality features and personality disorders in chronic fatigue syndrome: a population-based study. Psychother Psychosom. 2010;79:312-318.

13. Taylor RR, Jason LA, Jahn SC. Chronic fatigue and sociodemographic characteristics as predictors of psychiatric disorders in a community-based sample. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:896-901.

14. Leonard B, Maes M. Mechanistic explanations of how cell-mediated immune activation, inflammation and oxidative and nitrosative stress pathways and their sequels and concomitants play a role in the pathophysiology of unipolar depression. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012;36:764-785.

15. DeLuca J, Christodoulou C, Diamond BJ, et al. Working memory deficits in chronic fatigue syndrome: differentiating between speed and accuracy of information processing. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004;10:101-109.

16. Cockshell SJ, Mathias JL. Cognitive functioning in chronic fatigue syndrome: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2010;40:1253-1267.

17. Komaroff AL, Cho TA. Role of infection and neurologic dysfunction in chronic fatigue syndrome. Semin Neurol. 2011;31:325-337.

18. Naess H, Sundal E, Myhr KM, et al. Postinfectious and chronic fatigue syndromes: clinical experience from a tertiary-referral centre in Norway. In Vivo. 2010;24:185-188.

19. Hickie I, Davenport T, Wakefield D, et al; Dubbo Infection Outcomes Study Group. Post-infective and chronic fatigue syndromes precipitated by viral and non-viral pathogens: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2006;333:575.

20. Plioplys AV, Plioplys S. Electron-microscopic investigation of muscle mitochondria in chronic fatigue syndrome. Neuropsychobiology. 1995;32:175-181.

21. Vernon SD, Whistler T, Cameron B, et al. Preliminary evidence of mitochondrial dysfunction associated with post-infective fatigue after acute infection with Epstein Barr virus. BMC Infect Dis. 2006;6:15.

22. Miwa K, Fujita M. Fluctuation of serum vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) concentrations during exacerbation and remission phases in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Heart Vessels. 2010;25:319-323.

23. Rosenblum H, Shoenfeld Y, Amital H. The common immunogenic etiology of chronic fatigue syndrome: from infections to vaccines via adjuvants to the ASIA syndrome. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011;25:851-863.

24. Vincent A, Brimmer DJ, Whipple MO, et al. Prevalence, incidence, and classification of chronic fatigue syndrome in Olmsted County, Minnesota as estimated using the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87:1145-1152.

25. Goroll AH, Mulley AG. Primary Care Medicine: Office Evaluation and Management of the Adult Patient. 7th ed. Morrisville, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2014.

26. Brown RF, Schutte NS. Direct and indirect relationships between emotional intelligence and subjective fatigue in university students. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:585-593.

27. Pigeon WR, Sateia MJ, Ferguson RJ. Distinguishing between excessive daytime sleepiness and fatigue: toward improved detection and treatment. J Psychosom Res. 2003;54:61-69.

28. Bailes S, Libman E, Baltzan M, et al. Brief and distinct empirical sleepiness and fatigue scales. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:605-613.

29. National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care (UK). Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy): Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (or Encephalopathy) in Adults and Children. London, UK: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2007.

30. Lane TJ, Matthews DA, Manu P. The low yield of physical examinations and laboratory investigations of patients with chronic fatigue. Am J Med Sci. 1990;299:313-318.

31. Vaucher P, Druisw PL, Waldvogel S, et al. Effect of iron supplementation on fatigue in nonanemic menstruating women with low ferritin: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ. 2012;184:1247-1254.

32. US Preventive Services Task Force. Hepatitis C: Screening. US Preventive Services Task Force Web site. Available at: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspshepc.htm. Accessed January 7, 2015.

33. Rolfe A, Burton C. Reassurance after diagnostic testing with a low pretest probability of serious disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:407-416.

34. Smith RC, Lyles JS, Gardiner JC, et al. Primary care clinicians treat patients with medically unexplained symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:671-677.

35. White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, et al; PACE trial management group. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2011;377:823-836.

36. van Weert E, Hoekstra-Weebers J, Otter R, et al. Cancer-related fatigue: predictors and effects of rehabilitation. Oncologist. 2006;11:184-196.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 64(2)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 64(2)
Page Number
84-91
Page Number
84-91
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
“Doctor, I’m so tired!” Refining your work-up for chronic fatigue
Display Headline
“Doctor, I’m so tired!” Refining your work-up for chronic fatigue
Legacy Keywords
fatigue; chronic fatigue syndrome; cfs; major depressive disorder; Linda Speer, MD; Saudia Mushkbar, MD
Legacy Keywords
fatigue; chronic fatigue syndrome; cfs; major depressive disorder; Linda Speer, MD; Saudia Mushkbar, MD
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

E-cigarettes: What to tell your patients

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/14/2019 - 13:52
Display Headline
E-cigarettes: What to tell your patients

Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Speer is Professor and Chair, Department of Family Medicine, University of Toledo.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 63(10)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
audio1
Legacy Keywords
e-cigarettes; nicotine; Linda Speer, MD
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Speer is Professor and Chair, Department of Family Medicine, University of Toledo.

Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Speer is Professor and Chair, Department of Family Medicine, University of Toledo.

Related Articles

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 63(10)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 63(10)
Page Number
audio1
Page Number
audio1
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
E-cigarettes: What to tell your patients
Display Headline
E-cigarettes: What to tell your patients
Legacy Keywords
e-cigarettes; nicotine; Linda Speer, MD
Legacy Keywords
e-cigarettes; nicotine; Linda Speer, MD
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica