Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Essentials of Diagnosis and Management.

Despite myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) affecting millions of people worldwide, many clinicians lack the knowledge to appropriately diagnose or manage ME/CFS. Unfortunately, clinical guidance has been scarce, obsolete, or potentially harmful. Consequently, up to 91% of patients in the United States remain undiagnosed, and those diagnosed often receive inappropriate treatment. These problems are of increasing importance because after acute COVID-19, a significant percentage of people remain ill for many months with an illness similar to ME/CFS. In 2015, the US National Academy of Medicine published new evidence-based clinical diagnostic criteria that have been adopted by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Furthermore, the United States and other governments as well as major health care organizations have recently withdrawn graded exercise and cognitive-behavioral therapy as the treatment of choice for patients with ME/CFS. Recently, 21 clinicians specializing in ME/CFS convened to discuss best clinical practices for adults affected by ME/CFS. This article summarizes their top recommendations for generalist and specialist health care providers based on recent scientific progress and decades of clinical experience. There are many steps that clinicians can take to improve the health, function, and quality of life of those with ME/CFS, including those in whom ME/CFS develops after COVID-19. Patients with a lingering illness that follows acute COVID-19 who do not fully meet criteria for ME/CFS may also benefit from these approaches.

Biopsychosocial typologies of pain in a cohort of patients with systemic sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: Despite being a common problem in systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma), the extant literature on pain has primarily focused on biomedical correlates, or bivariate relationships with a few psychological characteristics. There is a need to investigate the more heuristic biopsychosocial model, which incorporates the simultaneous contributions of medical, psychological, and social variables in understanding pain. METHODS: Patients with SSc (n = 333) received clinical examinations and completed self-report surveys at enrollment in the Genetics versus Environment in Scleroderma Outcome Study. Latent profile analysis was used to derive biopsychosocial profiles of patients using skin thickening, percent predicted forced vital lung capacity, perceived physical health, health worry, mental health, and social support. The profiles were examined in relation to pain and pain medication usage. RESULTS: A 3-profile solution provided the best fit to the data. Based on the biopsychosocial indicators, the profiles were characterized as managing (n = 217), resilient (n = 86), and distressed (n = 30). Between-group differences for pain emerged, with the distressed group, whose disease was less severe than the resilient group, reporting the highest pain and the greatest utilization of pain medication. CONCLUSION: Clinicians should consider biopsychosocial characteristics as contributing factors to the experience of pain in patients with SSc. Patients who are similar to those in the distressed profile may be at an increased risk for pain and would likely benefit from a referral to a behavioral health or other ancillary service provider for pain management, rather than relying solely on pharmacologic therapies.